What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How can you be pro life and against heathcare for all? (1 Viewer)

IC FBGCav

Footballguy
I can not understand this.  Why are religious people not preaching in their churches healthcare for all?  No matter the cost! A life is a life!

 
If the baby in the womb matters so much, then why not care about it forever?  I don't like the plop and drop we have now.

 
When you meet your God and say I fought for the ones in the tummy but not the ones alive, what woud he say?

 
I can not understand this.  Why are religious people not preaching in their churches healthcare for all?  No matter the cost! A life is a life!
It's not that difficult to understand if you step outside of your own worldview and look at it from the perspective of someone who's pro-life.  Pretend for a moment that you think a fetus is "human" in some philosophically important sense, and that it has the right not to be killed by another person.  I get that you don't agree with that premise, but we're talking about the internal consistency of pro-lifers here, so we start from their point of view.  Nobody that I know of in the pro-life movement thinks that "Has the right not to be killed by me" is the same thing as "Has the right to be supported by me."  I'm not justified in axe-murdering the guy in the next office.  It doesn't follow that I'm obligated to pay for his groceries.

There are lots of people who are both pro-life and pro-free-healthcare.  It isn't that those positions are necessarily in conflict somehow.  It's just that they aren't the same thing.

This is really just another variant of the "If you're pro-life you have to oppose the death penalty" thing.  I am and I do, but changing my mind on one wouldn't affect my stance on the other.  

 
It's not that difficult to understand if you step outside of your own worldview and look at it from the perspective of someone who's pro-life.  Pretend for a moment that you think a fetus is "human" in some philosophically important sense, and that it has the right not to be killed by another person.  I get that you don't agree with that premise, but we're talking about the internal consistency of pro-lifers here, so we start from their point of view.  Nobody that I know of in the pro-life movement thinks that "Has the right not to be killed by me" is the same thing as "Has the right to be supported by me."  I'm not justified in axe-murdering the guy in the next office.  It doesn't follow that I'm obligated to pay for his groceries.

There are lots of people who are both pro-life and pro-free-healthcare.  It isn't that those positions are necessarily in conflict somehow.  It's just that they aren't the same thing.

This is really just another variant of the "If you're pro-life you have to oppose the death penalty" thing.  I am and I do, but changing my mind on one wouldn't affect my stance on the other.  
I am pro life, do you want me to shred you?

 
I agree with you about health care, for what it is worth, but you are attempting to argue semantics with religious people. Think about that. 

 
I agree with you about health care, for what it is worth, but you are attempting to argue semantics with religious people. Think about that. 
I have nothing to argue about, I am just talking about morals.  Semantics start with money and religion or any other evil.

 
You know the best thing about literature written long ago, you can pick the parts that matter to you and say, see this matters while ignoring the rest of the fiction.  

 
You are forgetting something. This voter you describe also wants a healthy, vibrant private prison industry.

In their perfect world, where all unwanted fetuses are born combined with massive spending cuts on healthcare and education, it would be a major windfall for the prison industry. You forgot to mention that wonderful benefit.

 
Freedom to live. 

Freedom to live your life without being robbed of what it would take to pay for healthcare for all. 

Liberals never get it. 

 
I agree. If someone can't afford these basic necessities, society should help.
I think its awesome that you are willing to have you and your family live at the "bare minimum" in order to support another family or two. Do you also pay for their internet? Keep up the great work that you are doing!

 
When abortion gets limited, low income births go up. Then they (republicans) want to take away help for low income families. So have those babies, just don't expect any help raising them. That's your problem. 

 
When abortion gets limited, low income births go up. Then they (republicans) want to take away help for low income families. So have those babies, just don't expect any help raising them. That's your problem. 
Why do you assume that the government is the only source of help for people?

 
Why do you assume that the government is the only source of help for people?
Why should they have any say in it at all? Republicans cater to Catholics and their abortion views and want to abolish abortion all together, even in a rape case because "god meant to put it there". Even if the mother has had multiple spinal surgeries and could end up paralyzed by carrying to term. I don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab, but it is healthcare, so if we cover healthcare then it should be available. 

