Although Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month that contraception can cost a law student $3,000 over three years and that some of her fellow students could not afford it, a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month's supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives.Read the rest here.
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Are Georgetown law school students really this clueless?
You'd think people smart enough to make it into Georgetown Law School could figure this out:
Monday, February 13, 2012
Does the Catholic prohibition on contraception make sense?
Those protesting the Obama administration's directive forcing Catholic institutions to provide their employees with contraceptives against the religious teachings of Catholicism are careful to point out that your view on whether the Obama administration is right is distinct from what you believe about the Catholic position on birth control.
At the same time, it's not a bad time to say something about the Catholic position on birth control. It is probably the ethical position most at odds with the modern utilitarian view of morality, and it makes no sense if you don't understand the central principle of Catholic ethics in general.
The central principle of Catholic ethics is that it is teleological. If you don't get this, then most Catholic ethical positions will make no sense at all.
There are basically three kinds of ethical systems. The first is consequentialist: an action is right if it produces good effects. Utilitarianism is the most widely known kind of consequentialism. The second is deontological: an action is right if the intension is to act in accordance with ethical rules. Immanuel Kant's ethics is considered a paradigm case of deontological ethics.
The third school of ethical thought, that to which Catholics are at least supposed to adhere, is teleological. What does it mean to say that Catholic ethics is "teleological"? The word comes from the Greek word telos, meaning, roughly, "purpose." This is widely known today as "virtue ethics," a view of human actions that is based on an Aristotelian-Thomistic view of reality. In modern times this view has been championed most notably by G.E.M. Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre. In fact, MacIntyre's book After Virtue is one of the most important and influential philosophy books to have come out in the last 50 years, and is almost single-handedly responsible for the contemporary revival of virtue ethics.
MacIntyre makes the case that, since the rejection of the Aristotelian-Thomist worldview during the so-called Enlightenment, teleological ethics has largely been abandoned in favor of various consequentialist and deontological views of ethics that have largely failed for a variety of reasons. And this, in turn, is the result of the rejection of two of Aristotle's four cases: formal cause, which the intrinsic pattern inherent in every thing, and final cause, which is the inherent purpose (telos) in every thing, and is aligned implicitly in each thing to that things formal cause.
The only coherent system of ethics, MacIntyre argues, is teleological.
Ethics in the teleological view is very simple. There are men as we find them in the world and men as they would be if they fulfilled their telos. Ethics is the best way to get from the first to the second.
Furthermore, because formal and final causation are rational concepts, virtue ethics yields a rational ethical system, one which short-circuits the fact/value distinction that plagues every other ethical system. There is no fact/value distinction in Catholic ethics, since ethics is itself a rational system.
Catholic ethics then, being teleological, is based on purpose. But more specifically, it is based on the intrinsic purpose in natural things, most importantly in man. If you look at the list of Catholic ethical positions, it will make sense only if you understand this.
This is particularly evident in sexual ethics. In Catholicism, a sexual act, like any other act, is judged right or wrong according the telos implicit in the act. The telos of the sexual act is reproduction. If the sexual act is performed in conflict with this purpose, or if the purpose the act is somehow interfered with, then it is wrong.
This is why the Catholic Church is opposed to contraceptives: They interfere with the intrinsic purpose of the sexual act.
Now as soon as you say this, you get rhetorically jumped by people who either don't understand teleological ethics or don't agree with it. They either argue that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act or that no act has any intrinsic purpose and that the purpose of any act is whatever the doer has in mind.
As to the first kind of response, the usual argument is that pleasure is obviously a purpose of sex, and therefore reproduction is not the only purpose. But the argument that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act is irrelevant, since it is not the position of the Catholic Church that it is. The Catholic position is that reproduction is the primary purpose and other purposes are subordinate to it.
It is also irrelevant because the argument confuses the natural purpose of a thing and it's extrinsic, human purpose. As Catholic philosopher Edward Feser has put it:
Then, as we said, there is the argument of those who don't think anything has any intrinsic purpose at all. This is the real objection, and, in fact, the people who argue that sex has some purpose other than procreation really don't believe in intrinsic purposes at all, anyway, even though they sometimes talk as if they do.
If you take this position--and reject all formal and final causes in nature--then you are left with the position that the heart is not for pumping blood, and the kidney is not for filtering the blood, and teeth are not for chewing, and the brain is not for controlling the rest of the body.
Just be glad doctors don't believe this--or at least that they don't act as if they did.
Under this view, nothing, in fact, is for anything.
