2 ms·

Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive ac

Sometimes things are arguable and debatable, and sometimes the evidence is stacked on one-side so much that a contrary position is irrational. Contraceptive access is a cornerstone of health policy in every developed nation. It has been endorsed by WHO and every study done has implicitly or explicitly has supported this position. What are the odds sdegutis has a good reason to object?

humanrebar 13y ago
I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    Which force are you talking about? I'm talking about the one that mandates that people pay for contraception with tax dollars.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      That (combined with your comment right above it) is completely and utterly surprising to hear from someone on HN.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        For the record, I don't agree with you about contraception. I'm all for building wells in Africa and setting bins of free condoms right next to them. But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent). I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
        sdegutis 13y ago
        They're just taking the mindset of: "Such and such things are inherently wrong, and I'm 100% certain that I'm right about this; therefore anyone who disagrees about it is an enemy to humanity and the common good, and therefore must be silenced and must not be allowed to affect legislation." That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Seems pretty negligible compared to the one that mandates people to pay for unjustified foreign wars, incarcerating people because they put a certain molecule into their own bodies, etc. There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception. It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        As one of those people who doesn't want my tax dollars spent on war, I have no idea what more I can do to stop it from happening. As far as I can tell, the government will spend my money on whatever it wants to, and I have no control over it.
        mikeash 13y ago
        There's plenty of room for debate and argument, but ultimately the whole point of taxes is that you don't get to decide what they're spent on. If this stuff worked when everyone decided for themselves, we wouldn't need taxes in the first place. The good thing is that it means we can pool our resources and e.g. build a bridge that none of us would individually contribute towards, but then we get bad stuff too.
      - humanrebar 13y ago
        It's not worth debating over, but there's clearly a difference in category between drug laws, war policy, and philanthropic aid programs. Opting out of war funding sounds great, but I'm not sure how that would work. As far as drugs, it's harder but we could make drug prohibitions state laws and let people move or make changes at the state level. Philanthropic aid programs, on the other hand, are clearly optional (even if they are amazingly beneficial). If minorities object to contraception, let them opt out of paying for it on their tax form or something. And let other people choose to pay triple. Like you said, it's not a lot of money, so I don't know why we should grief a minority of people on this point.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  I'm not sure how I can do that. If he has a conscientious objection that's his right. I neither can nor want to force him to change it. It's a free (speech) country after all. However, I reserve the right to call this objection deranged, insane or stupid. That's my right.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    He wasn't talking about verbal conscientious objection. See his reply to the other person who replied to his comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573
sdegutis 13y ago
Being able to understand and interpret evidence properly is not a universally held trait. That has implications on both sides of any debate. Related note: I often wonder how many people are victim to argumentum ad populum.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  On the other hand, sometimes when you find yourself, alone, on the wrong the side of the debate, it may make sense to at least rethink your assumptions and consider that you may be wrong. Maybe the debate isn't actually there. Maybe all those well-meaning public health-policy writers at the WHO and at the national levels have a point. At the very least, maybe consider that pragmatic realities trump religious ideologies. Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.

humanrebar 13y ago

I believe not leaving people room for conscientious objection is irrational.

XorNot 13y ago
Which is defined as being a personal choice, not one you get to force onto others. Which is what they advocate - using their position of privilege to deny the choice to others.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  Which force are you talking about? I'm talking about the one that mandates that people pay for contraception with tax dollars.
  - sdegutis 13y ago
    That (combined with your comment right above it) is completely and utterly surprising to hear from someone on HN.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      For the record, I don't agree with you about contraception. I'm all for building wells in Africa and setting bins of free condoms right next to them. But people started talking about force, and the only force I can see in this case is the IRS (or the equivalent). I'm frankly dismayed that HN seems so opposed to conscientious objection in this case. I presume it's an irrational prejudice against different (or maybe particular?) ethical worldviews.
      - sdegutis 13y ago
        They're just taking the mindset of: "Such and such things are inherently wrong, and I'm 100% certain that I'm right about this; therefore anyone who disagrees about it is an enemy to humanity and the common good, and therefore must be silenced and must not be allowed to affect legislation." That's all they're doing. And it's understandable. But that's not the part I take issue with.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Seems pretty negligible compared to the one that mandates people to pay for unjustified foreign wars, incarcerating people because they put a certain molecule into their own bodies, etc. There's an argument to be made against taxation there, but if we're going to have it, you should probably start with the better part of a trillion dollars Americans pay each year for killing brown people (or building the capability to kill them in the future), rather than the relatively negligible amount spent on contraception. It still amazes me that people can make a fuss about being forced to pay for contraception with their tax dollars but those same people have no problem with their tax dollars being spent on war.
    - sdegutis 13y ago
      As one of those people who doesn't want my tax dollars spent on war, I have no idea what more I can do to stop it from happening. As far as I can tell, the government will spend my money on whatever it wants to, and I have no control over it.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        There's plenty of room for debate and argument, but ultimately the whole point of taxes is that you don't get to decide what they're spent on. If this stuff worked when everyone decided for themselves, we wouldn't need taxes in the first place. The good thing is that it means we can pool our resources and e.g. build a bridge that none of us would individually contribute towards, but then we get bad stuff too.
    - humanrebar 13y ago
      It's not worth debating over, but there's clearly a difference in category between drug laws, war policy, and philanthropic aid programs. Opting out of war funding sounds great, but I'm not sure how that would work. As far as drugs, it's harder but we could make drug prohibitions state laws and let people move or make changes at the state level. Philanthropic aid programs, on the other hand, are clearly optional (even if they are amazingly beneficial). If minorities object to contraception, let them opt out of paying for it on their tax form or something. And let other people choose to pay triple. Like you said, it's not a lot of money, so I don't know why we should grief a minority of people on this point.
macspoofing 13y ago
I'm not sure how I can do that. If he has a conscientious objection that's his right. I neither can nor want to force him to change it. It's a free (speech) country after all. However, I reserve the right to call this objection deranged, insane or stupid. That's my right.
- sdegutis 13y ago
  He wasn't talking about verbal conscientious objection. See his reply to the other person who replied to his comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7099573

sdegutis 13y ago

Being able to understand and interpret evidence properly is not a universally held trait. That has implications on both sides of any debate. Related note: I often wonder how many people are victim to argumentum ad populum.

macspoofing 13y ago
On the other hand, sometimes when you find yourself, alone, on the wrong the side of the debate, it may make sense to at least rethink your assumptions and consider that you may be wrong. Maybe the debate isn't actually there. Maybe all those well-meaning public health-policy writers at the WHO and at the national levels have a point. At the very least, maybe consider that pragmatic realities trump religious ideologies. Besides, I've read your arguments in other threads. They are backwards, destructive (if actually implemented as public health policy) and have no basis in actual reality (your only argument is a hand-waving 'every-POTENTIAL(!!)-human-life-is-precious'). There is a reason why you, Jenny McCarthy and Ken Ham find yourself outsiders by the 'establishment' with your respective positions.