Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pelosi hails church agency on health reform
The United Methodist Church ^ | UPDATED 6:00 P.M. EST March 22, 2010 | United Methodist News Service

Posted on 03/22/2010 6:33:24 PM PDT by iceskater

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: P-Marlowe

The right to life does not mean you have to provide me with food.
The right to health care does not mean you have to provide me with medicine.
You cannot obstruct my access to food, however, or you are actively killing me.
You cannot obstruct my access to medicine, however, or you are actively killing me.


61 posted on 03/23/2010 2:52:36 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; iceskater; blue-duncan; wmfights; wagglebee
If you’ve got 10 vials of cure and 10 people with disease and all 10 can pay your price, but you arbitrarily obstruct one man’s purchase, even though he can pay, then you have killed him by denying him his right to life.

No, the disease killed him. Maybe I'm saving vial number 10 for me or my children or I want to sell it on e-bay for a higher price.

So if I withhold one vial for some arbitrary reason, what business is that of anyone other than myself? I am not obstructing your access to health care any more than Dom Perignon is obstructing my access to champagne.

The right to life does not include the obligation of someone else to sell you or give you some magic tonic or perform some medical procedure (for free or for pay) to keep you alive. The right to life means only that no one other than God has the right to take your life from you. It does not obligate others to keep you alive. That may be a moral obligation, but it is not a constitutional obligation. Under the Constitution, if it makes me happy to watch you die when I have the power to save you, then I have that constitutional right to do nothing to help you as long as I do nothing to hurry the process along.

62 posted on 03/23/2010 3:42:12 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The right to health care does not mean you have to provide me with medicine.

Then there is no such right as a "right to heath care."

Even if there was, the only right you would have is to perform your own health care. There are a lot of web sites which show you how to take out an appendix. Just grab a knife and a mirror. If I stand in your way, or if I take away your knife or your mirror, then I suppose you could say I was obstructing your right to take out your own appendix. But other than that, you have no "right to health care" any more than you have a right to happiness.

63 posted on 03/23/2010 3:46:52 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Do you believe in the right to life?


64 posted on 03/23/2010 3:53:12 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; Forest Keeper; iceskater; blue-duncan; wmfights; wagglebee

“his right to life”

Where is it written that the “right to life” is more important than the “right to happiness”? i.e. why should I have to buy insurance when the money could be better used on spring break or why should I be deprived of a new car every year so that someone else can buy insurance?

Charity comes from the heart, not the government.


65 posted on 03/23/2010 3:53:55 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Forest Keeper; iceskater; blue-duncan; wmfights; wagglebee
Do you believe in the right to life?

The right to life is not the same as the right to live.

The right to life means that nobody can actively take your life from you.

The right to live (which is what you seem to be proposing with the "right to health care") would necessarily carry with it a concomitant obligation upon everyone else to do all within their power to keep you alive.

So are you advocating for a "right to live"? Is society then under an obligation to keep you alive even as death is knocking on your door? If there is a "right to live" then the government would have a moral and legal obligation to provide not only for everyone's health insurance, but to actively provide everyone's medical treatment.

If there is a "right to health care" then the government would be obligated to ensure that everyone not only have access to it, but that everyone have it. In that case Obamacare certainly does not go far enough.

66 posted on 03/23/2010 4:20:00 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Does your believing in a right to life mean that YOU have an obligation to provide me with food to keep me alive?


67 posted on 03/23/2010 4:23:08 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Forest Keeper; iceskater; blue-duncan; wmfights; wagglebee
Does your believing in a right to life mean that YOU have an obligation to provide me with food to keep me alive?

I personally have a moral obligation to provide you with that which by the Grace of God, you cannot provide for yourself. That is charity. I have no right to demand that someone else provide you with those necessities nor do you have a right to demand that I do so under penalty of law.

To force me to pay for your food is to rob me of my money and steal from me the opportunity to be charitable with what God has provided me. Frankly forced charity is a sin in that it robs God of the glory and gives glory to the politicians who passed the laws which compel citizens to pay for your food and other necessities.

Churches which advocate for government sponsored social programs paid for by the general treasury are robbing God.

68 posted on 03/23/2010 4:32:12 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
So, just because you believe in a right to life does NOT mean that you have a responsibility to provide me with the food necessary to keep me alive. Now corollary - Definition of corollary at YourDictionary ... noun pl. corollaries-·lar′·ies. a proposition that follows from another that has been proved; an inference or deduction; anything that follows as a normal result I consider the "right to health care" to be a corollary of the right to life. (I also consider the right to bear arms to be a corollary to the right to life.) The same as with food and the right to life, that does not mean that you have a responsibility to provide me with medicine or to provide me with a gun.
69 posted on 03/23/2010 4:38:08 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Well we beat this horse to death.

Check this out!

70 posted on 03/23/2010 6:16:18 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson