Man made god - Part 4 - abortion, death penalty and healthcare

[KittenKoder]

Okay, the health-care thing, and I'm NOT religious in the sense of organized beliefs. However what is often considered health-care is really just health-insurance, and the two are exclusive. The topic is far more complex than either side is even considering. However, in the US, ALL health care gets paid, and the government can be made to pay it if you fill out their forms and such ... which oddly is why the costs are so high anyway.

[bigglyguy]

Try again.. Men are biased towards controlling the birth process? Sorry but no. Look around you, what do you REALLY see? "A woman's body, a woman's choice, and the man's wallet if that's what she chooses, a dead baby if she chooses that instead". The man's choice can be summed up like this = "Whatever the whore says".

[stendak]

Liberty is my motavation for opossing national/compulsory health care. It will limit my choices. Once something is free is becomes scarse. parts 1-3 i liked, part 4 seems s off track. Cuba has about 100% literacy but the cost is loss of liberty.

[psycho3968]

i downloaded tbisbook and am reading it at the moment, it is very interesting indeed, a little short but nonetheless an informative read.

[syn010110]

The anti-healthcare religious lobby doesn't care about helping people. They care about power, about control. They sell charity for the price of souls, and they don't want to compete with zero. The government would give away what they would sell for a conversion.

This is also why the religious right is contemptuous of secular charity.

[syn010110]

The anti-abortion lobby doesn't care about life. They care about taking power from women. The point is to saddle women with children early in life--this is why they oppose birth control and sex education.

They want women to be barefoot and pregnant, not CEOs, engineers, scientists, researchers and soldiers. They want to reduce the humanity of women, reduce them to mere property of a man.

[LucyHarcarty]

@syn010110 what kind of monster would a person have to be, not to care about life?, i don't think you really mean that. they're just wrong to make the choices for people, also most men want women to be powerless don't they

[xephyr1000]

That incident featuring the TeaBaggers was one of the most DISGUSTING and EMBARASSING displays of Christian Conservative values and by no means represents the rest of us.

[XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX]

I think the when approaching the subject of abortion it shows the arbitrary hypocrisy of us, we gladly slaughter many other animals for various other reasons though we simply cannot kill a hardly developed foetus that has no central nervous system. Obvious we are biased towards our species though it is all quite funny.

[Schwazoom]

@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX It's hardly hypocrisy. With your logic, we should be able to feel morally at ease killing a fully developed person as easily as we can kill a pig for meat.

Yes, we're biased towards our own species, it's kind of necessary for survival.

[XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX]

@Schwazoom No point is that it is rather funny we aren't able to feel as much empathy killing another animal as opposed to other humans, from a strictly objective point of view this is morally arbitrary but it can also be used to reinforce the idea we are very selfish creatures and our "morality" is based around human society and nothing more, no grand moral absolutes, just survival.

[Schwazoom]

@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX True, though that is a completely different argument than abortion. More like something related to whether or not it is ethical to eat meat.

Definitely an interesting argument though.

[Schwazoom]

I'm an atheist, but here's a difference between abortion (presuming it's a person) and the death penalty.

The fetus hasn't killed anyone.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@Schwazoom

"The fetus hasn't killed anyone."

But it's growing inside another person, who may very well get killed in the process. You don't think that person has a say in it?

And what about all those millions of natural abortions occurring every year? Should we do all in our might to avoid those?

[Schwazoom]

@MomoTheBellyDancer You're using terms that cloud the issue.

"May very well get killed" - Your husband can get you killed by crashing his car into a wall at 70 mph. It happens when things go wrong, and I am not against abortion when things go wrong.

Also, "Has a say in it" as opposed to "has absolute power over life and death".

Third, well, at that stage it's too early, it didn't begin forming, but if we did we might solve some fertility problems.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@Schwazoom

"has absolute power over life and death"

So you would allow a benign tumor to grow in your body? It's still alive.

"at that stage it's too early, it didn't begin forming"

Nonsense. It happens at all stages. So why aren't you promoting a worldwide effort to save all those?

[Schwazoom]

@MomoTheBellyDancer A benign tumor does not possess human DNA.

This is something that disturbs me about pro-choicers. If a child is wanted by its mother, it's a beautiful celebration of life. If not, it's a disgusting parasite and deserves to die. That is hypocritical.