And if you take this position, you are, of course, in the strange predicament of saying that the reproductive organs are not for reproduction.
It's not a position I would want to defend.
At the same time, it's not a bad time to say something about the Catholic position on birth control. It is probably the ethical position most at odds with the modern utilitarian view of morality, and it makes no sense if you don't understand the central principle of Catholic ethics in general.
The central principle of Catholic ethics is that it is teleological. If you don't get this, then most Catholic ethical positions will make no sense at all.
There are basically three kinds of ethical systems. The first is consequentialist: an action is right if it produces good effects. Utilitarianism is the most widely known kind of consequentialism. The second is deontological: an action is right if the intension is to act in accordance with ethical rules. Immanuel Kant's ethics is considered a paradigm case of deontological ethics.
The third school of ethical thought, that to which Catholics are at least supposed to adhere, is teleological. What does it mean to say that Catholic ethics is "teleological"? The word comes from the Greek word telos, meaning, roughly, "purpose." This is widely known today as "virtue ethics," a view of human actions that is based on an Aristotelian-Thomistic view of reality. In modern times this view has been championed most notably by G.E.M. Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre. In fact, MacIntyre's book After Virtue is one of the most important and influential philosophy books to have come out in the last 50 years, and is almost single-handedly responsible for the contemporary revival of virtue ethics.
MacIntyre makes the case that, since the rejection of the Aristotelian-Thomist worldview during the so-called Enlightenment, teleological ethics has largely been abandoned in favor of various consequentialist and deontological views of ethics that have largely failed for a variety of reasons. And this, in turn, is the result of the rejection of two of Aristotle's four cases: formal cause, which the intrinsic pattern inherent in every thing, and final cause, which is the inherent purpose (telos) in every thing, and is aligned implicitly in each thing to that things formal cause.
The only coherent system of ethics, MacIntyre argues, is teleological.
Ethics in the teleological view is very simple. There are men as we find them in the world and men as they would be if they fulfilled their telos. Ethics is the best way to get from the first to the second.
Furthermore, because formal and final causation are rational concepts, virtue ethics yields a rational ethical system, one which short-circuits the fact/value distinction that plagues every other ethical system. There is no fact/value distinction in Catholic ethics, since ethics is itself a rational system.
Catholic ethics then, being teleological, is based on purpose. But more specifically, it is based on the intrinsic purpose in natural things, most importantly in man. If you look at the list of Catholic ethical positions, it will make sense only if you understand this.
This is particularly evident in sexual ethics. In Catholicism, a sexual act, like any other act, is judged right or wrong according the telos implicit in the act. The telos of the sexual act is reproduction. If the sexual act is performed in conflict with this purpose, or if the purpose the act is somehow interfered with, then it is wrong.
This is why the Catholic Church is opposed to contraceptives: They interfere with the intrinsic purpose of the sexual act.
Now as soon as you say this, you get rhetorically jumped by people who either don't understand teleological ethics or don't agree with it. They either argue that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act or that no act has any intrinsic purpose and that the purpose of any act is whatever the doer has in mind.
As to the first kind of response, the usual argument is that pleasure is obviously a purpose of sex, and therefore reproduction is not the only purpose. But the argument that reproduction is not the only purpose of the sexual act is irrelevant, since it is not the position of the Catholic Church that it is. The Catholic position is that reproduction is the primary purpose and other purposes are subordinate to it.
It is also irrelevant because the argument confuses the natural purpose of a thing and it's extrinsic, human purpose. As Catholic philosopher Edward Feser has put it:
It is also irrelevant that people might indulge in sex for all sorts of reasons other than procreation, for I am not talking about what our purposes are, but what nature's purposes are, again in the Aristotelian sense of final causality. Now it is true of course that sexual relations are also naturally pleasurable. But giving pleasure is not the final cause or natural end of sex; rather, sexual pleasure has as its own final cause the getting of people to engage in sexual relations, so that they will procreate.In other words, of course there are other purposes to sex than procreation, but they themselves only serve to enhance the primary purpose.
Then, as we said, there is the argument of those who don't think anything has any intrinsic purpose at all. This is the real objection, and, in fact, the people who argue that sex has some purpose other than procreation really don't believe in intrinsic purposes at all, anyway, even though they sometimes talk as if they do.
If you take this position--and reject all formal and final causes in nature--then you are left with the position that the heart is not for pumping blood, and the kidney is not for filtering the blood, and teeth are not for chewing, and the brain is not for controlling the rest of the body.
Just be glad doctors don't believe this--or at least that they don't act as if they did.
Under this view, nothing, in fact, is for anything.
