Seems more ethical than claiming a right to other people's things.So you're perfectly happy to exercise that right without er acknowledging you have it.
Riiight...
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Seems more ethical than claiming a right to other people's things.So you're perfectly happy to exercise that right without er acknowledging you have it.
Riiight...
You sure like to levy that charge.More hypocritical, surely?
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
My position is consistent. I don't have a right to anyones goods or labor, which is what healtchcare consists of.
I have a right to live, assemble, reap the rewards of my own labor, and a few others. These rights are innate to me. They do not require goods or labor from someone else. I have these rights until someone physically deprives me of the, through theft, murder, slavery, & etc.
I don't have a right to anyone else's stuff. Not their medicine, access to their operating tables, not their billable hours of labor as a doctor. And not someone else's food, clothing, shelter, & etc.
Explain to me how I have a right to someone else's stuff?
....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
I pay tax for that - a lot of tax; why pay twice for the same things? You don't buy a dog and then bark yourself...
Then kindly answer it!
I think we are talking past each other. It would be helpful if you gave your definition of a "right".
I will start.
In the United States a right is a legal entitlement guaranteed by the Constitution. The most famous rights are found in the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Just because something is legal does not mean it is a right, as laws can be repealed or changed.
And what if the people needing treatment can't afford to pay for them directly?Correct.
Healthcare is a service provided by others, who , for the most part, pay for their own education, office space and other tools of the trade. Just like attorneys and veteranarians,They are entitled to paid for their services by the people who use them.
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 ".That author takes quite a leap from just this one statememt:
"Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
I don't see how one can say Locke believed in a natural right to healthcare from the above.
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.Wait you want to me to answer your begging the questions fallacy?
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...
He wrote that if they have the means/objects to provide for their health, we can't take them away from someone.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...