Why is anti-abortion invasion of a woman’s medical privacy but forced Health Care for all medical needs is not?
September 26, 2011 by admin
Filed under health care
provide health info for visitors
September 26, 2011 by admin
Filed under health care
Once again, apples to oranges. Women have 100% access to condoms, birth control pills, and adoption agencies. None of those solutions involve murdering a child. Abortion is not invading a woman’s medical privacy, abortion is murdering an innocent child because it might prove to be an “inconvenience.”
Forced medical care is forcing me to buy a product or face legal sanctions. Health care will raise the already sky-high unemployment and debt, and lower quality of health care and yield a shortage of physicians. It’s going to cause a lot of damage.
I still can’t see how you can make any sense out of this fail analogy.
typical liberal view point!
a matter of convenient hypocrisy for liberals and abortionists. par for the course.
The question requires that a fetus be looked upon as a person, which is exactly the point of contention. See the fallacy “begging the question”.
From a Libertarian standpoint, the “child” in question belongs to the host, or mother carrying it. And it is nobodies business.
Same with health care. If I have it or not is no ones business. I am told my not having health care costs all of “us” more for our health care. Not me and the millions that don’t have it however. (I would like to see a study of the healthy people that do not have health care.) It is not simply because we can’t afford it, most of us do not need it. Forcing us to have health care is a boon to the insurance companies, again.
And “forced” abortion or “forced” birthing, forced insuring – it is coercion at its worst by a tyrannical government.
I am always amazed how many Americans seem not to be aware about the real healthcare issues relying instead on FOX and other sources to spread lies about the healthcare system of the USA and those abroad. I mean, if healthcare in nations with universal coverage is so bad, why do they keep it?
Obama wants to make insurance more available to all and change the system so that it gives the American people value for money [1]. He also wants change so that the insurance companies find it harder to get out of paying for treatment. The system he is proposing looks similar to that which works in Taiwan where private companies are involved in providing healthcare [2].
Obama campaigned on reforming the healthcare system. He said he wanted to make insurance more available and he was elected by the American people to do this [3].
FACT – the US has higher death rates for kids both for kids aged under one and those under five than western European countries with universal health coverage [4].
FACT – American insurance companies push up prices and work to stop paying out claims on those they cover [5].
FACT – the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet [6].
That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in any western nation with universal health coverage.
If you do not like the policies that Obama was elected to bring in, he can always be voted out of office in 2012. But if you disagree with the facts, please let me know. I am always willing to learn, but please provide proof. None of those who disagree with me have been able to do that so far.
Simple. “Anti-abortion” resists the initiation of force against another person and is therefore intolerable to Democrats.
“Health Care for all” IS forced by guns, badges and handcuffs and is therefore demanded by Democrats.
Democrats are ALWAYS all about “might makes right” FORCE – no exceptions – ever.
I guess I don’t get it. Women decide to go to a doctor to procure an abortion. No one goes out and forces people with health insurance to visit a doctor if they don’t want to.