http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm
Myself, I stop short of calling health care a right, but nevertheless something that a non-third-world country should be able to make affordable to everyone. Like education.
But Republicans are all too willing to exploit the Pope’s influence on issues where they agree with him, like abortion, so what’s their take on this?
Vice-versa, too. Will Church leaders try to deny communion to Catholic politicians who oppose health care reform?
I think the pope would be well- served by boning up on his definition of “inalienable rights”
This is not a new idea. The United Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, says the same:
Amnesty International, one of the leading human rights organizations, has expanded its work from working mostly on political rights (prisoners of conscience / political prisoners / death penalty / political refugees) to economic and social cultural rights, including health care.
When a society becomes mature enough that people are not starving or dying in wars all the time, it makes sense to me that health care should become a right, not a privilege. In the same way that education, once considered a privilege, is now a right.
I don’t know on this issue specifically, but I do know my dad’s reaction when the Pope condemned the US’ actions in Iraq: “Oh, the Pope is a decent man and all, and he means well, but he just doesn’t understand the intricacies of foreign relations”. And yes, my dad does call himself Catholic.
But hey, what could a head of state chosen for his wisdom, who routinely hobnobs directly with other world leaders, and who has teams of advisors on the subject possibly know about international relations that a retired self-employed electrician wouldn’t?
Sure:
First President Obama has to make a statement either supporting or not supporting the Pope, then the right wing will issue their opposing opinion.
Well, medical practitioners have inalienable rights, don’t they? They have the right to be secure in their person, they have the right to their property (including their medical supplies and instruments). Presumably we don’t have the right to force them to work for free or at a loss, or to give away their supplies without compensation.
So that makes the right to health care not inalienable, but conditional.
I just noticed I typed “and” inalienable right. :smack:
Mods?
Oh fuck me, who the hell in this country (or any place that has UHC for that matter) is forcing or otherwise suggesting that doctors work for free or that the government confiscate their property. Provide some cites please.
So you link to the Wiki page on natural rights and you still don’t get it?
That wasn’t my point. My point was that health care wasn’t a right that naturally accrues to people just by virtue of their presence on the planet - it has to be provided to them by others, including doctors, government entities, churches and maybe taxpayers. And while I am not against people having health care, and indeed belong to a church that provided for such before many governments did, I won’t go so far as to state that it is an inalienable right that we have - it is more accurately described as a duty that we should all shoulder.
I would suggest that all rights have to be provided by others.
So which of your rights would you like me to provide, and perhaps control.
My take: His Holiness is mistaken.
Or possibly he’s right, but only in the larger context. That is, if we truly had a society that implemented ALL of the Church’s teachings, then health care would be a right.
Your right to life ends at the arm of someone stronger than you. Our society grants these rights by creating an environment where people don’t kill with impunity.
Meh, Catholics have been ignoring the political opinions of the Papacy since almost its inception. We’re a long ways removed from Kings crawling across the snow on their knees to beg forgiveness for having offended the pontiff.
Even most devoutly Catholic countries rejected the right of the papacy to make geopolitical decisions by the time of the Treaty of Westphalia (and in truth major Catholic powers like the Spanish/Austrian Hapsburg Empire had long set their agendas based on their self interest and not that of the pope’s.)
Sorry, infallible. Say ten thousand Hail Marys. Owwww! I’ma da Pope!
I know you’re joking, but it’s such a common misconception that I’m going to correct it anyway to avoid a reader getting whooshed.
The Pope is not considered infallible except in very specific and limited circumstances, of which this is not one.
Why are you using a stereotypical Italian accent, when there hasn’t been an Italian pope since 1978?
Nope - you have it backward. Society doesn’t grant the rights to individuals - individuals create society to protect those rights.