Again, we have a duty to provide for the security of others. But unlike the rights to life, free thought, and property, the right of security is in large part ceded to the state or to society at large, and is not vested in the individual. Thus, it cannot be considered an inalienable right, it exists as a legal right.
Let me join in in saying that while I understand the linkage, I still don’t fully understand your position. Don’t we have a moral responsibility to offer UHC now (again, speaking from a Catholic perspective)? We obviously have a moral responsibility to outlaw abortion, but that moral responsibility doesn’t abrogate our moral responsibility to provide UHC. Let’s consider two countries, one that has abortion and UHC (although the UHC doesn’t fund abortions), and one that has abortion and no UHC. Or for that matter, one country that has genocide and UHC and another that has genocide and no UHC. Isn’t the state with UHC the more moral state because it has UHC? I mean, it’s still an incredibly immoral state, because of the abortion or genocide, but it’s slightly more moral than the abortion or genocide state without it.
I understand life and free thought as inalienable
But the right to property is inalienable ?
How do you establish that ?
No, I’d argue just the opposite, which is what I was trying to illustrate with my odd/even social security number hypo.
So a country that gave UHC to half its citizens, based on random number assignment, is more moral than one that doesn’t give it at all? I say it’s worse, because it elevates one segment of society over another for absolutely impermissible reasons.
Would you call a country that gave UHC to only one race slightly more moral than one that gave it to none? I wouldn’t.
You still haven’t explained what the link is between abortion and UHC. By your logic, why should I require a government to do anything if it sanctions abortion? Slavery? Who cares? Torture? Why bother outlawing it, as long as we have legal abortion? Trial by jury? Fughettaboutit! Until you outlaw abortion, no jury trial for you!
But the remedy for a society that does that…gives health care (you technically can’t call it universal health care if people are excluded) to only one race, or by random number assignment, isn’t for the state to end health care. It’s for the state to extend that health care to everyone.
The state that only gives health care to a segment of its population based on race is a fundamentally unjust state, but at least it recognizes its responsibility to provide health care.
Likewise, in the US’s case, the solution isn’t to deny health care. It’s to stop abortions.
And, like John Mace said. Is a state that allows abortion so fundamentally disordered that any atrocity becomes morally acceptable? I don’t think that’s the Vatican’s position, which is why it calls on states that allow abortion to respect rights beyond just the right to life of its unborn citizens. The Vatican doesn’t just say, “United States, you allow abortion, and therefore that’s the only national behavior we’ll condemn you for.”
Further, I’m not buying this idea that the Pope’s missives are only to be taken in toto. Are we really to believe that the Pope comes out and says: UHC is an inalienable right, but if the country does not outlaw abortion, then it’s perfectly fine for that country to not offer UHC.
I’m sorry but this doesn’t answer my question. What is the direct link between abortion and UHC? Condoms, STIs and abstinence have a direct link that abortions and UHC do not.
Bricker, your spin is making my dizzy.
Let’s say a small town Sheriff represented aborted fetuses, and the deputy represented someone all those suffering and dieing in American society without health-care.
Are you honestly claiming if you shoot the sheriff, you’re even more immoral if you don’t shoot the deputy?
In other words, you’re actually claiming more death (those without health care) is preferable to less?
Also:
My hobby: getting Bob Marley stuck in your head
But I swear it was in self-defense.
[/Clapton]
Abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being – kind of the exact opposite of UHC.
Gratuitous assertion.
No the exact opposite of UHC is not providing Health Care for all through taxation.
Abortion is the exact opposite of, well, having a baby.
sigh
Yes. Thus my inclusion of “kind of.”
This was intended to show that the policies support goals that are fairly described as opposite, in my opinion: caring the health of people, and killing people.
Of course, you may not agree that this is fair description of abortion. But this entire argument is my opinion; I recognize it’s not a proposition objectively proveable.
Is this related to the “seamless garment” approach to social policy I heard about once?
nm if it is a hijack.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s the end of this discussion then.
Are you referring to a fertile egg, or are you claiming that an unborn child is a member of society? Do the parents get a Tax break for an unborn child even if that unborn has not yet taken on the appearance of a child? If a woman miscarries does she get a tax break if the miscarriage occurs just before the end of the year? Should a man get a break for all his sperm, since they are potential humans(should they enter a woman’s body) and contain human life?
Should society be willing to make sure non of those born children do not starve to death (like many do in 3d world countries)? Isn’t that just as wrong as stopping a child from forming in the early stages? Is taking a Morning after pill wrong, even if there was not a conception(and who can tell the day after intercourse)? Every act of intercourse does not produce a child. Isn’t a good preventative better than having a child be born when it is very possible it may starve to death because the parents cannot provide the necessary food, etc.?
Calling something slaughter is an inaccurate term, just a way to try to control people through guilt!! Can you decide a woman cannot act in self defense as some do? Would you be willing to adopt all the possible children that would be (in your words) slaughtered? Let you family go with out to do so? If not then in my opinion you can’t, and shouldn’t decide what a woman can or can’t do with her body or the health and welfare of her already born.
I’m claiming that even though an unborn child is not considered a member ofsociety, my opinion is that he or she should be.
No, they don’t.
No, she doesn’t.
sigh
Yes. A man should get several million deductions.
I think this converstion is over.
I’m still not seeing the linkage between abortion and UHC. I suppose you could say that UHC doesn’t cover fetuses if abortion is allowed, but so what? We finance UHC with tax dollars (or whatever) and none of those dollars is allowed to finance abortions. There are two different switches you can flip. One switch gives you legal abortions or not and the other switch gives you UHC or not.