Is healthcare a right or a privilege II

Once the egg is fertilized, a baby will be born unless something prevents it, through disease, accident, or abortion. Being pro-life means no one has the right to take someone's life. You are altering the meaning for the sake of browbeating your perceived opponents, which seems to be one of your favorite debate tactics.

As soon as that baby is born, he still has the same right to not be murdered.

 

Uh no, I cannot answer an informal fallacy of begging the question. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

No I am not altering the meaning, merely stating it fully: if I see a man drowning and have the means to save him but refuse to, choosing to walk away, my act of walking away has deprived him of his right to life and, morally, I have killed him as surely as if I'd placed my foot on his head and forced him underwater.

 

So you won't answer how you square the circle. Then you are merely "pro-life (offer expires at birth)".

 

You are question begging, You assume that universal health care is the only means to help people but such is not true nor has there been any attempt to prove it. This is what liberals do. If you do not agree with how they want to help people then they work to paint you as being against helping people. Its their way or you are guilty of lack of compassion. Its incorrect, its immoral, and its a political debate tactic and not an impressive one.

 

You are still refusing to answer the question. You duck and you dive and you name-call, but your deafening silence on the question demonstrates you can't answer it.

 

Again more debate tactic of one losing the argument. You ignore your informal fallacy use to make an accusation that is based on a premise that is proven false. Good luck with that.

 

Lol!! You haven't proven anything as you continue to be unable to answer the question!

 

You choose to support the right to bear arms (which is debatable since the Constitution was talking about an armed militia to protect the country). I support spending our tax dollars, not because it's a right given to us by the government because I interpret it as a challenge given to us by our Lord. I'm comfortable with my position.

 

No I'm seriously responding to your statement. "There's only two things in the Constitution that are specifically named to be paid for with taxes. The national debt and the defense of the nation."

 

Your organization doesn't really support senior citizens of which I am one. It's just another far right extremist group to support radical policies.

 

I agree entirely with the above. I'm sure we will disagree about exactly how and in what form. I support "safety nets" as opposed to a single payer system, but making sure that everyone has the are they need is a godly and admirable goal.

(Pardon the snip. I know some are touchy about it.)

 

Of course it does but you must be referring to radical policies that match the founding of this country. If that is a radical then count me as one.

 

Once again you ignore your informal fallacy

 

See folks his informal fallacy is his unproven and false premise which is that if you do not support universal health care then you do not want to help people in need therefore you are willing to let them die and because of this you are not pro life.

1. it is not true that one must accept universal health care in order want to help people in need.
2. It is not true that universal health care is the only way to meet the needs of people who cannot afford health care.
3. It is not true that rejecting universal health care means you want to let people die.

Asserting such is called begging the question. It is n informal fallacy which reasonable people should avoid.

I am not understanding why this needs explanation.

 

Yes, and what about that true statement of mine?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

Healthcare is neither a "right" nor a "privilege". It's simply a service that has to be paid for when needed, like any other service.

But since liberals believe government money is magic money and comes from nowhere, it's "free" if the government pays for it. And if it's free, it's a "right".

 

They also seem to think it grows on trees. Further government is the worst most inefficient way to accomplish things. There is also a danger of encroachment on freedoms. These are reasons to make government as small as possible and seen only as a necessary evil. However, there are some who still want a King to rule them. True Americans do not.

 

Disagree. Look up EMTALA. Legally, anyone who shows up in an Emergency Room seeking treatment must be stabilized and treated regardless of ability to pay.

And no, that right is not free. It is paid for by the providers since it is an unfunded mandate.

 

Using the word "right" to characterize such a legal obligation seems like a shift of meaning. I think that's why the conversation shifted towards natural rights.

As I see it, you pop out of the womb with every right, and if someone lived their entire life on a deserted island, they would still have every right. This other contructs, stemming from governments and businesses, are more properly understood as goals and obligations. In my opinion.