Also, a "natural abortion" that happens at a later stage is widely known as a "miscarriage", and medical science is working to do exactly that.

[Watergun8770]

GOD EXISTS.

ALL ATHEISTS MUST DIE!!!

[bujin1977]

@Watergun8770 All atheists WILL die.  As will all Christians, Muslims, Jews and anyone else.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@Watergun8770

"ALL ATHEISTS MUST DIE!!!"

Well, may I enjoy to see some girls kissing before that?

[daemonowner]

I think there's hope, I heard that tea partiers are hated more than atheists. One can only hope.

[DavidFrat123]

I cant believe that Andy Thomson is a physician and is clearly putting across a very atheist view. Recently, another doctor was put in serious trouble by the General Medical Council for trying to convert people to theists during consultations. This case and Andy Thomson's case are not different! Becoming a doctor means becoming neutral and not trying to impose your own personal ideas onto people.

[2bsirius]

@DavidFrat123

I do not see why you're claiming  that Anderson Thomson is in any way proselytizing for atheism.

He's simply and clearly outlining the factual, scientific reasons which account for the unfortunate acceptance of unproven religious dogmas by those who are not rigorous in thinking.

[9mjb]

It's not just health care... we don't really want to provide food either.

We do supply some food.. but it's not that serious an effort.

[sowcratees]

This is a classic example of making an exception for your own objectivity while simply stating that other people's thoughts are caused by non-rational processes. You need to explain how you cross the bridge of objective thought while denying it to others. Their thoughts are not valid because you see the mechinism causing it, what is causing your brain state to be in a valid state and their brain states are faulty. Describe the difference.

[AgentGhost]

Religion uses a wide net to catch people with different value systems. One of the reasons there are so many contradictions.

[Biggnuncio]

DPR I think you have some misconceptions about what happens in the U.S. RE health care. Sure lots of us are uninsured but nobody gets turned away at the emergency room and for the most part nobody gets turned away for treatment, people here are not dying in the streets. I'm not sure what your situation is there but if you set aside the cost I would wager our health care system is better than yours in nearly every respect. The cost issue could certainly be dealt with by a free market solution.

[psycho3968]

Health care is easily fixed in your country... remove tbe Tax free status of religions and donate the billions of dollars to providing care for the less fortunate... after all it's the Christian thing to do wouldn't it?

[AgentGhost]

@psycho3968

That and turn the Vatican into a hotel and rent out rooms, feed the poor.

[ScientificExploits]

@psycho3968 I know that sounds like an amazing solution, and trust me I think religions need to be hit hard. But allowing the tax system to be influenced by religion opens doors into the government that the constitution currently protects us from. They may use the plan to get deep into our government and it can't be risked.

[SocialDissimulation]

@ScientificExploits They seem to have no problem injecting religion from the government, I can see no problem with making sure we take care of our country through other means than prayer.

[XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX]

@psycho3968 lol but it wouldn't cover a tenth of the costs, as far as heath care is concerned a true free market system would provide better quality and drive down costs greatly, either that or a well organised government mandated system, sadly America has neither.

[freeflo2007]

@psycho3968

trillions, not billions. . .

an absolutely insane situation that has been perpetuated far too long.

[emancoy]

@freeflo2007 taxing the church, this is when the church cries separation of church and state, therefore avoids being taxed. Yet they pry, poke, interfere, and influence legislation, every chance they get.

[zoltan6561]

@emancoy

Same here in Croatia.

[evensgrey]

Incidentally, does that pretended low figure take into account the 80+% of tax money invariably wasted in the bureaucracy without getting anywhere near program spending?

[evensgrey]

So, DPR, you feel entitled to other people's labor and money to pay for and provide you with health care. What else do you feel entitled to use violence to take money and labor from other people to provide yourself with?

[GideonWells]

@evensgrey Did you hear what he said beyond that. Per person, his country pays half.

2009, 2.26 trillion or $8,047 per capita was spent. That would be pumping 1.14 trillion into the economy yearly, $4k per person on average. This 1.14 trillion that would either go to existing businesses or creating new small businesses.

[evensgrey]

@GideonWells Well, only having less than $800 per year per person spent on actual health care (the balance being wasted on the bureaucracy governments always use to 'solve' the problems they impose) goes a long way to explaining the dismal failure that is the NHS.

