# Pope calls health care an "Inalienable Right". What's the right-wing spin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262 "2010-11-19T20:34:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/101 "2010-11-23T02:42:54Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Based on what? Either they’ve come to their own interpretation of Catholic dogma (which is what I’m trying to suss out here) or what? You keep using the word ‘dogma,’ in a way that makes me suspect you don’t mean the same thing I mean, or the same thing the dictionary means. ‘Dogma’ refers to athe aggregate body of doctrines concerning faith and morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the Holy See. so… > [@](#): > > They’ve substituted an alternate set of religious beliefs in this area? Does this mean that Catholics are free to substitute alternative theological systems when they choose to do so? No. Yes. Maybe. It all depends on what you mean here. Catholic dogma holds that the saints have a real and active presence in the universe. But Catholic dogma does not compel any particular appearance of a saint in modern times to be considered as genuine. Do you see the difference? > [@](#): > > Where are you getting this? This doesn’t follow from the Pope’s statement you’ve quoted here. Is it derived from his other writings? It’s actually derived from the writings of Pope John Paul II, particularly _Evangelium Vitae_. > [@](#): > > Where in Catholic dogma does this statement you’ve made come from? What is it in Catholic dogma that leads one to this conclusion? > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding: with the new prospects opened up by scientific and technological progress there arise new forms of attacks on the dignity of the human being. At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and-if possible-even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems. > > All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable. Even certain sectors of the medical profession, which by its calling is directed to the defence and care of human life, are increasingly willing to carry out these acts against the person. In this way the very nature of the medical profession is distorted and contradicted, and the dignity of those who practise it is degraded. In such a cultural and legislative situation, the serious demographic, social and family problems which weigh upon many of the world’s peoples and which require responsible and effective attention from national and international bodies, are left open to false and deceptive solutions, opposed to the truth and the good of persons and nations. > > The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/102 "2010-11-23T03:15:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You keep using the word ‘dogma,’ in a way that makes me suspect you don’t mean the same thing I mean, or the same thing the dictionary means. > > ‘Dogma’ refers to athe aggregate body of doctrines concerning faith and morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by the Holy See. > > so… Well, maybe I’m not using it the same way, since I don’t know how you are using the word “authoritatively” here (is it tied in with the infallibility concept?) I’m using it to mean the general body of church law and teaching and religious philosophy. If you think I’m using it incorrectly, then would you prefer the word “canon”? > [@](#): > > No. Yes. Maybe. > > It all depends on what you mean here. Catholic dogma holds that the saints have a real and active presence in the universe. But Catholic dogma does not compel any particular appearance of a saint in modern times to be considered as genuine. Do you see the difference? What I mean is that the Church has some framework for determining miracles (I’m going to refer to this as the “MDF”) correct? And they didn’t pull this MDF out of thin air–they derived it from previous Catholic “cannon,” correct? So, if you (general you) disagree that Fatima is a miracle, these are the possibilities I’m seeing: 1. You agree with the MDF, but you think the Church applied it incorrectly. In which case you should be able to lay out how the Church incorrectly applied the MDF. 2. You don’t believe the MDF is a proper interpretation of Church “canon.” In which case, you should be able to lay out what you think the proper MDF is based on Church “canon.” 3. You are completely ignoring Church “canon” and have decided to substitute your own philosophical framework in the area of miracles. Maybe I missed an option, do you see any other? The way this thread reads to me, it’s as if I stated that SC Justice Scalia was incorrect in a ruling. Now, of course, I’m free to think that, but if I didn’t lay out a legal argument as to why I think that, who would you think has more knowledge about the subject, me or Scalia? The Pope is clearly well-studied in Catholicism. If someone is going to state that he’s incorrect, shouldn’t they be able to lay out a Catholic argument as to why, just the way I should be able to lay out a legal argument as to why I think Scalia is wrong? > [@](#): > > It’s actually derived from the writings of Pope John Paul II, particularly _Evangelium Vitae_. I don’t necessarily see that from the excerpt you’ve quoted, but I can see how it can be parsed that way. If there are other statements you can quote which would make it clearer, that would be useful. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/103 "2010-11-23T06:55:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Pope’s comment about health care is not intended to apply to a society that does not ALSO apply his guidance about abortion. I don’t think that’s true, really. I mean, Catholic social teaching does need to be read as a unified whole, and obviously, as far as the Pope is concerned, in a perfect world, there would be both no abortion and there would be UHC, but both abortion and the failure to provide health care to everyone in a society that can afford it are offenses against the dignity of human life and are evils, and you can’t justify the toleration of one evil merely because you tolerate another one. It’s one thing to say, “Well, I think abortion is the more serious evil, and therefore I’m going to prioritize my efforts into getting that stopped over getting UHC passed”, but that’s different than saying “It’s morally acceptable that we don’t have UHC (that won’t allow abortions) because we also have abortion.” It’s a little bit like the joke about the guy asked to donate to charity, and he says to the guy collecting for charity, “Why are you asking me this now? My sister is horribly sick, and will die if she doesn’t get an expensive operation, my brother is out of work and doesn’t know where his next meal is coming from, and my mother’s house is about to go in foreclosure.” The collector says he’s sorry, and the guy being asked goes on to say, “If I won’t give money to any of them, why would I give money to you?” ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/104 "2010-11-23T06:57:35Z")
Eh. The right to life is generally considered an inalienable right. Withholding healthcare from someone because they can’t afford it is denying them that right. Thus universal health care is an inalienable right. Of course, that also means that food programs are an inalienable right. But, seeing as the Bible is full of commandments to feed the poor, and even includes a communistic economic system in Acts, I don’t see that as a problem either. As for the theological debate: I’ve always understood the idea of papal infallibility to have nothing to do with the Pope’s education itself, but the fact that the Holy Ghost takes over when certain types of statements are made. In other words, if you disagree with the Pope on anything else, it’s perfectly fine for it to just be your own conviction. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/105 "2010-11-23T07:17:30Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > In other words, if you disagree with the Pope on anything else, it’s perfectly fine for it to just be your own conviction. I have trouble believing this statement is accurate. If a Catholic were to say that they didn’t believe in Fatima because an Aztec god told him it was fake, that wouldn’t be proper, would it? The reasoning behind why you choose to disagree with the Pope also has to conform to Catholic “dogma” (in the sense Bricker has outlined), doesn’t it? If so, then you can’t just substitute your own conviction wily-nily, the conviction has to be rooted in Catholic “dogma” doesn’t it? Furthermore, where does all this non-dogma stuff come from? Does it come from the Church analyzing the dogma and applying it to other situations? If so, then shouldn’t a Catholic be following a similar process? ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/106 "2010-11-23T13:22:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > It has nothing to do with the proportions of things I want. It has to do with consistency. It makes no sense to force productive citizens to pay for health care for unproductive citizens when the same society is willing to slaughter unborn children – and, indeed, to spend tax dollars in some cases to facilitate that killing. Yes it does if it is doing the greater good. The Pope thinks that people have a right to health care and he also thinks abortion is wrong. Surely getting only one of those is better than not getting either of them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/107 "2010-11-23T13:56:57Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Yes it does if it is doing the greater good. > > The Pope thinks that people have a right to health care and he also thinks abortion is wrong. Surely getting only one of those is better than not getting either of them? Not necessarily true. To take another example, the Pope has often said that condom use represents an error, and he’s also said that sex should be confined to a martial, monogamous relationship. Do you see how the two of those go together? People have criticized the Pope for his comments on condoms, pointing out how effective condoms are in stopping the spread of HIV. But if people who eschewed condom use ALSO followed the Pope’s guidance on sex only within marriage, then the spread of HIV would be stopped. In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/108 "2010-11-23T14:13:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not necessarily true. Oh I’m sure you can come up with some scenarios where this is not true but in this case it is true. > [@Bricker](#): > > To take another example, the Pope has often said that condom use represents an error, and he’s also said that sex should be confined to a martial, monogamous relationship. Do you see how the two of those go together? People have criticized the Pope for his comments on condoms, pointing out how effective condoms are in stopping the spread of HIV. But if people who eschewed condom use ALSO followed the Pope’s guidance on sex only within marriage, then the spread of HIV would be stopped. Sure but condom use and the spread of STIs are directly linked, abortion and health care (outside of medical care for the pregnant and foetus obviously) are not. > [@Bricker](#): > > In my opinion, abortion and health care are similarly intertwined. A society that is willing to slaughter its most defenseless members cannot gain grace by then turning cynically around and purporting to provide health care. It is completely contradictory. If doing A and doing B both provide some good without directly affecting each other doing just A or just B is doing some good. Grace or contradiction does not come into it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/109 "2010-11-23T14:28:48Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Well, maybe I’m not using it the same way, since I don’t know how you are using the word “authoritatively” here (is it tied in with the infallibility concept?) I’m using it to mean the general body of church law and teaching and religious philosophy. If you think I’m using it incorrectly, then would you prefer the word “canon”? Perhaps an example would help. The idea that Jesus gave us seven sacraments is a matter of dogma. No Catholic may dispute that point: there are seven, period. The claim that the nurse baptized baby Timmy just before he died is open to debate. Did she? Or is she simply say she did to soothe the parents’ grief? A faithful Catholic may believe or disbelieve the nurse’s account. > [@](#): > > What I mean is that the Church has some framework for determining miracles (I’m going to refer to this as the “MDF”) correct? And they didn’t pull this MDF out of thin