It is intellectually dishonest to be Pro-life and Anti-Universal Healthcare

I mean, if life is so precious, why aren't pro-lifers trying to preserve it?

Thoughts?

I'm against the healthcare law because it actually harms more then it hurts. Before insurance companies came into the picture the poor actually got service for free, if you couldn't pay full price the doctors were more often then not willing to do it for less, or even free, because they could afford to. Then insurance came in and everyone had to have it to get into hospitals, and yet it usually does its best to avoid paying and the people don't have money any more so doctors have overall less money then before, and so benefits to those of lesser incomes as the people decided no longer exist. Universal healthcare is all that and then some, plus it's in no way free, it costs everyone even more then they were paying for insurance already.mariostar0001

In no way dd you contrast pro-life/anti-UHC. Regardless of the fiscal realities of paying for Healthcare, if people feel so strongly about being pro-life (as well as the value of caring for the poor) any fiscal cares should be trumped by the protection of life, right? The argument of babies not being asked to be conceived is made time and time again, what about the mother who's been healthy all her life that's been diagnosed with breastcancer? The grandfather that's had a life changing stroke?

Pro-lifers have all but aligned themselves with people who are determined to turn medicare into Vouchercare, which will pay for less care (more money spent out-of-pocket) and cover less people. Doesn't make senses.

Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adults

How are they even comparable? An individual's right to kill or not kill her baby, vs a government sponsered program that provides healthcare for everyone

In short; no, its not intellectually dishonest

[QUOTE="mariostar0001"]I'm against the healthcare law because it actually harms more then it hurts. Before insurance companies came into the picture the poor actually got service for free, if you couldn't pay full price the doctors were more often then not willing to do it for less, or even free, because they could afford to. Then insurance came in and everyone had to have it to get into hospitals, and yet it usually does its best to avoid paying and the people don't have money any more so doctors have overall less money then before, and so benefits to those of lesser incomes as the people decided no longer exist. Universal healthcare is all that and then some, plus it's in no way free, it costs everyone even more then they were paying for insurance already.Ultimas_Blade

In no way dd you contrast pro-life/anti-UHC. Regardless of the fiscal realities of paying for Healthcare, if people feel so strongly about being pro-life (as well as the value of caring for the poor) any fiscal cares should be trumped by the protection of life, right? The argument of babies not being asked to be conceived is made time and time again, what about the mother who's been healthy all her life that's been diagnosed with breastcancer? The grandfather that's had a life changing stroke?

Pro-lifers have all but aligned themselves with people who are determined to turn medicare into Vouchercare, which will pay for less care (more money spent out-of-pocket) and cover less people. Doesn't make senses.

Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adults

How are they even comparable? An individual's right to kill or not kill her baby, vs a government sponsered program that provides healthcare for everyone

In short; no, its not intellectually dishonest

DivergeUnify

Oh how I wish threads would end when the TC is shut down like this.

But knowing OT this will go on for 10 more pages of political bulls***.

Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adultsDivergeUnify

A life is a life is it not? For all the moral (and for some religious)questions that surround these debates, how can you rationalize an adult's life and fetus's life are not the same? Why does saving the fetus come before preserving the adult?

Nobody's saying healthcare is free (which I alluded to in my earlier response, fiscal realities, etc). What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system? Why shouldn't the community want to ensure it has healthy citizens? Not only would UHC do much in the way of early detection (which SAVES money) of ailments, but you have a population that isn't spending so much time not working because they are much healthier.

It could be worse, people could just not talk about it at all and let the government do whatever they want. :Pmariostar0001

Right, right. Without the discussion, people just vote mindlessly.

What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system?

Ultimas_Blade

"We want you to have the baby, but we don't want our tax dollars used to take care of it"

I mean, if life is so precious, why aren't pro-lifers trying to preserve it?

Thoughts?

Ultimas_Blade

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system?

mariostar0001

I totally agree that the ACA will eventually become single payer as long as a "third-way" Democrat never take the presidency. And I don't have too many issues with the rest of what you said either.

But lets not get off topic, one can't be pro-life and then bitterly turn their cheek as people die due to fiscal hurdles.