And if you take this position, you are, of course, in the strange predicament of saying that the reproductive organs are not for reproduction.
It's not a position I would want to defend.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Did Obama really answer objections on his birth control mandate?
Harvard economist Greg Mankiw gets down to the core of Obama's so-called "compromise" on religious freedom in response to the rebellion he has on his hands over trying to force Catholic agencies to provide contraceptives in their health care programs:
Consider these two policies:
A. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance that covers birth control.
B. An employer is required to provide its employees health insurance. The health insurance company is required to cover birth control.
I can understand someone endorsing both A and B, and I can understand someone rejecting both A and B. But I cannot understand someone rejecting A and embracing B, because they are effectively the same policy. Ultimately, all insurance costs are passed on to the purchaser, so I cannot see how policy B is different in any way from policy A, other than using slightly different words to describe it.
Yet it seems that the White House yesterday switched from A to B, and that change is being viewed by some as a significant accommodation to those who objected to policy A. The whole thing leaves me scratching my head.HT: Carpe Diem
Monday, December 19, 2011
Louisville metro government action threatens medical service to poor
This is several days old, but it hasn't gotten any less ridiculous after seven days:
You gotta hand it to these people. They are creative.
Louisville Metro Government is delaying an $803,000 payment to University Hospital to fund medical care for poor people this month because of some council members’ concerns over the hospital’s proposed merger.The chief concern expressed about the merger is that some poor people won't get "reproductive services" (a term which, we have pointed out, means "anti-reproductive services"). So now Metro government, in order to try to ensure that some poor people are not denied services, are, by withholding their money, threatening to deny poor people services.
Hospital spokesman David McArthur said he could not say Monday night if care for the poor would be affected without the money.
You gotta hand it to these people. They are creative.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Sterilization of horses bad; sterilization of poor people good
While some liberals are protesting the prospect that wild horses might be sterilized in Wyoming, other liberals are protesting the prospect that poor people might not be sterilized in Kentucky.
Like I said, it's a crazy world.
Like I said, it's a crazy world.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Why are the advocates of "reproductive services" against the reproduction of poor people?
The Caring and Compassionate Liberals Who Want to Control the Population of Poor People are in a tizzy over the prospect of the Catholic Church taking over University of Louisville Hospital and Jewish Hospital of Louisville partly because, they say, it would prevent these hospitals from offering "reproductive services" to poor people.
Under Catholic strictures on such things, these hospitals could no longer offer abortion, sterilization, and birth control, the things the Caring and Compassionate Liberals call "reproductive services."
But who is against "reproductive services"? The Kind and Compassionate Liberals Who are Against the Reproduction of Poor People? Or the Catholic Church, which is for the reproduction of everybody?
In fact, isn't it anti-reproductive services the Caring and Sympathetic Liberals want to perpetrate on poor people?
Just thought I'd ask.
Under Catholic strictures on such things, these hospitals could no longer offer abortion, sterilization, and birth control, the things the Caring and Compassionate Liberals call "reproductive services."
But who is against "reproductive services"? The Kind and Compassionate Liberals Who are Against the Reproduction of Poor People? Or the Catholic Church, which is for the reproduction of everybody?
In fact, isn't it anti-reproductive services the Caring and Sympathetic Liberals want to perpetrate on poor people?
Just thought I'd ask.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Hospital merger could interrupt efforts to reduce number of poor people in Kentucky
A merger plan now slated to go forward between a university hospital, a Jewish hospital, and two Catholic hospitals in Kentucky could result in an interruption in the effort to reduce the number of poor people through abortion, sterilization, and artificial birth control as well as place more burdensome restrictions on hospitals denying comatose and dying patients food and water.
"These are major issues related to women's health at the hospital that provides the greatest amount of care for indigents in the city," intoned the editorial writers at the Louisville Courier-Journal, who support the indigent control policies that would care the city's poor into oblivion.
Several liberal state lawmakers, women's groups, state attorney general Jack Conway, and the state's largest newspaper--all welling with compassion for the poor--are in a major league snit over a proposed merger between University of Louisville hospital and Louisville's Jewish Hospital, and two Catholic hospitals, St. Josephs and St. Mary's that could result in fewer "reproductive" services that are designed to minimize reproduction of poor people.
"Louisville hospital merger probably means poor women won't get their tubes tied at University Hospital," declared a headline of a July 19th story at Kentucky Health News.