[Everfrost1000]

I don't think it's contradictory that the people who are pro life are often pro death penalty. I think many of them believe that a fetus is a innocent person, while criminals deserve to die. It's only contradictory to the name pro-life, not necessarily their beliefs.

[ZZzzzzzWhat]

@Everfrost1000

Well first of all a fetus is not a person especially when a embryo is in a stage that would be accepted legal for an abortion. Furthermore, the 'abortion vs death penalty' is contradictory since for the judeo-christian religious person there can not be any killing whatsoever since it is forbidden by their religion.. so abortion and death penalty should be categorized as being the same thing for them and therefore -contradictory to their beliefs-.

[Everfrost1000]

@ZZzzzzzWhat I agree with you that a fetus should not be considered a person at the early stages, but pro-lifers believe that life starts at conception. As for the killing thing, I could be wrong but I thought that it was punishable by death to break certain rules in the bible, such as cursing your parents, picking up sticks on Sunday, getting raped and not screaming loud enough, believing in other gods, being a witch, etc.

[ZZzzzzzWhat]

@Everfrost1000

" I could be wrong but I thought that it was punishable by death to break certain rules in the bible, such as cursing your parents, picking up sticks on Sunday.."

lol you got me there, true indeed. Never the less, if a christian respects so much the 10 commandments he/she as to respect the 6th one "You shall not murder".

[KittenKoder]

@ZZzzzzzWhat Not entirely accurate. The one thing the christian religion did well ... justifying the alteration of their own laws to suite their own desires. It was the reason I broke free of that religion, hypocrisy angers me, lying angers me even more. If you read the religious texts, there are always excuses given to justify killing when it furthers their "cause." Like witch hunts, for example. It's a delusion of morality.

[ZZzzzzzWhat]

@KittenKoder

"justifying the alteration of their own laws to suite their own desires." True but most of these christians never read the Bible which is the most hypocrite thing.

"to justify killing when it furthers their 'cause'." True and that is a common thing to all 3 abrahamic religions.

In the end what they want is not "moral values" but imposition of religious doctrine on everyone which is sickening. I've tried to explain how abortion really works but they don't really care.

[KittenKoder]

@ZZzzzzzWhat 500 character limit ... I had to simplify. :p

[passwordresetisbroke]

Throwing money at him? The goddamn horror.

Where do I sign up?! Is parkinsons a prerequisite?

The NHS is not all good as dpr makes it out (and Anderson seems to feel), which is something that needs to be stated. Of course neither solution is optimal.

[AvalonDraconis]

Also, even if churches do help, there is the very real danger of them withholding care/treatment/aid unless the person converts. This already happens in 3rd world countries today. It's sickening.

[AvalonDraconis]

The problem with chruches helping people is that either people don't realize or worse, don't care, that churches will not help everybody. Even if they had the funds (which most do not unless they are a mega church, and to suppose that a greed whore like that would help anyone is ridiculous), they are likely to turn away anyone who doesn't fit into their idea of "good" people. Gays, atheists, Pagans... These people are screwed if a system like that is put in place.

[truvelocity]

DPR, it has finally been revealed to me about your perception of American citizens. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[krapptacular]

Sorry i just don't see all these churches helping people. I don't see it.

It's bullshit ! 

[philstilwell]

Invoking the word "criminal" to describe the lack of universal health care in all its complexity greatly diminishes your credibility. You've just explained the complexities of making moral decisions, and now you want to call those with the difficult task of balancing budget and benefits "criminals"? Quite the disappointing conclusion to an otherwise stimulating talk.

[HebaruSan]

@philstilwell To be fair, he didn't ascribe responsibility for it to anyone in particular. It sounded more like an indictment of the functioning of our society or political system in general. I suspect he'd be willing enough to excuse "those with the difficult task" (I assume you mean legislators?) as hapless victims of "the complexities of making moral decisions." (As for criminality, we're talking about people DYING from conditions the rest of us could decide to treat if we wanted to.)

[philstilwell]

@HebaruSan

That's an interesting response to my comment.

Do you think they have damaged their credibility by invoking the word "criminal" to describe the decision of legislators to vote against universal health care in all its complexity?

Poisoning the well may succeed on those given to emotionality, but for the assumed skeptical audience here, what do you think will/should be the response?

[HebaruSan]

@philstilwell No, I don't think anyone "damaged their credibility" in this video, and I don't see why you're accusing people of "poisoning the well."

