They don’t, but that’s why all this stuff that’s maybe ‘legal’ is still obviously awful and subverts Democracy.
People tend to respect and obey authority. Someone asserts authority, and folks will fall in line.
Want a group of old people who already have given up degrees of autonomy to various senior home employees, doctors, their younger family members etc, to get off a bus? Just be an “in charge” person who asks them to get off the bus because someone higher up says they’re not supposed to be on it.
It is. You should just admit you want other people to die for the sake of your ideological piece of mind. If you don’t care which of my family members dies so long as you aren’t ideologically sad, just say so. I won’t think less of you.
The question isn’t fair because it uses the fallacy of argumentum ad passiones, an appeal to emotion, to advance your purpose. Any safety standard, for example, carries with it a calculation of acceptable risk. We balance costs against safety in car design and food inspection. But if a rhetor eager for the adoption of stricter food inspection standards demanded to know the names of the people that were acceptable candidates for botulism or salmonella, we should rightly disregard the tactic: food inspection is important, but it must be balanced against costs that might make food unaffordable.
Ah, practicality. So, does the fact that we do pay taxes in order to have a safe food supply bother you, then, it does increase the cost, and therefore, make it unaffordable to some.
And what about the situation where inspection would actually lower the cost of food, as it does with UHC in every single country on the plane that has it? If not inspecting food increases spoilage, makes it less safe and more costly, then you are right, emotional arguments should not be necessary to convince rational people of the rightness of food inspection. Unfortunately, many are not rational, and would refuse food inspection even though it actually could make even their own life better, (“why should I have to pay for other people to have safe food?”) so an appeal to emotion is what is necessary there.
Then there are those who are stubborn, and will hold to a position even after it has been shown to be irrational, and even after it has been shown to be cruel and inhumane.
We disagree that that is cruel and inhumane. Maybe you could convince me to change my mind that ending the existence of a clump of cells that has no nervous system is cruel and inhumane.
But it shouldn’t be that hard to convince you that a fully formed human, child or adult dying of preventable or treatable conditions due to simply not being able to afford it should be. I really don’t see how anyone can come to a different conclusion, but well, there you are.
No, we don’t let you interfere in medical decisions between a woman and her doctor. You want to prevent people from seeing a doctor. That’s the difference.
No, just putting it out there. You are welcome to watch people suffering and dying in ways that are preventable and be part of what prevents them from getting treatment, and hold the opinion that what you are doing is not inhumane, just as we disagree when we see a woman removing a clump of cells from her body as to whether that is inhumane.
But I’m not trying to convince you of anything; I’m not making an argument.
Your position is ideological and not practical, so all I could do to change your mind is unRepublican you and that would be a waste of time. As the saying goes, all it does is annoy the pig. I was, however, making a point. I was trying to get you to admit straight up that you would be fine with reducing the amount of health care available to children for ideological reasons despite claiming to be pro-life, but I wasn’t trying to change your mind.
No, we insist on defining “children” or “persons” for ourselves. “Slaughter”, too, speaking of deploring emotional arguments, which you were just doing.
You feel we should accept yours, eh? Unfortunately, most of Americans have voted against yours, therefore it is illegal, and by your definition, immoral, and to claim otherwise is to undermine democracy itself. IOW, fuck you and your pathetic hypocrisies that fool no one but yourself.
Just figured I would pick a nit and mention that we don’t adhere to the practice of abortion, but rather oppose the idea that government’s realm is to decide for a female whether she should be forced to allow another being to use her own body for its survival. We also acknowledge that there are complex moral issues involved that cannot be easily dismissed out of hand.
Nah. Some of us have gone through the moral and legal calculus and came out the other side with an answer that isn’t yours.
Also, defending the fact that you oppose universal health care with “WELL I’M PRO-LIFE” might be the most absurd and stupid non-sequitur I’ve heard in a long fucking time, congratulations.