No, I perfectly sympathise with Tolkein's aversion to modernity. — Wayfarer

But you don't sympathise with Tolkien's view of democracy? We were talking about his view of democracy, not modernity mind you.

The point is, which you patently, obviously, repeatedly, obstinately, never see, is that if there is no democracy, then it's not actually even possible to have 'a forum'. Why? — Wayfarer

That's not true. The voice of the people existed and was taken into account in most non-democratic regimes through history.

Because there is no scope for disagreement, for differing views or opinions. — Wayfarer

:s nope. Democracy doesn't have a monopoly on enabling the presence of disagreement.

But the reason I say you're advocating fascism, is because your attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition or dissent, which is essential to democracy. — Wayfarer

You have yet to show why you take it that my attitude doesn't allow for principled opposition... here you are opposing me! Eppur si muove as Galilei said!

Take that away, and you start getting the knock at the door, at midnight. Although, maybe in your world, that is OK? — Wayfarer

Most non-democratic regimes in history didn't involve the knock at the door at midnight. In fact, in Chinese history, the knock at the door at midnight was usually the sign that some dynasty was about to come to an end :P

And the fact that when, asked for alternatives, you can only offer either The Roman Empire, which famously collapsed around 2,000 years ago, or a vague gesture towards 'constitutional monarchy' - and, now you mention it, I myself happen to live in one of them - really shows that you're not actually talking about political philosophy at all. — Wayfarer

The reason why I'm being vague is because your question is silly. Most of the regimes that have ever existed on earth have been monarchies probably. All the Chinese dynasties, the Roman Empire, the french and british monarchies, and so on so forth :s - that's why when you ask for examples it sounds very strange.

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven - Matthew 16:19 — Michael

That was addressed to Jesus' direct disciples who were responsible for setting up, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, Christ's Church. The Church - and I'm referring here to both Orthodox and Catholic churches - has guarded the faith through the ages.

Such as? — Wayfarer

Such as the Roman Empire.

Specifically what I don't understand is whether or not you believe morality is as the Christian God created it and as is revealed through (which bible do you prefer? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but this isn't to say that it cannot be discovered naturally.

you can discover this without appealing to god in any way? — VagabondSpectre

Yes.

In other words, does your moral reasoning support your acceptance of the Christian god or does your acceptance of the Christian god support your moral reasoning? — VagabondSpectre

I came to my moral views before I became a Christian, and actually my morality played a strong role in my conversion. I first discovered those moral views, and only later did I accept the Christian framework.

So in a non-democratic system of government, how to people get involved in social change or policy development or whatever? — Wayfarer

People never get involved in policy development in a democracy. And if we had a king, that wouldn't stop me from opening a hospital.

How do you 'take responsibility' for urban infrastructure, like roads, bridges, railways, or for hospitals and schools? — Wayfarer

By asking the king (and his administration) publicly for support in whatever projects you have planned.

But provided there is 'a state', or some kind of body corporate, what would provide for more 'individual empowerment' than democratic systems? — Wayfarer

Monarchy. The monarch wouldn't say something today, and tomorrow change his mind.

How would reverting to a 'constitutional monarchy' actually enhance individual freedom, or help individuals take responsibility for what's around them? — Wayfarer

Depends what you mean by individual freedom. But mostly it would enhance individual freedom by creating a stable and unchanging set of rules and playing field, while providing long term plans which you can take into account when structuring your life. The other bit is by non-interference - a king will not meddle for the sake of meddling, while a politician always does that.

Are there any examples? — Wayfarer

We've already gone over this.

so long as everyone here realizes we have a fascist in our midst then at least all our exchanges won't have been the complete waste of time they otherwise would have been. — Wayfarer

Is J.R.R. Tolkien a fascist too? :s

He said he is not a democrat, and he favored monarchy as well. I guess he's a fascist too.