"We want you to have the baby, but we don't want our tax dollars used to take care of it"

Blue-Sky

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adultsUltimas_Blade

A life is a life is it not? For all the moral (and for some religious)questions that surround these debates, how can you rationalize an adult's life and fetus's life are not the same? Why does saving the fetus come before preserving the adult?

Nobody's saying healthcare is free (which I alluded to in my earlier response, fiscal realities, etc). What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system? Why shouldn't the community want to ensure it has healthy citizens? Not only would UHC do much in the way of early detection (which SAVES money) of ailments, but you have a population that isn't spending so much time not working because they are much healthier.

1) Abortion is a personal decision. It is also a personal decision to do whatever is neccessary to maintain one's health to the best of one's ability. Some people get terribly sick. We're animals. It happens. Organisms have been dying "unjustly" for billions of years( and humans for thousands of years)

2) Abortion is an explicit action to kill a baby/fetus. Not providing universal healthcare is not an explicit death sentence to individuals. If it was, if it was even comparable, there would be no USA right now

Whether we should have UHC provided is a decent debate, but not having it isn't morally comparable to not allowing abortion

One is an allowance for a mother to kill her fetus. The other is simply not resting all medical responsibility on the government.

But lets not get off topic, one can't be pro-life and then bitterly turn their cheek as people die due to fiscal hurdles.

Ultimas_Blade

Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adults

How are they even comparable? An individual's right to kill or not kill her baby, vs a government sponsered program that provides healthcare for everyone

In short; no, its not intellectually dishonest

DivergeUnify

Lol, TC just got owned. First page too, no less.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adultsDivergeUnify

A life is a life is it not? For all the moral (and for some religious)questions that surround these debates, how can you rationalize an adult's life and fetus's life are not the same? Why does saving the fetus come before preserving the adult?

Nobody's saying healthcare is free (which I alluded to in my earlier response, fiscal realities, etc). What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system? Why shouldn't the community want to ensure it has healthy citizens? Not only would UHC do much in the way of early detection (which SAVES money) of ailments, but you have a population that isn't spending so much time not working because they are much healthier.

1) Abortion is a personal decision. It is also a personal decision to do whatever is neccessary to maintain one's health to the best of one's ability. Some people get terribly sick. We're animals. It happens. Organisms have been dying "unjustly" for billions of years( and humans for thousands of years)

2) Abortion is an explicit action to kill a baby/fetus. Not providing universal healthcare is not an explicit death sentence to individuals. If it was, if it was even comparable, there would be no USA right now

Whether we should have UHC provided is a decent debate, but not having it isn't morally comparable to not allowing abortion

One is an allowance for a mother to kill her fetus. The other is simply not resting all medical responsibility on the government.

I don't necessarily disagree with how you are rationalizing this, but by having the current insuredHCsystem you are damning many people toavoidable fates. I don't see how you can say "people havebeen dying unjustly for billions of years" and then appeal to emotions with "allowance for a mother to kill her fetus". It's crocodile tears. You are stonecold in one breath yet all caring in the next.

Pro-lifers make the stand that life is precious but why is that scope just limited to abortion? All in all the abortion wedge is a baseless emotional appeal that helpselect people who would oppose things like Medicare (for the old)and Medicaid (for the poor and children) that help keep our loved ones ALIVE.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

But lets not get off topic, one can't be pro-life and then bitterly turn their cheek as people die due to fiscal hurdles.

mariostar0001

No I wasn't saying we were off topic because we disagreed about anything, webegan talking about UHC solely and strayed away from what the topic was about. Why the hell would I discuss something in that manner...

[QUOTE="mariostar0001"][QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

But lets not get off topic, one can't be pro-life and then bitterly turn their cheek as people die due to fiscal hurdles.

Ultimas_Blade

No I wasn't saying we were off topic because we disagreed about anything, webegan talking about UHC solely and strayed away from what the topic was about. Why the hell would I discuss something in that manner...

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="mariostar0001"] I'm not off-topic, within the grounds of debate (you can't make a statement like that and expect people to not disagree with you). But if on-topic requires agreeing with your topic, then maybe I am, and I don't care, I'll do it anyway. 8)mariostar0001

No I wasn't saying we were off topic because we disagreed about anything, webegan talking about UHC solely and strayed away from what the topic was about. Why the hell would I discuss something in that manner...

