Cars, birth control, and why modern democracy is, on balance, crappy

[napoleonofnerds]

I'm still pretty achey, but overall I'm ok. No lasting damage. I went to change lanes but had to swing back into my lane because somebody sped up when my tire blew out and I lost control. I hit the guard rail, no lasting damage to me or anyone else, but the car is almost certainly a total loss. I'll probably feel like shit for another day or two

Comments

[pastorlenny]

we should probably take some steps to ensure a functioning monarchy, rather than letting the power-hungry panderers climb the ranks to an invisible throne

ilu

[napoleonofnerds]

I'm serious! If we're going to have a series of autocrats, is it so much to ask that they at least not also be demagogues?

[pastorlenny]

My expression of affection was serious too. this entry was wonderfully written.

[limegreenl1ght]

"The only situation we're really concerned with is one in which someone is choosing to have sex and then using a drug to prevent unwanted consequences that are in no real sense an illness. Since the choice to have sex is voluntary (it is, cope), I don't know why paying for managing that choice shouldn't be

[napoleonofnerds]

You missed the key word, which was elective. Theraputic uses of the pill actually are covered. My sister has it covered through a Catholic health plan for mental health reasons, and I know plenty of others who have gotten it covered, though obviously I can't speak to every plan. Certainly, that's what the doctrine says should happen (good old double effect), and thus not actually within the liberty interest anyway. If that were the rule, I wouldn't care and I hope neither would anybody else, except the lunatic fringe. With that properly understood, I stand by my comments, inasmuch as they do only apply to elective use.

[limegreenl1ght]

well, as I understand, it really depends on the plan.

some plans at (more theologically liberal) catholic universities and hospitals cover birth control for any reason, elective or no - so I'm not sure your sister got coverage just because it was therapeutic or because any use was accepted. But most of those I've talked to make no distinction between uses or seem unaware of alternative uses. The whole discussion has seemed rather all or nothing - I can understand the Obama administration wanting to make it "all" under the interest of providing basic gynecological services. If an individual wants to violate their own church's teaching - the moral culpability isn't on the church for providing insurance that happens to cover hormonal medications any more than it's culpable for an addict going to a pain clinic.

[napoleonofnerds]

No, this was the conservative Archdiocese version. I disagree about moral culpability (and indeed disagree with the hierarchy's position on this question), but Constitutionally I think the right not to cover elective birth control and abortion is protected and not wholly unreasonable.

[publius_aelius]

Of course we're soon going to be living in a "liberal fascist" and "politically correct" Orwellian State; what with the state of surveillance technology, that's a given. The only way to opt out is to become a hermit--which, increasingly, seems to me to be the optimal choice, in this new Dark Age.

As for the damned Catholic bishops, they just want to use government money to impose their so-called "values." I actually respect and accept most of those "values"; trouble is, they DON'T, because they're not willing to pay for them all on their own. They want government subsidies, but they're unwilling to go along with the secularist and atheistic values of the very government they want subsidies from. They're lying, paederastic hypocrites, for the most part.

[napoleonofnerds]

So, I don't think it's actually inevitable. We could prevent it, as a nation. We rather clearly have no interest in doing so, but it's not logically inevitable, just pragmatically so, surveillance technology or no

The Vatican Will Have the Final Say...

[publius_aelius]

First of all, the "deal" WILL end, because Benedict XVI, an idealist and an autocrat, will force it to "end." He apparently believes in the "withering away" of the Church to a remnant core of the "faithful," and doesn't particularly care about hospitals and orphanages going out of business. Orthodox theology is his priority, and he WILL enforce it as the primary imperative.

Secondly, perhaps I should have said "pedaerastic-enabling," but from THAT charge I will not retreat by one iota. I have personal knowledge and familiarity with it. See nmsavanarola

[napoleonofnerds]

I don't know why end or faithful get quotes above. Also, he's going to die soon. I think you give the man too much credit, and you know it's bad when I'm optimistic about Church governance. I'm also not sure I accept your read of him - he is idealistic (I admire that, because I wish I could be), but far less autocratic as a pontiff than his predecessor. Mostly I think he's painfully ignorant of PR.

They have been, in many cases, enablers of pedophiles. If you go back through my journal you will find I'm a Bostonian and actively protested the decision not to bring Cardinal Law up on charges. It's not that I particularly like these people, it's just that in this instance they happen to be right. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

[karcy]

Yeah, birth control pills aren't the same as boob jobs, really. Although, I do admit that Malaysian women take birth control pills for an even more frivolous reason than sex; rumour is that it's good for your complexion (so in this case, yeah, it's like boob jobs). The point is, the applicability of these medications is quite wide and the results also quite various, which means that it's not quite as easily put into a box that says 'okay, this object is for this purpose', like 'breast augmentation is for aesthetics'.

I do like the rest of which you said...well, before you talked about Mubarak at stuff. About rights being absolutes, not subject to preferences. But 'right to practice one's religion' is thorny. Religious practices overstep human rights many times. If someone says "well, I think we should stone adulterers, that's my religious right" you really have to prioritize which are the rights that are more important.

[karcy]

Oh, and I really dislike switching lane incidences. I had one recently, although not quite as bad. Switched lanes and didn't see the motorcyclist behind me. He was so pissed off, he broke my rear-view mirror as revenge.

[napoleonofnerds]

See my comment above. You both missed the word elective earlier in the paragraph, which means the use I'm talking about actually is that narrow.

All criminal penalties are a matter of law. Both Sharia and Torah law were legislating for both religion and for civil society. A modern civil society could adopt those legal traditions (though they rather clearly shouldn't), but the conflation of law with doctrine is a real problem, particularly in Islam.

[karcy]

There's also the issue of whether it's right to create different standards of legal morals / ethics for different communities in the same country. I guess it's more of a UK / Commonwealth thing though, because the basic idea was that you could have one main legal system and little communities could practice their community laws, but eventually you find a situation where the community becomes big enough and then you have two or more legal systems functioning at the same time. I think the US Catholic contraceptive issue isn't going in the same direction, though, which is a good thing -- it's all or nothing, which is the best way of going about it imho.

[iohanne]

Yeah. You guys get this mandate. We get the Diamond Jubilee of our Queen. =) Between you and me, the start of 2012 goes to the Canadians.

Still praying for your injuries. =(

[napoleonofnerds]

Thanks. I've been praying for you, too. We'll have to catch up, see how we're both doing.

And yeah, this definitely goes to the Canadians, as so many contests do.