isn't it a reasonable assumption the quality of life should also be a major consideration? What am I missing? The costs? It doesn't seem to bother "conservatives" that we have spent over half a trillion dollars in Iraq? Help me to understand why we couldn't have spent that same money on Americans.
2007-08-11 07:03:34 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
A lot of people believe in a person's right to life, from the very moment of conception, right up until birth.
2007-08-11 07:08:50 · answer #1 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Yes, the money plays an important role as I think the government already doles out too many freebies to teenage mothers. However, it's not just the money that we should be looking at. We are dealing with a generation of young people who immature and who are not financially nor mentally equipped to deal with raising a child on their own. If they don't want to carry the baby to term, I say let them have the abortion. It's definitely better than the consequences in the long term.
2016-05-19 22:42:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming you are open-minded to consider different perspectives, here is mine...
First, people are not "anti-healthcare for all" (i think this would be great if everyone had healthcare insurance), just "anti-government controlled healthcare that is completely funded by government". The government basically exists to "protect" people, property and state from "foreign and domestic" enemies. Healthcare is individual resonsibility, just like personal finance, education and religion. In fact, because it is so individualistic, varied (consider those that never seem to be sick, to those that have many ailments) and individuals have personal preferences (choice of doctors, treatments, convenience) that there is no way to equitably and qualitatively provide healthcare for every individual. It will become socialized which translates into low quality, more sick and unhappy citizens.
The government subsidizes medicine a great deal, but it should never take control of healthcare. It is a known fact that government controlled programs are never better than privately run.
In regards to your statement on Iraq, that money is being spent on Americans and protecting the freedoms to live in a country where you can choose your own healthcare, occupation, education and religion.
2007-08-11 07:22:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Saying that being pro-(life) means (healthcare for all) is like saying pro-(abortion) means (death penalty).
Do not blur the issues or make false assumptions based on one instance/issue.
I tried to answer this question line by line but you seem one tangled mess of emotion who seems to feel that by calling something reasonable means you thought the issue through.
Here is what you are missing:
Pro-life means they believe that once an egg and sperm join, a new life has been created and should be allowed the chance to live or die by natural process.
Health care for all can mean several things: could even mean that everyone is working for companies that provide health care, but the idea that the government HAS to provide health care is, frankly, dangerous.
Government is an entity created by man that has no life, spirit, soul, or compassion- much like a business. If you do not meet the guidelines of what the government sets, you do not get help. Period. This is what you would trust your health care to? Look at government housing- if you make 1 dollar outside the guidelines, you are on the street. Tell me how great the health care system would be.
What bothers me most about Iraq is that for all the compassion I hear coming from liberals about what should and should not be cared for here in America, they do not show any signs of caring about the plight the Iraqi people would face if left to stand without a functioning government to provide protection of them from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and any hostile organized group of individuals who would proclaim themselves rulers. In order to pull the troops out make claims of a civil war but Dar fur, which is clearly in a sad state of civil war/unrest is a higher priority? Perhaps we could use the (how many?) examples that former President Clinton used the military and left each and every one in shambles and shame.
We went to Iraq on faulty information- so be it- but the reason we went was to help Americans. There is no guarantee that had Saddam had nuclear weapons he would not have used or sold them. Since the information we and some of our allies had suggested he did, they felt caution was the better part of valor. Yes, North Korea has nuclear capabilities, but how much of that is due to our "soft" approach?
Might does not make right, but it makes us left. Yes, the meek inherit the earth...and generally it is six feet around them on all sides.
2007-08-11 07:34:43 · answer #4 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't seem to bother most Liberals that over 44 million babies have had their lives ended in the womb. If we vote for Heath Care would you vote against abortion. The major reason given for on demand abortion is inconvenience. When does the child get to enjoy their Constitutional Rights to, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Do you thing the Framers, had they known what was coming would have made abortion a Constitutional Right, which it isn't. It's legal, not Constitutional. Tax payer supplied Health care is not a Constitutional Right either.
2007-08-11 07:23:58 · answer #5 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why don't people that believe in free or subsidized healthcare for all, just start a non-profit organization, based on tax deductible donations, that would provide benefits to people who are needy? It seems like it's about 50/50 for "universal healthcare", so it should be successful. I would not want the government to run this sort of healthcare, but I would be interested in donating some of my companies pre-tax money towards a noble cause every year.
Your heart is in the right place, if you want to provide people in need, some relief, but your logic is faulty. The government does NOT need it's hands in this. YOU can do better, and hold your board of directors accountable.
2007-08-11 07:29:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The same reason people who call themselves *pro life* are for quagmires and the death penalty..they really arent pro-life, just pro-birth and antichoice
It's just a juicy topic that presents a good opportunity for holier than thous to stand on a soap box and tell others their sh*t smells like perfume
2007-08-11 08:08:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you look at the costs of health care for all you will see it will easily overtake the costs of the War in Iraq and add to the burden of entitlements that lock in the federal budget to a point where we will never be able to fund basic government operations.
2007-08-11 07:24:18 · answer #8 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Once you have the government providing for ALL your needs, where do you draw the line? We all NEED a place to live...so should the government give us all free housing? We all NEED transportation to get to work...so should the government give us all cars? We all NEED food to eat...so should the government give us all our food?
That's not to say, there shouldn't be mechanisms in place to help those truly in need, but expecting the government to meet ALL of our needs is not practical...let alone feasible...nor is it the government's JOB. We don't need...nor should we want a "Nanny State." It is an unhealthy and self-destructive mindset that will surely destroy this country.
2007-08-11 08:33:50 · answer #9 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Mankind is a paradox in itself.
I never have understood the social conservatives desire to end abortion and their reluctance to pay the medical expenses of children. In one breath they say it's a life not a choice. In the next they ask why should they pay for healthcare for someone else's child.
I shall never understand that paradox.
2007-08-11 07:15:54 · answer #10 · answered by Perplexed Bob 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