I am not a 'democrat' only because 'humility' and equality are spiritual principles corrupted by the attempt to mechanize and formalize them, with the result that we get not universal smallness and humility, but universal greatness and pride, till some Orc gets hold of a ring of power--and then we get and are getting slavery — Tolkien

Our system obliges us to elevate to office precisely those persons who have the ego-besotted effrontery to ask us to do so; it is rather like being compelled to cede the steering wheel to the drunkard in the back seat loudly proclaiming that he knows how to get us there in half the time ... One can at least sympathize, then, with Tolkien's view of monarchy. ... A king--a king without any real power, that is--is such an ennoblingly arbitrary, such a tender and organically human institution. It is easy to give our loyalty to someone whose only claim on it is an accident of heredity, because then it is a free gesture of spontaneous affection that requires no element of self-deception, and that does not involve the humiliation of having to ask to be ruled. — David B. Hart

You should really know that you're only putting yourself to shame by seeking to enforce the false dichotomy of democracy or fascism. There have been many non-democratic regimes - for thousands of years - which weren't fascist. Fascism is a particular outgrowth of 20th century politics in Europe, that's all.

But of course Wayfarer - keep peddling your 1960s pink pony hippie stuff ;)

I'm waiting till you start citing these very people soon in your answers, as you often do.

now you're showing your true colors. — Wayfarer

:s So I wasn't showing my true colors here:

I'm not willing to do anything to ensure the survival of democracy. — Agustino

Elon Musk is an inspiring character, but his erstwhile business partner, Peter Theil, seems a lot less so. — Wayfarer

I think it's quite the other way around. Elon Musk is the dummy - he's good with science, and not even that really - he's good with putting others to work. Peter Thiel is actually a philosopher (he graduated as one), and I've read all his writings, they're some of the best writings on business there exist. His book Zero to One is especially good, one of my favorite business books of all time.

Peter Thiel clearly knows and understands the world in a deep way, whereas Musk is just your cool wannabe teenager who wants to impress others. I still remember a story about him crashing a very expensive car while trying to show off. I read that he once read Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. and them dismissed all of them as nonsense.

What a mass of contradictions you are, Agostino. The one politician who most egregiously exploits all the flaws you see in democracy, is the one you express admiration for. — Wayfarer

Exactly, getting rid of democracy would be a great gift that Trump could give the world.

So that explains why you go into bat for The Donald. — Wayfarer

Exactly.

Strange, I thought the Soviet Union had fallen. — Wayfarer

Well, you thought wrong ;)

As I understand it his company essentially held a monopoly on the drug — Buxtebuddha

Not really. They didn't even invent the drug, they bought the drug. There is no patent on the drug either, so anyone could produce the same thing and sell it if they wanted to.

so while he tries to infer natural economics - that low quantity will raise the price - such a principle really only exists in a free market, not the closed, monopolistic environment that was (is?) the reality for daraprim. If there was a market for daraprim then the price would be more competitive and subsequently much lower. — Buxtebuddha

I think that he doesn't take the theoretical economics approach to the question, but rather the entrepreneurial one that if you want to do research on the drug, then it cannot be at the same price. And he profits from the first mover advantage since obviously someone can't produce the drug overnight to compete against him.

As for whether he'll be arrested or whatever, I don't know. I admit to not knowing all his potentially criminal dealings, but I do know that he's a morally hollow wretch. — Buxtebuddha

Yes, he very likely is a hollow moral wretch, but we're discussing the wrongness of just this one act of raising price.

Might be true, might not. A lot of companies have "compassionate donation" programs where they reserve a certain number units for those who can't afford them. However, that benefit isn't (usually, as far as I know) extended to countries that can't afford to buy stocks of this (or any other) drug. — Bitter Crank

Yes, you would be right that this only applies to US. But then, if no one is harmed by the price raise - except insurance companies - is it bad? I mean those insurance companies are already huge and they make money out of doing almost nothing - I think it's quite good if they lose it :P

I don't know whether to believe Shkreli about the side effects. The FDA Rx page mentioned bone marrow suppression in conjunction with other rather potent drugs. — Bitter Crank

Is it possible that toxoplasmosis (usually in HIV patients I suppose) is treated most of the time in conjunction with other potent drugs?

My thought is that Shkreli's motivation was purely venal. — Bitter Crank

Well yeah, no doubt it is at minimum also venal. But then the question here is if there are people who were actually harmed by it.

But if you remove the ability of the citizenry to elect representatives, then what alternatives can be considered, and by whom? — Wayfarer

>:O - the citizens never choose what gets done anyway in a democracy. Those given the buttons do ;)

Who will be deciding what government is, and what it should do, if it's not the inhabitants of the nation being governed. — Wayfarer

A monarch, who, unlike a democratically elected leader, is there for life, and hence doesn't have to take decisions for the short-term so that he gets elected the next time around, but can rather take the decisions required to maintain the stability of his country so that he can leave his country in a good state, and pass it on his descendants.