"Words have meaning," indeed. Here are two meanings of "criminal" from a dictionary that comport quite nicely with its usage in this video:

4. senseless; foolish: It's criminal to waste so much good food.

5. exorbitant; grossly overpriced: They charge absolutely criminal prices.

[philstilwell]

@HebaruSan

I suggest we maintain our rigor in expression, and leave the hyperbole to the irrational. Calling a policy "criminal" in the absence of an actual criminal act is poisoning the well by inappropriately associating the policy with all the negative connotations of a word ordinarily used in the context of actual crime.

[HebaruSan]

@philstilwell This is a perfectly clear and standard usage of "criminal," though. You may not like that it is commonly used outside of a context of lawbreaking, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

Maybe Mr. Thomson isn't the one being irrational here. It could be that you have some emotional discomfort with the idea of caring about and contributing toward the health and well-being of other people. Perhaps some cognitive dissonance between that and your usually benevolent self image?

[philstilwell]

@HebaruSan

Hyperbole is a perfectly clear and standard linguistic device.

However, there is no excuse in employing hyperbole by those wishing to maintain scientific credibility.

Do you think that the use of hyperbole was an acceptable way to convince an audience of skeptics given the context of this video?

There were dozens of ways for him to express his emotions without poisoning the well in the way he did. Let's leave linguistic distortion to the irrational.

[philstilwell]

@HebaruSan

Perhaps an example will help.

If I say providing health care to Americans while millions of others in the world die of disease and hunger is "criminal", what have I added to the conversation but my emotions?

[philstilwell]

@HebaruSan

Above you speculated on my motives as part of your argument.

Allow me to show you why this tactic is always flawed.

Suppose I do the same with "Perhaps you are experiencing emotional discomfort and cognitive dissonance trying to defend 'universal' health care for Americans while millions of other humans are dying of hunger and diseases..."

Where are we now? How far has the argument advanced?

[Sinnessa]

@philstilwell What are you, a robot?

It was just casual expression.

[philstilwell]

@Sinnessa

Calling something "criminal" is casual now?

Words have meaning. As scientists/skeptics, we ought to use them responsibly, rather than to poison the well as the irrational do.

[Sinnessa]

@philstilwell Ok, wring your hands some more about it then.

[allmanjoy]

How does one hold a gun to another's head and force them to pay for another's healthcare?

[theDracoIX]

ANOTHER VIDEO??????? WTF ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL ME WITH BOREDOM????

[cleticprincess1956]

Yep, America would have to have the worst health care system in all of the western nations.

I other words if you can't pay we don't want to help you.

[mentalkitty789]

I really don't keep up on rallies of any political party or anything like that... But hearing that, it honestly made my eyes water, that people could be that disgustingly horrible...

Still regardless of what those idiots did, it has been very interesting to listen to these videos so far. I don't have the luxury of actual long intelligent conversations most of the time. So it is nice listening to someone else talk.

[DrEthanAsia1]

Amazing as always, dpr.

[dubldeka]

Trying to picture the incident with the Tea party.

I gather that they were throwing money at an invalid in the street or something.

Is it possible to give a link.

Deep and exiting stuff i hope there are another 6 episodes or more

[dubldeka]

@dubldeka I have now seen the clip.

It wasn't hard to find with the right search words.

Just putting tea bagger and Parkinson's gets you there.

The man who threw the money is i little wiser now and has apologised for what he called "his shameful behaviour".

It was his first experience at a political rally and he swears he will never attend another.

The Parkinsons man turned out to be an ex nuclear engineer and long term taxpayer.

[leffehoegaarden]

Thanks dpr, a nice series of videos. I really enjoyed the one to one format. I hope you continue with this and invite some more science and free thinking luminaries to be interviewed. You could be on to something here. I'm off to Amazon to buy Mr Thompsons book.

[Disthron]

Didn't the US have a fearly good healthcare system back before Health Insurance industry was invented back in the 70's?

hmmm... I don't remember the seerees on the American health system, I'll have to go have a look.

[YY4Me133]

@Disthron You wrote: "Didn't the US have a fearly good healthcare system back before Health Insurance industry was invented back in the 70's?"

That's how I remember it. Doctors made house calls, office visits were affordable, you didn't have to choose between filling a prescription and paying your bills, emergency room visits didn't cost an arm and a leg, and medical insurance was not for profit and limited to "catastrophic" problems, such as surgery.