Oh. No, I like to debate forwardly, but in no way would I seek to force an opinion on somebody. That always just winds up working against whatever point you're making. No harm done.

Because somebody has to think of the children.

[spoiler] Sarcasm [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

A life is a life is it not? For all the moral (and for some religious)questions that surround these debates, how can you rationalize an adult's life and fetus's life are not the same? Why does saving the fetus come before preserving the adult?

Nobody's saying healthcare is free (which I alluded to in my earlier response, fiscal realities, etc). What about the people who haveunexpected accidents or ailments that they cannot afford in the current system? Why shouldn't the community want to ensure it has healthy citizens? Not only would UHC do much in the way of early detection (which SAVES money) of ailments, but you have a population that isn't spending so much time not working because they are much healthier.

Ultimas_Blade

1) Abortion is a personal decision. It is also a personal decision to do whatever is neccessary to maintain one's health to the best of one's ability. Some people get terribly sick. We're animals. It happens. Organisms have been dying "unjustly" for billions of years( and humans for thousands of years)

2) Abortion is an explicit action to kill a baby/fetus. Not providing universal healthcare is not an explicit death sentence to individuals. If it was, if it was even comparable, there would be no USA right now

Whether we should have UHC provided is a decent debate, but not having it isn't morally comparable to not allowing abortion

One is an allowance for a mother to kill her fetus. The other is simply not resting all medical responsibility on the government.

I don't necessarily disagree with how you are rationalizing this, but by having the current insuredHCsystem you are damning many people toavoidable fates. I don't see how you can say "people havebeen dying unjustly for billions of years" and then appeal to emotions with "allowance for a mother to kill her fetus". It's crocodile tears. You are stonecold in one breath yet all caring in the next.

Pro-lifers make the stand that life is precious but why is that scope just limited to abortion? All in all the abortion wedge is a baseless emotional appeal that helpselect people who would oppose things like Medicare (for the old)and Medicaid (for the poor and children) that help keep our loved ones ALIVE.

while you have a point based on a technicality, that isn't what pro-life means.

Pro-life people don't care about you if you are already born. :P

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

I don't necessarily disagree with how you are rationalizing this, but by having the current insuredHCsystem you are damning many people toavoidable fates. I don't see how you can say "people havebeen dying unjustly for billions of years" and then appeal to emotions with "allowance for a mother to kill her fetus". It's crocodile tears. You are stonecold in one breath yet all caring in the next.

Pro-lifers make the stand that life is precious but why is that scope just limited to abortion? All in all the abortion wedge is a baseless emotional appeal that helpselect people who would oppose things like Medicare (for the old)and Medicaid (for the poor and children) that help keep our loved ones ALIVE.

DivergeUnify

I hear ya. We are getting hung up about who has to pay for what, but, even ifI don't know if we can totally agree, for pro-lifers there has to be some sort of grey area on this, especially the pro-lifers that where theirreligion on their shoulder (charity to the poor, etc).

Yes yes because aborting children and the provision of healthcare are remotely the same thing :| . Alrite let's spin this on you. How can one be Pro-Choice and Pro-Universal healthcare?

while you have a point based on a technicality, that isn't what pro-life means.

Pro-life people don't care about you if you are already born. :P

Serraph105

I understand perfectly what pro-life means :P However my point is that their line of thought should extend to preserving a life as well but instead this is mostly an exploitative political wedge.

Yes yes because aborting children and the provision of healthcare are remotely the same thing :| . Alrite let's spin this on you. How can one be Pro-Choice and Pro-Universal healthcare?

Espada12

That's extremely easy. I'd direct you to the myriad of progressive Americans, but simply enough: 1) A woman has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, even if somebody else thinks it's abhorrent 2) the cost of healthcare goes down when there is no/less profit motive from a middleman (insurers) 3) UHC would make the general population healthier and it would bring the life expectancy of those that aren't making huge salaries up.

I could go on but those are the major bullet points.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes yes because aborting children and the provision of healthcare are remotely the same thing :| . Alrite let's spin this on you. How can one be Pro-Choice and Pro-Universal healthcare?