A democrat has no interest in the long term well being of the country. The whole interest is to take as much as possible as quickly as possible away from the country, because he doesn't own it. He doesn't care for the country, he just wants to profit from it for the short time it is in his hands.

Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term:

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage? — Benkei

Benkei, a portion of your last response was posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh dear Tiff, you posted Benkei's question regarding my membership to the Catholic church on the FB page? :P >:O

Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term: — Benkei

No, I'm a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage? — Benkei

It really would be effectively impossible for the Catholic church - or the Orthodox church - to approve of gay marriage. I could see the possibility for allowing civil partnerships which are legally recognised as being identical to marriage, but obviously not religiously recognised.

The reasons for this are multiple. First, marriage entails sex, and homosexual intercourse is condemned as immoral by Ecumenic councils and the Bible itself (Leviticus for example). Second, marriage entails a spiritual union between two people such that they become one flesh. This also doesn't work out in terms of metaphysics when it comes to homosexuality.

But, to answer your question more directly, if by absurd, the Church changed its position on gay marriage, then the morality or immorality of same sex marriage would be unaffected. Since the Church doesn't get to decide that in the first place. If there's anything to it, it's a fact of nature, given by our nature (both physical and spiritual) itself. I personally would probably remain a member of the Church if that happened, but I wouldn't share the Church's position on that issue.

Being on friendly terms to get things done is not a prerequisite, but its reverse, not being on bad terms with everyone is. — Benkei

But this is what I want to question. I imagine at that stage, material gain is more important in the eyes of all actors there, such that if X or Y hates you, but they can gain out of allying with you, they'd typically do it. In other words, they'd act on their rational self-interest, and not based on feelings.

I think the system in the US invites that moneyd interest are better represented than others and as a result the system doesn't lead to fair and just results. — Benkei

I agree.

This is a problem in most modern democracies to some extent but not an issue of democracy per se. I don't think it's a character flaw but a systemic one and those that "play" the game best will float to the top. — Benkei

Well precisely because it is a systematic flaw that is the reason why I'd say it's a problem with democracy itself. Democracy itself, over time, leads to this result. It naturally decays.

I said we have trouble with it but then it's an imperfect world and I'm not expecting perfect solutions. — Benkei

I agree, all forms of government have a tendency to decay, but I want to argue that this tendency is very strong in a democracy. In other words, a democracy is the most likely regime to devolve into an oligarchy or even tyranny.

It's a constant (and should be a constant) debate where the balance between our obligations to society and our personal freedom is. For instance, one of the most important discussions to be had, politically speaking, is about positive and negative freedom. The US has a very strong emphasis on negative freedom; e.g. non-interference from the State (and others) in people's choices. I think it misses an important point that some people simply don't have choices; dead-poor people don't choose to starve.

Indeed, but the question here would revolve around how it is best to help dead-poor people. Should the government do it through its institutions, or should this be something that the local community does by itself? As an entrepreneur, for example, I can look towards starting a business that employs poor people, maybe even beggars. I can start - say - a fast food, or a restaurant where the staff is beggars and poor people only. But these social businesses are very rare. It's not only because it's difficult to turn a profit with, it's also because it's inconvenient.

We consider it natural that within the family unit we create opportunities for each other to flourish, friends too, maybe our neighbours but it pretty much ends there. It's pretty much normal to take care of each other at that level.

Right, so I think this is the problem. We don't have any larger ambitions, we've lost the drive to play a significant role in other people's lives and be a central element in our community. Nobody - or very few people - strive for this today. Democracy teaches you to seek to be the "average consumer". Anything else is seen as arrogance, an inflated sense of one's self, and so on so forth. Other people don't look nicely towards it.

Not so much at the state or national level, which is why we have so much trouble working together. One side is racist, the other are pansy leftists, one side are immoral conservatives, the other immoral progressives.

Now, if I look within my own family my brother is a bit of a xenophobe bordering on racist, my mum is conservative on cultural matters and I'm a pansy leftist progressive. We still get along and take care of each other because they're not only the failings I mentioned (and I'm not just the failings they might see either).