In freakanomics by Stephen levitt he proposes that a sudden drop in a rapidly climbing crime rate in the 80s was due to abortions being available because there were suddenly less at risk children being born. If you're pro birth, then realize there are consequences that we all pay indirectly one way or another and we need to offer support to these low income at risk births. 

 
Why should they have any say in it at all? Republicans cater to Catholics and their abortion views and want to abolish abortion all together, even in a rape case because "god meant to put it there". Even if the mother has had multiple spinal surgeries and could end up paralyzed by carrying to term. I don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab, but it is healthcare, so if we cover healthcare then it should be available. 

In freakanomics by Stephen levitt he proposes that a sudden drop in a rapidly climbing crime rate in the 80s was due to abortions being available because there were suddenly less at risk children being born. If you're pro birth, then realize there are consequences that we all pay indirectly one way or another and we need to offer support to these low income at risk births. 
Who is stopping you?

 
Freedom to live. 

Freedom to live your life without being robbed of what it would take to pay for healthcare for all. 

Liberals never get it. 
Single payer is just a form of insurance with a nation-wide pool. It's the most sensible logistical system by far.

 
Ah the old multiple-spinal-surgery-woman-gets-pregnant-by-rape epidemic. Tough to argue against that.
The spinal girl I heard on NPR yesterday- the long term contraceptive she uses will no longer be available at planned parenthood. So it is an outlier but it happens. I forget which politician recently said that rape cases were a decision of god and we therefore should let it live, really should be up to the victim in my opinion and whatever their beliefs and conscience holds them to. 

I hate the idea of abortion but respect the rights of the woman making the choice and the reasoning behind it. My main point really is to point out that there are many issues to consider  and if you don't want to fund one thing let's put that funding where it helps with some of the future consequences. My wife and I try to support our community, volunteer, have coached, I have been a big brother, and a lot of the organizations I've volunteered for have received some sort of government funding. If they didn't they couldn't exist, so what, I should go make my own and try to fund it myself? I'm not rich, but time and simply paying attention to someone goes a long way. I would rather have my taxes go to helping people get healthcare or taking care of the nations impoverished youth by providing safe environments and food and education rather than pay the military billions just to function clerically.

Who is stopping you?
What do you do to help at risk kids in your community? 

 
Apologies for injecting politics into a morality-based thread but this is an issue that Democrats can make a winning policy centerpiece out of. They're never going to get the people who think that paying for health care out of tax revenues is "robbery" but there is probably a majority of people who either already embrace the ideal or who can be convinced of its effectiveness by the clear and decisive logic of it. Republican policies are difficult to defend when you have to denigrate a large number of the voting populace as it is; imagine them defending the system we have which leaves millions with poor access to health care yet still costs half again as much as systems in other industrial nations, all in the name of some kind of esoteric "freedom." Logic and efficiency is on the side of single payer and the awful Dems need to get their #### together and pound this point home.

 
Many pro-life people (and most conservatives in general) believe that the free market and voluntary charity is a more efficient way of helping poor people than through the government.

 
My main point really is to point out that there are many issues to consider  and if you don't want to fund one thing let's put that funding where it helps with some of the future consequences.

I would rather have my taxes go to helping people get healthcare or taking care of the nations impoverished youth by providing safe environments and food and education rather than pay the military billions just to function clerically.
I agree with all of this.

 
I can not understand this.  Why are religious people not preaching in their churches healthcare for all?  No matter the cost! A life is a life!
They are.  Well, at least some of them are.

The Catholic Church, for example, is all for providing healthcare for all.  You might feel they aren't being consistent because they didn't fully support the ACA when they were actually being consistent with their pro-life and pro- quality of life views.  If there was a plan presented that brought about gains in coverage (even including access for immigrants) while not providing for abortions, they'd be all over that.

 
They are.  Well, at least some of them are.

The Catholic Church, for example, is all for providing healthcare for all.  You might feel they aren't being consistent because they didn't fully support the ACA when they were actually being consistent with their pro-life and pro- quality of life views.  If there was a plan presented that brought about gains in coverage (even including access for immigrants) while not providing for abortions, they'd be all over that.
I grew up in the Catholic church. Went to college at gannon.  I don't think I can give an unbiased answer here.  So, I will abstain

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top