Imagine this hypothetical: A new pill is invented that eliminates homosexual desires, not just in the person who takes it, but if taken by a pregnant woman, in the baby also. And say it also alters personality and makes people very conservative and heightens gender complementarity (makes men manlier, women more feminine). The idea being, this pill would be offensive to many people, and it would change society, it would change behavior and morality.
OK, that sets the stage. Now, should this pill be legal? Remember it has side effects that make people more paternalistic and sexist, so it isn’t just something you can let other people take. When other people take it, it marginalizes those who believe people should be more liberal about sex and homosexuality. So there will be some radical feminists and gays who think the pill shouldn’t even be legal. But most people will think we should let people control their own body, so it should be legal. Now the analogy comes, should those people be forced to pay for it, so that those who want to be straight and very paternalistic get it for free? What if it was only about $10 or $20 a month, and there were already lots of places that helped poor people afford their straight pills? Doesn’t that make it even more offensive to force feminists and gays to pay for a pill which goes against everything they believe? Shouldn’t they be allowed to at least opt-out of having to pay for a pill which offends them and that they think is bad for society?
What behavior and morality?
It’d still be moral to let people choose to abstain from the pill. It’d still be immoral to make people take the pill. Unless you’re saying that living in your ‘greater than stereotypical’ gender rolls kills principals of freedom of choice.
All that said, as far as what should be subsidized – I’ll wait to hear what doctors recommend and why. In this way I think your analogy falls apart.
In the same way that the birth control pill is said to have changed the culture and behavior by ushering in the sexual revolution, and doesn’t merely affect the person taking it, my analogy is that this pill would not merely affect the person taking it, but would change the culture that everyone lives in.
And OK, let’s say that doctors recommend that people take the pill for their health, because being straight is healthier. Maybe that means you would be OK with everyone having to pay for it, but surely you understand that lots of people would still think it was offensive to make them pay for it, because it creates a world they disagree with creating. Maybe they’d agree that people had a right to take it, and no one was forced to take it, but still, they’d be pretty offended that people were taking it, they’d be upset with how it was changing society and feel it was a bad idea, and they’d be annoyed at having to pay for it. I’d agree with them, they should not have to pay for it.
Us liberals already pay for the tax exemptions of these religious institutions, whether we agree or not with their proselytizing, wars that are morally reprehensible, military support for dictators and regimes that discriminate and abuse women, the lottery, Homeland Security enforcement of the PATRIOT Act, fondling at Air Port Security, fences on the Mexican Border……
Where have you been?
Conservatives only believe in Patriotism when they are in charge, compromise where the other side comes around to their point of view and freedom of religion where it applies to Christians.
Sixes
…don’t-get-cute control pill? Take one and you’ll never have to read another inane post or comment from DGC – I could get behind that!
Happy days.