Abortion Legislation - is it truly pro-choice?

[Collin Li]

The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.

Then why have a police force?

Because it is observable whether they are doing their job or not. Sound information is not observable - and hence moral hazard exists.

[enwiabe]

So catholics believe they are above the law?

We don't believe we are "above" the law. We believe that the law is unreliable, not always entirely moral, and that the only law to follow is the Law of God, which we believe has been translated into Catholic doctrine.

This is why there is no such thing as separation of church and state...

[enwiabe]

The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.

Then why have a police force?

Because it is observable whether they are doing their job or not. Sound information is not - and hence moral hazard exists.

Ahem? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many cases emerge of corruption having occurred for 10s of years before being uncovered LONG after these policemen leave the job?

Get off your high horse. Just as doctors are, these policemen are in a position of power, and are able to find ways to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW and abuse it. Just because the laws are circumventable doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

[rhjc.1991]

So catholics believe they are above the law?

We don't believe we are "above" the law. We believe that the law is unreliable, not always entirely moral, and that the only law to follow is the Law of God, which we believe has been translated into Catholic doctrine.

This is why there is no such thing as separation of church and state...

I think other people from other religions think similar things. I think you are rather being harsh on Catholics. Catholics does not force non-Catholics to not perform abortions, we try to convince them, and the doctors just avoid assisting in the "sin".

[Collin Li]

My points were about relying on people and information, if you read my post. Not about tangible and easily observable (i.e.: enforceable) things.

Otherwise we would be too paranoid, and we'd mine our own iron, oil and coal, burn our own, and run our own generators, and learn all these skills for ourselves (rather than specialise, which is what economists preach - information economics is a new and innovative branch of economics that deals with these unobservables).

[rhjc.1991]

The only thing you can rely on is yourself, is the moral of my story - you can write manifestos about everyone serving you, but dream on.

Then why have a police force?

Because it is observable whether they are doing their job or not. Sound information is not - and hence moral hazard exists.

Ahem? Are you serious? Do you have any idea how many cases emerge of corruption having occurred for 10s of years before being uncovered LONG after these policemen leave the job?

Get off your high horse. Just as doctors are, these policemen are in a position of power, and are able to find ways to CIRCUMVENT THE LAW and abuse it. Just because the laws are circumventable doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.

No admin, you are wrong. The reason police is good is because it is better than having none, and a better situation is unattainable.

[Collin Li]

And I didn't say "don't have doctors", because they can't always give sound advice. I said less reliance. Similarly, no one leaves their doors unlocked, because they cannot rely on total law and order to be kept by the police.

And yes, the cost-benefit analysis, as rhjc.1991 pointed out, also comes into it.

[enwiabe]

My points were about relying on people and information, if you read my post. Not about tangible and easily observable (i.e.: enforceable) things.

Otherwise we would be too paranoid, and we'd mine our own iron, oil and coal, burn our own, and run our own generators, and learn all these skills for ourselves (rather than specialise, which is what economists preach - information economics is a new and innovative branch of economics that deals with these unobservables).

Please clarify the point in your first sentence.

[ninwa]

I still believe that the best solution is to have legislation making it mandatory for such Catholic clinics/hospitals/whatever to clearly specify to the patient BEFORE the consultation that this is their position, so that the woman can make an informed decision as to whether to proceed with the consultation.

That way, both parties have their freedom of choice.

[Collin Li]

http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,6047.msg162211.html#msg162211

[enwiabe]

And I didn't say "don't have doctors", because they can't always give sound advice. I said less reliance. Similarly, no one leaves their doors unlocked, because they cannot rely on total law and order to be kept by the police.

And yes, the cost-benefit analysis, as rhjc.1991 pointed out, also comes into it.

Ah, but you did say don't have these laws. So why have laws requiring policemen to not abuse their power when you can't have total reliance on such laws working?

It is the same idea in effect here, that legislating for referral is the ideal scenario, just as legislating for policemen to be honest is the ideal scenario.

[cardiovascular]

Accountability. Making sure patients don't fall through the gaps.

[Collin Li]

Firstly, you didn't say that. You said, get rid of police (not get rid of police corruption laws).

Secondly, the chain is different:

* If the doctor lies, it is your loss.
* If the policeman lies, it is the country coffer's loss. You are a tiny proportion of the country coffers. So hence, it makes sense to pay much more attention to the corruption of criminals through the legal process, because the self-regulation process cannot fix it (because it does not care as much).

[cardiovascular]

Firstly, you didn't say that. You said, get rid of police (not get rid of police corruption laws).

Secondly, the chain is different:

* If the doctor lies, it is your loss.
* If the policeman lies, it is the country coffer's loss. You are a tiny proportion of the country coffers. So hence, it makes sense to pay much more attention to the corruption of criminals through the legal process, because the self-regulation process cannot fix it (because it does not care as much).

Doctors also cost money so if a doctor lies then they are not performing their job and are wasting taxpayers money

[enwiabe]

Firstly, you didn't say that. You said, get rid of police (not get rid of police corruption laws).

Secondly, the chain is different:

* If the doctor lies, it is your loss.
* If the policeman lies, it is the country coffer's loss. You are a tiny proportion of the country coffers. So hence, it makes sense to pay much more attention to the corruption of criminals through the legal process, because the self-regulation process cannot fix it (because it does not care as much).

Wow, so fuck the minority sufferer, eh?

Nice democracy you've got going there, Kim-Jong.