The new duty to die?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 15 2004, 12:23 PM'] 'If you can't afford to have a large family, you shouldn't have a large family.'

It's amazing how sensible that sounds -- why do people have such a problem with it? Also, what's wrong with suggesting that every child be both wanted and planned? [/quote]
Ignore the rights and value of the individual person, and it makes perfect sense.

[Deeds]

Baroness Warnock chaired the committee which originally looked at embryo research in the UK. They concluded that the embryo should be given a special status and protection in law... but it's ok to experiment on them until they're 14 days old.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 15 2004, 12:12 PM'] Ignore the rights and value of the individual person, and it makes perfect sense. [/quote]
There's no ignoring of anything in that sentence -- it's simply a recommendation. Don't have more children than you can afford. After all, you should be the one raising them, not the government.

[Brother Adam]

You can almost always afford more children, because the government does offer appropriate tax relief per child without having to be on welfare. America is a greedy nation though and people can't stand to be without their "things" and thus is why anyone says they can't "afford" a child. I know very large families that get by just fine with the husband working one full time low paying job without government assistance.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 16 2004, 01:13 PM'] There's no ignoring of anything in that sentence -- it's simply a recommendation. Don't have more children than you can afford. After all, you should be the one raising them, not the government. [/quote]
I would agree with your last statement: the government doesn't work well in the role of universal babysitter.

Regarding your original statement: generally, people who make statements about "not having more children than you can afford" use the statement to justify killing unborn children. Anyone who has exposure to the pro-abortion/pro-life debate would understand this enough to qualify a statement like this. You made no qualification, so either you're ignorant of the issue or you understood and intended to convey the underlying message contained in the statement.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 16 2004, 01:54 PM'] I would agree with your last statement: the government doesn't work well in the role of universal babysitter.

Regarding your original statement: generally, people who make statements about "not having more children than you can afford" use the statement to justify killing unborn children. Anyone who has exposure to the pro-abortion/pro-life debate would understand this enough to qualify a statement like this. You made no qualification, so either you're ignorant of the issue or you understood and intended to convey the underlying message contained in the statement. [/quote]
Actually, the third option is the correct one. I felt that it had no place in this discussion, so I carefully avoided it.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 16 2004, 04:50 PM'] Actually, the third option is the correct one. I felt that it had no place in this discussion, so I carefully avoided it. [/quote]
That's a little bit like a person saying "I'm pro-choice," with the expectation that the statement has nothing to do with abortion. The best way to be "careful" about statements with "underlying meaning" is to be explicit.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Dec 16 2004, 04:27 PM'] That's a little bit like a person saying "I'm pro-choice," with the expectation that the statement has nothing to do with abortion. The best way to be "careful" about statements with "underlying meaning" is to be explicit. [/quote]
That's either a very poor analogy or simply a false one.

Advocating that people only have as many children as they can afford != advocating abortion. At the same time, pro-choice is a term that is a specific reference to abortion.

There are ways to avoid having children without having abortion, shockingly enough. It can even be achieved through NFP, which I know the catholic church endorses. Don't put words in my mouth that aren't there, simply because that's the way your mind works.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 17 2004, 03:25 PM'] Don't put words in my mouth that aren't there, simply because that's the way your mind works. [/quote]
I put no words in your mouth. Let me repeat:

The best way to be "careful" about statements with "underlying meaning" is to be explicit.

I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of a "loaded statement." It's pretty simple.

[Mateo el Feo]

By the way, if you're still having trouble with the idea of a "loaded statement," you might be interested to re-read the relevant text that you seem to have been commenting on. This might give you a clue why I made the connection.

Here is the text again:
[quote]"If you want the best for your child, you have to think about how many children you can look after. If you had two or three children, maybe you could have higher aspirations for them."

The India-born Flather is a former president of the Family Planning Association and currently sits on the board of Marie Stopes International (MSI), a UK-based organization that carries out some 35,000 abortions a year, and works in 30 mostly developing countries worldwide.

An MSI spokeswoman was quoted afterwards as saying Flather was speaking independently of the organization, although MSI is reportedly considering publishing leaflets cautioning of the financial costs of bringing up children.[/quote]

Again, if you're trying to wash your hands of the above connection to the pro-abortion stance, it'd be a good idea to be explicit.