Ultimas_Blade

That's extremely easy. I'd direct you to the myriad of progressive Americans, but simply enough: 1) A woman has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, even if somebody else thinks it's abhorrent 2) the cost of healthcare goes down when there is no/less profit motive from a middleman (insurers) 3) UHC would make the general population healthier and it would bring the life expectancy of those that aren't making huge salaries up.

I could go on but those are the major bullet points.

But opening up healthcare was to preserve life! Allowing unconditional abortions doesn't do that. It goes against what univeral healthcare stands for!!!

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Yes yes because aborting children and the provision of healthcare are remotely the same thing :| . Alrite let's spin this on you. How can one be Pro-Choice and Pro-Universal healthcare?

Espada12

That's extremely easy. I'd direct you to the myriad of progressive Americans, but simply enough: 1) A woman has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body, even if somebody else thinks it's abhorrent 2) the cost of healthcare goes down when there is no/less profit motive from a middleman (insurers) 3) UHC would make the general population healthier and it would bring the life expectancy of those that aren't making huge salaries up.

I could go on but those are the major bullet points.

But opening up healthcare was to preserve life! Allowing unconditional abortions doesn't do that. It goes against what univeral healthcare stands for!!!

Iam not anti-abortion. You asked how could I be pro-choice and pro-UHC, so I told you.

I don't think that people should be able to just get abortions willy nilly (as in abortion should not be a contraceptive), but I do think that if there was UHC, contraceptive measures (like those hormone implants that prevent pregnancy for years at a time safely)would be widely available and beused before that fateful moment of an unwanted pregnancy. That intelligently reduces abortions without restricting access to them and achieves the goal of UHC.

I'm pro-life and was pro-public option back when it was still being considered. And really the only problem I had with Obamacare was that it was "mandatory". I want to be able to have no health care at no penalty if I so choose. (Because currently, in my situation, it would be cheaper for me to by my meds at the inflated full price than to pay for healthcare AND the copay. Luckily, that's not an immediate concern as I'm still on my dad's plan.)

But to the question at hand, no it's not. Pro-life deals with the action or in-action of killing babies. Universal health care is a purely economic issue. It is possible to regulate private health care to ensure that people who need treatment but can't afford it still get it.

Like I said though, I was pro public option and not anti-obama care save one stipulation. Make the private health care providers shake in their boots and force them to compete with a free option. The free market, baby. 8)

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]

Aborting defenseless babies vs. not providing "free" healthcare for mostly-capable adults

How are they even comparable? An individual's right to kill or not kill her baby, vs a government sponsered program that provides healthcare for everyone

In short; no, its not intellectually dishonest

th3warr1or

Lol, TC just got owned. First page too, no less.

Thread should have been closed after this ownage.

I'm on the side that says do away with healthcare altogether, insurance and all.mariostar0001

Uh, wait, what?

I feel like there must be a word either missing or misplaced in here. :P

No, there's a value system of principles. Even if someone who is pro-life believed UHC was the ideal system.

Pro life or Pro choice... Just political, dishonest euphemisms.

Considering that I think the Affordable Healthcare Act will ulitimately increase costs and lower the quality of care...... and abortion is ending human's life...... I can't say that I see how it is intellectually dishonest.

no opinion on abortion personally but most pro-lifers see an unborn baby as a full rights person and abortion as murder. having legal murder and not wanting to take from others to provide for your self are in no way shape or form alike. being against murder and being against theft when boiling down both issues to their actual effect is not intellectually dishonest. if you put emotional spins and what ever individual views you wish to project on to some one else's opinion you can make it look dishonest, but that could be said with just about any thing.

Those two don't necessarily compare. A better comparison would be whether it is intellectually dishonest to be pro-life and pro death penalty. Or vice versa.

I'm pro-life and I want universal health care...jeremiah06

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]I'm pro-life and I want universal health care...surrealnumber5

I mean, if life is so precious, why aren't pro-lifers trying to preserve it?

Thoughts?

Ultimas_Blade

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]I'm pro-life and I want universal health care...sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] still not a dishonest view as the two are not comparable, they are separate issues, trying to relate the two as tc has tried to do is like me saying " all gays should be married because gas prices are on the rise" a complete non sequitur

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

I mean, if life is so precious, why aren't pro-lifers trying to preserve it?

Thoughts?

BranKetra