Search results

Then explain, using evidence not merely opinion, how there is no conflict. Is that an easier way of asking the question?

We are talking about the right to access healthcare as a corollary of the right to life. Once again you have misunderstood the issue and made a series of bare assertions with no evidence adduced to support them. So, once more for clarity: I am asking how you square being 'pro-life' with being...

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

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.

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

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...

No-one here, certainly not me, is denying the right for heslthcarenprofessionals to be paid a fair wage for their labour

I want you to explain how you square the circle of claiming to be "pro-life" * and yet at the same time be anti- the principle of universal access to healthcare. *If you won't answer it then the obvious qualifier is "offer expires at birth"

Except that Locke expressly included the right to health in his definition of 'natural rights'. He goes on to say that we must not "take away or impair...that which tends to the preservation of life ". It's pretty explicit; I don't see how you can talk your way out of this one...

And what if the people needing treatment can't afford to pay for them directly?

....but if you want to appeal to Natural Law, then you only have to go as far as John Locke to have health mentioned as a right. This article is particularly pertinent to our discussion: http://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/article/viewFile/924/838

Ok you both seem to be arguing from Natural Law concepts which stem as much from the Enlightenment and classical Greece as they do from the Bible and Christian thought and therefore are not sufficient in framing a specifically Christian answer to the issue at hand

I say what I see: enjoying a right whilst pretending it doesn't exist is either hypocrisy or self-delusion. And legal decisions and documents can confer rights eg: Magna Carta, US Constitution etc

And your evidence....? Or is it just more bare assertion?

This however: US ranked worst healthcare system, while the NHS is the best

More hypocritical, surely?

"Other people's roads"? The public highway....unless you're saying that's your road, that you own it. (I know plenty of drivers who behave like they think they do own it, but that's another matter.)

So you're perfectly happy to exercise that right without er acknowledging you have it. Riiight...

I just acknowledge that in a functioning society these reciprocal rights and obligations are being exercised all the time. You just perhaps don't realise it or accept it, in which case why do you pay taxes or drive on other people's roads at all? Think about it: every time you drive on the...

Pure opinion with no substantiation: a bare assertion and therefore without validity. I will concede that we have an inept lame duck Conservative Prime Minister and government who have starved the health service of essential funding but that doesn't mean our doctors are more dumb than yours...