So democracy is complicated by abstraction away from natural relationships. You can compensate for that but it requires less elected positions and instead appointees from society (much like jury duty).

Yes, I agree with this too. I too am the black sheep in my family lol. And I think this is a core problem with democracy - that it abstracts away - through the state's institutions - from natural relationships. It's no longer my duty to keep the street clean. The state has to do it. It's no longer my duty to do something for the poor people in my community. The state must do it. The state becomes like a giant father figure that we cling to psychologically in order to avoid taking responsibility for our society. It's a way of hiding from ourselves and maintaining our pretence to morality. It's easier to cast a vote afterall, than to actually do something yourself or get other people interested to do something.

Toxoplasmosis (a brain infection) is not a communion disease, but not exactly rare, either. — Bitter Crank

Well it is a rare disease in the medical & technical sense, even though the disease causing agent is not. So his argument seems to be that there should be research to produce better drugs, but at such a low price point, there isn't enough money to invest in research. There just isn't enough volume of sales to generate the revenue required.

In addition, he says that there is no one who needs the medicine who doesn't get it. If they don't have insurance, he claims they can get Deraprim for free.

The guy does come off as a dick and very arrogant, but if you listen to some of his more peaceful and intelligent interviews where he doesn't show off and act all knowing, then it does seem he has an argument.

by whose judgement? Oh that's right you don't accept democracy. — Wayfarer

My judgement. Do I need to accept democracy to accept the possibility of correct judgment? :s

The fact that the "majority" agrees or disagrees doesn't make something right.

So when what is deemed to be one's freedom is exactly that which harms another, what is to be done? — Banno

It's not one's freedom anymore, simple.

SO you would not suggest that, say, because homosexuality considered is distasteful, it ought be banned? — Banno

No, it shouldn't be legally banned.

Nor that because it is for you immoral, it ought be banned? — Banno

Same answer.

I'm asking these questions in order to get a feel for the extent of what freedoms are allowable. — Banno

If it harms another, it's not allowable. Even abortion should perhaps not be allowable for this reason, but at minimum physicians shouldn't be forced to perform it if they have a problem with it, nor should taxpayers be forced to finance it.

OK; pedophilia, then, which involves coercion of a child, would be unacceptable? — Banno

Yes, that should be prevented by law.

What do you think about his explanation for raising drug price? He said Deraprim (hope the spelling is right) is a rare disease drug, and since those drugs are rarely used, they need to be expensive in order to be able to fund the research. He has also said that 60% of the people got the drug for free, and those were all the people who needed it but couldn't afford it. For the other 40%, insurance was paying for it.

That explanation does initially make sense to me. Did he leave anything out?

They're free to opt-in. — Michael

Yep, but they wouldn't.

I just explained it? — Michael

The Church of England is forbidden from performing same-sex marriage and all other religious institutions must opt-in of their own accord. — Michael

Well presumably the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church would also not perform same-sex marriages. Other institutions should be free to make whatever decision they want.

So they ought not be coerced to abstain from sexual intercourse, if they so choose? — Banno

Well, to begin with, it's not even feasible to coerce them to abstain from sexual intercourse... how would that even be achieved?

And no, they shouldn't be coerced, of course not. How would they even be doing something moral if they were coerced to do it? A coerced moral action becomes amoral.

So the UK law regarding gay marriage is fine? — Michael

I have no idea what the UK law is.

Also it depends what you mean by homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with feeling attracted to the opposite sex, it's having sexual intercourse and being intimate with the opposite sex that is morally wrong.

homosexuality is fine for consenting adults. — Banno

Morally it's not fine, but they're free to do it. However, if you want to speak about homosexual marriage, now that would be a problem since religious institutions cannot be forced to marry homosexual people.

But if a doctor were willing to perform the ulcer, under what circumstances should the operation be allowed to go ahead? — Banno

If the doctor and the patient are willing that is sufficient. Same for abortion. But the doctor shouldn't be forced by the community to give abortions when requested of him. That would be minimal requests to say the least.

And if someone had a lesion, an ulcer, and others said that it was a good and important thing, not to be cut out, that would not be grounds for denying that someone an operation to remove the lesion? — Banno

No, doctors shouldn't be forced to perform the operation. What should be seen is that there is no discrimination - in other words that if a particular doctor doesn't perform the operation, then he or she doesn't do it on anyone.