A July 23 story in the Louisville Courier-Journal voiced the concern about the prospect of having too many poor people underfoot:
Caring liberals are also concerned about restrictions on mercy killing. A CJ story on July 23 discussed concerns about a directive in Catholic hospitals that "says there is normally an obligation to give patients food and water, including those in a 'persistent vegetative state'."
And speaking of people in a persistently vegetative state, today's CJ editorial of took U of L President James Ramsey to task for his most recent attempt at damage control gone haywire:
So, let's see, we have a "Commission on Women" that is nothing more than a tax-funded left-wing advocacy group that promotes the nation's largest abortion provider, James Ramsey whose attempts at dealing with crises makes the Keystone Kops look positively sophisticated, The Courier-Journal editorial board who has memory lapses when it comes to its own journalistic lapses, and then there's State Rep. Tom Burch, the chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee who was recently found guilty of ethics violations.
Oh, and did we forget Mayor Fischer, who recently issued an order on domestic partner benefits in Louisville with absolutely no public input?
These are the people now lecturing the hospitals on how to do things properly. But they are caring and compassionate people who love the poor so much that they are willing to go the extra mile in making sure they can help them limit their population.
Go Cards.
"These are major issues related to women's health at the hospital that provides the greatest amount of care for indigents in the city," intoned the editorial writers at the Louisville Courier-Journal, who support the indigent control policies that would care the city's poor into oblivion.
Several liberal state lawmakers, women's groups, state attorney general Jack Conway, and the state's largest newspaper--all welling with compassion for the poor--are in a major league snit over a proposed merger between University of Louisville hospital and Louisville's Jewish Hospital, and two Catholic hospitals, St. Josephs and St. Mary's that could result in fewer "reproductive" services that are designed to minimize reproduction of poor people.
"Louisville hospital merger probably means poor women won't get their tubes tied at University Hospital," declared a headline of a July 19th story at Kentucky Health News.
A July 23 story in the Louisville Courier-Journal voiced the concern about the prospect of having too many poor people underfoot:
Dismay over the merger's possible effect on reproductive care led more than 450 people to sign a newspaper advertisement asking officials to change the merger's terms. Catholic rules forbid sterilization, non-natural birth control and abortions — meaning, for example, that low-income women or those with high-risk pregnancies could not get a tubal ligation at University at the same time as their delivery.According to the Kentucky Commission on Women, a left-wing advocacy group funded by Kentucky taxpayers, in a letter to the editor today in the CJ, "Many low-income patients rely on access to sterilization after multiple births as a common method of contraception." The Kentucky Commission on Women has a link on their website to Planned Parenthood, whose founder, Margaret Sanger, once said, in caring and compassionate tones, ""More children from the fit, less from the unfit--that is the chief aim of birth control."
Caring liberals are also concerned about restrictions on mercy killing. A CJ story on July 23 discussed concerns about a directive in Catholic hospitals that "says there is normally an obligation to give patients food and water, including those in a 'persistent vegetative state'."
And speaking of people in a persistently vegetative state, today's CJ editorial of took U of L President James Ramsey to task for his most recent attempt at damage control gone haywire:
In Mr. Ramsey's case, the pattern of evasiveness — or outright scorn — for questions has seriously eroded his level of respect and support. Remember the early days of the scandals over former education dean Robert Felner? Interviewed by a WHAS reporter, Mr. Ramsey dismissed the allegations as “anonymous crap.” Mr. Felner now is in the penitentiary for defrauding U of L and another university. And Mr. Ramsey won't discuss the debacle at Passport Health Services, which was run by U of L's vice president for health sciences. That individual, Dr. Larry Cook, was forced to resign by the Governor, yet is being sent on a year's retooling at the rate of nearly $1 million.Yes, we do remember the Felner scandal. We also remember the CJ dragging its feet in bringing it to light, allowing Jake Payne at Page One, Kentucky to scoop them at every turn. Intrepid these people are not.
So, let's see, we have a "Commission on Women" that is nothing more than a tax-funded left-wing advocacy group that promotes the nation's largest abortion provider, James Ramsey whose attempts at dealing with crises makes the Keystone Kops look positively sophisticated, The Courier-Journal editorial board who has memory lapses when it comes to its own journalistic lapses, and then there's State Rep. Tom Burch, the chairman of the House Health and Welfare Committee who was recently found guilty of ethics violations.
Oh, and did we forget Mayor Fischer, who recently issued an order on domestic partner benefits in Louisville with absolutely no public input?
These are the people now lecturing the hospitals on how to do things properly. But they are caring and compassionate people who love the poor so much that they are willing to go the extra mile in making sure they can help them limit their population.
Go Cards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)