air–they derived it from previous Catholic “cannon,” correct? > > So, if you (general you) disagree that Fatima is a miracle, these are the possibilities I’m seeing: > > 1. You agree with the MDF, but you think the Church applied it incorrectly. In which case you should be able to lay out how the Church incorrectly applied the MDF. > > 2. You don’t believe the MDF is a proper interpretation of Church “canon.” In which case, you should be able to lay out what you think the proper MDF is based on Church “canon.” > > 3. You are completely ignoring Church “canon” and have decided to substitute your own philosophical framework in the area of miracles. I think option 1 is the closest, but there’s a subtle difference between “applied it incorrectly” and what I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > Maybe I missed an option, do you see any other? The way this thread reads to me, it’s as if I stated that SC Justice Scalia was incorrect in a ruling. Now, of course, I’m free to think that, but if I didn’t lay out a legal argument as to why I think that, who would you think has more knowledge about the subject, me or Scalia? This is a great example. Justice Scalia doesn’t determine facts. He determines the law. He may decide, for instance, that robbing a bank by using a voodoo doll as a threat (“Give me the money or I’ll stick the pin in this doll’s neck – and you can see the doll looks just like you, so you KNOW what will happen!”) is using a weapon within the meaning of the law. But he doesn’t determine specifically if the accused actually did that act. That determination happens before we get to him. When he’s asked to look at the case, he says, “The man was convicted at trial, so for the purposes of my analysis, I’m going to assume the facts are as the trial court found.” This is what’s happening here. Yes, the church has a framework for determining miracles, just as we, secular society, have a framework to determine factual guilt. Once a person is convicted, our framework assumes his factual guilt. That’s the model we use. Once the Church examines a purported miracle, they decide if, based on the evidence, the witness testimony, the exhibits, if the miracle happened. But they don’t say, “This is now the absolute truth!” Instead they say, “This is our best understanding of what happened here.” An individual Catholic may reach the an opposite conclusion; he may know the reputation of the witness as a liar. Heck, he may have been present at the event and KNOW the claimed miracle did not occur. The framework exists and is being applied correctly; it simply reaches an incorrect result. The Church makes no claim on these matters to be inerrant. > [@](#): > > The Pope is clearly well-studied in Catholicism. If someone is going to state that he’s incorrect, shouldn’t they be able to lay out a Catholic argument as to why, just the way I should be able to lay out a legal argument as to why I think Scalia is wrong? Sure. In this case, I don’t say the Pope is incorrect – I say, and I feel he would agree, that his teaching is intended to apply not in a vacuum, but in harmony with his other teachings. However, another Catholic may well say that even standing alone, the Pope is wrong in his conclusion. Yes, I would expect someone who does that to be able to lay out a reasoned argument to support his claim. But the point is: the Church does not forbid a faithful catholic from taking that stand. Catholics MUST believe certain things, matters of dogma. This is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/110 "2010-11-23T14:34:53Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Oh I’m sure you can come up with some scenarios where this is not true but in this case it is true. Yes, it is. > [@](#): > > Sure but condom use and the spread of STIs are directly linked, abortion and health care (outside of medical care for the pregnant and foetus obviously) are not. Of course they are. > [@](#): > > If doing A and doing B both provide some good without directly affecting each other doing just A or just B is doing some good. Grace or contradiction does not come into it. Yes, they do. Why do we need to provide health care? Why does the Pope teach that it’s a right? In the article quoted at the beginning of this thread, the Pope is reported to say: > [@](#): > > Care for human life from conception to its natural end must be a guiding light in determining health care policy. Why do you assume you can unravel the “from conception” part of this guidance? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/111 "2010-11-23T15:26:01Z")
Correct me if I am wrong, but opposition to abortion has not been defined as dogma, has it? That is, is it possible for a faithful Roman Catholic to dissent from church teaching? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/112 "2010-11-23T16:02:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, it is. > > Of course they are. > > Yes, they do. > > Why do we need to provide health care? Why does the Pope teach that it’s a right? In the article quoted at the beginning of this thread, the Pope is reported to say: > > Why do you assume you can unravel the “from conception” part of this guidance? Why is abortion directly linked to universal health care in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/113 "2010-11-23T16:14:38Z")
**Bricker** : You made a very curious statement about how you would support UHC if abortion were illegal, and some of us have asked you to explain that connection. Can you address that? Why would you suddenly want to make productive people support unproductive people just because abortion is illegal? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/114 "2010-11-23T16:16:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Correct me if I am wrong, but opposition to abortion has not been defined as dogma, has it? That is, is it possible for a faithful Roman Catholic to dissent from church teaching? > > Regards, > Shodan Yes, it is. Not as an overall proposition, but in many many particulars. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/115 "2010-11-23T16:23:23Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Why is abortion directly linked to universal health care in your opinion? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Bricker** : You made a very curious statement about how you would support UHC if abortion were illegal, and some of us have asked you to explain that connection. Can you address that? Why would you suddenly want to make productive people support unproductive people just because abortion is illegal? Sure. Suppose you offered a plan to provide UHC to everyone with an even social security number. Odd numbered ones are on their own. You might say, “Look, it’s better to get at least the even numbers covered. Half is more than none, after all!” Would you wonder that I’d resist that? It’s true that half is more than none as a mathematical statement, but making that kind of distinction is a terrible thing for a society to do. It’s bad because it gives the illusion of having made strides towards solving the problem. And it’s even worse because it draws a ridiculous and impermissible distinction between living persons. Everything I’ve said applies to abortion. You want to create a system of providing health care to some people and leave in place a system of arbitrarily killing other people. This doesn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/116 "2010-11-23T16:29:50Z")
Maybe I’m being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing. Please don’t offer an analogy… just explain the position on its own merits. What does abortion and UHC have to do with each other. Are you just taking two arbitrary issues and saying you’d be willing to trade one for the other? OK, you can have your UHC, but you have to give me my anti-abortion law as a trade? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/117 "2010-11-23T17:13:21Z")
Well, It seems to me that some people on this website are more than happy to seize on the Pope’s statements concerning health care since this agrees with their political position. They do this to add credibility to their own arguments regarding it and also attempt to put opponents of universal health care into a less advantageous position by referencing this opinion. Now, this is all well and good, but most of the people doing so are not Catholic themselves, do not share the Catholic Church’s rather long history of providing for the sick, and not only do not agree with other Catholic teachings but are often contemptuous of these on this website. All well and fine - disagreements can be abided. And we are certainly free to agree with the Church on some matters and disagree with them on others - this applies to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. There are a couple of things that ought to be kept in mind here, though - the Church asks of its believers that it believe certain things. Most things are left to individual conscience and intellectual exploration, but some things the Church regards as settled issues requiring no additional debate. The sanctity of life from conception is one of these things. The Church also traditionally has placed on its members the duty to care for the sick. Now, this duty has caveats in Catholic teaching - Catholic doctors and nurses may not participate in the performance or procurement of an abortion (except in certain grave circumstances). So this is linked. The Church has also performed this duty where charity demanded - this was true for everyone from the Knights Hospitallers to the Sisters of Mercy. They do so today where governments cannot or will not provide universal coverage. Even in countries that have modern facilities and broad access, like most of the West, the hospitals and clinics built by the Church and other religious institutions provided a massive institutional investment that could be built upon. So when the Pope calls health care a right, however much we may debate this, it is as the head of a social service agency that has done more to provide health care than any other single one on earth. If he was doing nothing to bring that health care to people, that would be a different story. I disagree with his exact wording, but as I said, I would describe health care more as a duty we owe others than a right we have. That doesn’t make our obligations any easier to duck - indeed, it makes them harder. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/118 "2010-11-23T17:21:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe I’m being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing. Please don’t offer an analogy… just explain the position on its own merits. What does abortion and UHC have to do with each other. > > Are you just taking two arbitrary issues and saying you’d be willing to trade one for the other? OK, you can have your UHC, but you have to give me my anti-abortion law as a trade? He wants to withhold UHC, which is a good idea, as punishment for legalizing abortion. It’s utterly indefensible, it’s petulant, not intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/119 "2010-11-23T18:07:52Z")
Bricker, if I understand your position correctly: If a country legalizes abortion, you would oppose them offering UHC (however you define UHC), so for example you would be opposed to them offering free medical care to indigent people. If a country makes abortion illegal, you would then say it is wrong for them to **not** offer UHC, and you would say that in this country the government should be required to offer UHC (e.g. free medical care to indigent people.) ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262/120 "2010-11-23T18:15:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe I’m being dense on this, but that makes it even more confusing. I, too, am having trouble making sense of **Bricker** ’s position – although I can’t agree with **Lobohan** that he’s withholding support for UHC as a bargaining chip for prohibiting abortion. It seems something more like: it is (in someway) gross to support a policy that accounted for everyone’s health but that of the unborn, who are being _killed_ as long as abortion is legal. But I don’t think many would find the connection terribly convincing. (I certainly don’t.) Should we keep from enacting UHC until we outlaw capital punishment, which at least occasionally takes innocent lives? Until we eradicate poverty, which harms the physical and mental wellbeing of countless individuals? Things’ll never be perfect. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-calls-health-care-an-inalienable-right-whats-the-right-wing-spin/561262.md?page=7)