Furthermore, the ulcer thing is very different than an abortion, since nobody is harmed when removing an ulcer, but a life is destroyed in an abortion.

So you would not be in favour of coercing a man to have a vasectomy, for example, if that was decided to be the best way to ease rampant population growth? — Banno

No, of course not, why would I be? :s

You would not be in favour of forcing folk to avoid pork, if that was off the menu for the majority. — Banno

I don't understand this example. No, I wouldn't be in favor of legally forcing people to avoid pork, but I wouldn't have a problem with a community deciding that they don't eat pork and hence nobody selling pork there.

SO the principle behind liberalism, that one ought not force the choices of another, is acceptable to you. — Banno

No, not quite. One ought not to coerce someone to take a particular choice by physical force or the like. But this isn't to say there can't be pressure one way or another, or that a particular choice can't be made difficult by society.

Then am I right in thinking that for you it is the application of that principle that causes grief; that in practice coercion of one sort or another is inevitable? — Banno

I don't think coercion is inevitable. It wouldn't be inevitable if everyone wasn't selfish and adhered by the principle of not doing anything that would harm others. But many people don't - hence coercion becomes inevitable.

Is that right? — creativesoul

Yes.

I am a bit surprised that this thread didn't launch. — Bitter Crank

I'm not that surprised to be honest, merely because we don't have a lot of people that are very familiar with virtue ethics (and the Aristotelian tradition) around it. To be honest, that's why I put (video inside) in the title >:) - to tempt more people to open it and reply (what, you thought I did that by accident?! >:O )

I meant to reply to mcdoodle above, I just never got around to it because there's too much to do lol.

Is it because... everything that could be said about adultery was most throughly said in previous Agustinian adultery threads? — Bitter Crank

Surprisingly, if you look on my profile, you'll find zero threads about adultery started by me :P - although we did hijack a few other threads (about other subjects) to discuss it.

Judging a woman's appearance? You sexist bigot! — Thorongil

Woman or not, a terrorist is still a terrorist.

I will now have a nightmare tonight because of this picture >:O

In my experience (local) democracy is almost the only method to ensure social cooperation at the local level. — Benkei

If I understand you correctly, I agree, but that is not an institutionalised form of democracy, but rather pure cooperation arising naturally between the members of one community.

But we are individuals and we do live in a society and we're having a hard time reconciling the two at a national level. — Benkei

Precisely, democracy fails as a system, it's a bad political system.

So if I'm going to write a law on this, I'll make sure the woman cannot be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want to. — Benkei

I can agree with this, so long as you'll agree not to force any doctors to give her an abortion if they don't want to, nor to force me as the taxpayer to finance her abortion. These things should arise naturally in the community. If her community doesn't approve of abortions, such that she cannot find a doctor willing to perform it, then she should take this into consideration in her behavior. The government should not force people to perform these services.

To me, the abortion issue is ultimately a decision of the woman, because it's her body and her life that is most deeply affected. — Benkei

Well I think the baby's life is most deeply affected by her decision, but the problem arises precisely because the baby is not in a capacity to speak or make decisions that is the problem.

Since this is about Trump; from where I'm standing (in the Netherlands) he looks completely ineffectual. He's irritated and annoyed so many people everywhere, he won't be able to get anything done. Inept. — Benkei

But is being on friendly terms with others what is required to get things done? I dare say that at the highest levels of politics, most people there can be manipulated based on their own selfish desires and greed, such that even if they don't like you, you can get them to do what you want so long as you dangle the carrot.

So you agree that we ought protect the freedom to choose? — Banno

Freedom of choice is a fact of human nature. Some freedoms you ought to protect and others you ought to discourage. For example, you ought not to protect the freedom to choose murder. But yes, in general we ought to protect the freedom to choose so long as that freedom to choose doesn't negatively impact others.

That is quite an inspiring story you have there! (Y) Thanks for sharing that.

I learned from books and took risks pushing myself to take on ever more ambitious projects which challenged my then current skill level. — Janus

It's always a difficult thing to decide how ambitious you should be willing to go with the project compared to your skill level though :P It's not easy to decide. I've refused work before that I thought was "too out there" for me.

What I meant, though, was that we are made slaves in a sense by the very need to earn a living. — Janus

Hmm - I suppose so, but if we are slaves, who is our master then? Because our master wouldn't be society or something external to us, but rather our own drives - our own need to survive, our conatus. So to say we are slaves in this sense entails creating a division in the self. One side of the self (the passions, need for food, shelter, etc.) is divided from the self conceived as a purely rational will. Then we look back at ourselves so to speak, and say that the purely rational self is a slave to our biological drives.

But I think this divided self is a wound, and if this wound was healed, then we would conceive of our own self as in harmony with itself. Then there couldn't be any talk of bondage in this context, but rather of freedom.

There's the other difficulty that when we speak of freedom, we need a standard of freedom. When you extend the meaning of slavery too much, so that there's always a degree of slavery, then we've destroyed the very meaning of the word. It's much like a bird thinking that air resistance is what stops it from flying faster, and if only there was no more resistance from the air it would finally be free to fly as it wants - but of course the truth is that precisely if there was no resistance from the air, the bird would not be free to fly - flying would become impossible.

These are some of the reasons why I think it's difficult to talk about the need to earn a living, or the need to survive, as a form of slavery.

To be effective at the work or at promoting yourself you need to have discipline and application, which means you need to have motivation. I was motivated to the work because I enjoyed learning all the skills, and creating beautiful structures and environments, but I had almost no motivation to promote myself — Janus

Yes, I agree - the selling element is very important. Getting yourself out there gets you to some of the work, but if you need to grow and get bigger selling plays a crucial role. From what I see in my part of the world, business owners tend to focus mostly on recruiting and sales, and relatively little on the actual work, which is a bit strange. I'm also like you and very much of a perfectionist, so I've always been a bit "afraid" of hiring anyone to pass on work to them, because I know there's very few people who actually make sure the work is perfect, especially if they're not working for themselves.

Because I am a perfectionist and insist, at any cost, on delivering what I promise to my clients, I was forever paying workers to fix problems that would never have occurred if they had listened to my instructions. — Janus

Yes that does seem to be a very big problem. Quality always seems to tend to decrease when more people get involved. To a certain extent, in order to grow you need to sacrifice quality and just accept that a certain % of clients will be left with subpar work (and then seek to minimise that). That seems to be in the nature of industrialisation as well, where a certain batch of the products are assumed to end up faulty anyhows (for the sake of producing "in bulk")

That explains why you're so uninformed and opinionated. You never quote or refer to any sources whatever. I suspect your 'primary sources' are nothing more than your feelings and projections with no regards for facts. This is why I think that you have actually become unknowingly implanted with Internet memes ('Lying Hillary'), which you repeat ad nauseam with no justification or reference. You've become a bot ;-) — Wayfarer

:s - I haven't become unknowingly implanted with internet memes - Lying Hillary isn't an internet meme, Donald Trump said it at his rallies. If you stopped reading only the New York Times summary of the rallies, and actually watched them, you may have known this.

But of course, it's easier to give a quick look at secondary sources and then take that for the truth, just because some reporters say it. Do the hard work, and go back to primary sources yourself.

Is your point that we need not protect freedom of choice where possible? That is, is it your view that while all are free to choose, some are also free to coerce? — Banno

None are free to coerce.

How do you feel about paying for some of the results of unwanted pregnancies that are not aborted, such as welfare programs, correctional facilities, and other costs to society associated with cycles of poverty? — praxis

Am I responsible for her stupidity? No. She should pay for it. But if she really can't, then I'm not opposed to help her.

Yet another person who wants to tell a woman what to do with her own body... — creativesoul

Well yes if she wants to have that abortion with my money, I think I have full rights to tell her what to do with her body. Also, she shouldn't be able to force a doctor to give her an abortion. That would be to tell the doctor what to do with his medical skills, which is wrong.

Are you opposed to subsidized healthcare? — creativesoul

No, not necessarily.

If such people are in power, then they are making a woman have a child from an otherwise unwanted pregnancy, and refusing to provide public assistance for those women, many many of whom would have chosen to terminate the pregnancy largely due to financial reasons(including the quality of life that they want their child to have). — creativesoul

It's not "many many many" who have it out of economic reasons. About 30% according to some statistics I've read. About 2-5% are the rape/incest cases. The rest are for other reasons such as "not ready to have a child" (then why the hell are you having unprotected sex? You're ready for sex but not for a child?!), "child will not allow me to have a career", etc.