Catholics VS Health Care in America: Morally Embarrassing

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ReConverted said:
I was using those ridiculous examples to illustrate my point. Nice try at dodging, though. šŸ˜‰

Iā€™m not morally embarassed one bit, because I disagree with that decision. Itā€™s a fight to get my party to turn around to be sure, but itā€™s worth it, because the right wing in this country has gone from bad to abominableā€¦and they NEED to be opposed. Hopefully, the righties will start caring about humans that are already born someday. Jesus said to feed, clothe, and shelter the poor, so your appeals to the Constitution, etc. donā€™t matter. He told us what to do, **and there are no strings attached to that command of his **by the wayā€¦he told us to do it. PERIOD. Somehow, I doubt if our Lord cares one bit about how the poor are fedā€¦by individual, by the government, or both. He just wants it done.

And once again, weā€™re talking about abortion. Hmmā€¦ Amazing. Simply amazing.
Click to expand...
I dodged nothing. You are simply promoting abortifacients, no matter how you try to ease your conscience. Why amazing? The issue I have with the healthcare is abortion or the killing of so many human beings. So many so called pro life Catholic democrats try to make it something other than that.
 
ReapReason said:
I have been reading through this amazing thread, and i have to say that free health care is being held hostage by the abortion issue. I think this is wrong and is simply a sad excuse to oppose free heatlh care by emotionally blackmailing people.
Click to expand...
Health care is not free and it will never be free, Catholics VS the mandate to fund birth control, ā€œobama careā€ will mandate that everyone buy health insurance and if you donā€™t you will be fined and probably jailed if you donā€™t pay. How is that free?
 
dmelosi said:
Abortion is killing a human being. It is too bad that so many people think it is ok to do that.
Click to expand...
It is sad, but it is ultimatley irellivant to whether or not there should be free health care. Regardless of whether or not the state agrees that abortion is a legal possibility through such a system, it is a moral fact that we require free health care if our intentions is to have a healthy society where everybody is treated with the same moral value and not judged according to how much money they have. The idea that you must accept a lesser standard of treatment if you donā€™t want to get in to debt, or cannot afford it, is to me a moral abomination just like abortion; and does not in anyway reflect the value of humanbeings. Instead of opposing free health care, you should be trying to remove abortion from the free health care system by attacking the legal system. Opposing free health care does not in anyway challenge the fact that abortion is legal, and therefore you are holding people hostage for no good reason. You are attacking the wrong target, and people are going to suffer becuase of it. Two wrongs donā€™t make a right.

Accepting free health care appears to be the lesser of two evils; since abortion is legal regardless of whether or not free health care exists.
 
ReapReason said:
It is sad, but it is ultimatley irellivant to whether or not there should be free health care. Regardless of whether or not the state agrees that abortion is a legal possibility through such a system, it is a moral fact that we require free health care if our intentions is to have a healthy society where everybody is treated with the same moral value and not judged according to how much money they have. The idea that you must accept a lesser standard of treatment if you donā€™t want to get in to debt, or cannot afford it, is to me a moral abomination just like abortion; and does not in anyway reflect the value of humanbeings. Instead of opposing free health care, you should be trying to remove abortion from the free health care system by attacking the legal system. Opposing free health care does not in anyway challenge the fact that abortion is legal, and therefore you are holding people hostage for no good reason. You are attacking the wrong target, and people are going to suffer becuase it. To wrongs donā€™t make a right.

Accepting free health care appears to be the lesser of two evils; since abortion is legal regardless of whether or not free health care exists.
Click to expand...
You conveniently are leaving out the fact that each of us will then have to pay for abortions. There are way more holes in Obamacare than just abortion, but that is the major stumbling block in my eyes.
 
Please think, study, learn, and then think some more. There are things called facts that are very meaningful.

To say that ā€œrightiesā€ donā€™t care about humans that are already born is profoundly incorrect and insulting. I know many Christian/Catholic ā€œrightiesā€ that are loving, giving, beautiful people, who give both time and money in helping others. Most ā€œleftiesā€ that I know are very closed-minded, selfish, impatient, and hipocritical people who very often make off-handed fun of anything Christian, and oh yeah, do absolutely do nothing-zero-to contribute time or money towards helping anyone. Is this universally true? Certainly not. But there is no question as to which political orientation donates the most to charity. Itā€™s not even close. Thereā€™s no arguing that money givien to private charity goes much, much further towards the goal we all strive for - helping the needy - than money given to/through the government.

Abortion is a grave mortal sin. How any Catholic, or any thinking person, can argue otherwise is what is amazing to me. Jesus also made a little comment about ā€œwhat you do to the least of my brothers you do to me.ā€ How can we reconcile that with the fact that Obamacare promotes contraception, abortafacients, and abortion? Oh, I forgot, the carzy pro-life people are hijacking the healthcare issueā€¦

I could flood you with factual information as to why I think government healthcare as proposed through ā€œObama-careā€ is inherently bad, without even mentioning the inherent evil of abortion that is part of it. And if you think healthcare is ever freeā€¦well please read the first part of this post.

Sorry for the negative tone in this post. God Bless
 
dmelosi said:
You conveniently are leaving out the fact that each of us will then have to pay for abortions. There are way more holes in Obamacare than just abortion, but that is the major stumbling block in my eyes.
Click to expand...
I think this is a false problem. The state will take money from you in the form of tax to fund free heath care. It is true that some of that money will go to doctors who perform abortions. But, the greater problem is not the fact that some govement funding will go to abortion, but rather the problem is that abortion is legal. You are not responsible for the fact that abortion is legal, and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for the fact that abortion services will be incorporated into the healthcare system. Its the legal system that needs to be overturned and not free health care.

Being against free health care does not solve the problem; but in fact makes the situation worse. Which is why i say that free health care is the lesser of two evils.

Also when i think of free health care, i am thinking about the NHS, not obamacare.
 
ReapReason said:
I think this is a false problem. The state will take money from you in the form of tax to fund free heath care. It is true that some of that money will go to doctors who perform abortions. But, the greater problem is not the fact that some govement funding will go to abortion, but rather the problem is that abortion is legal. You are not responsible for the fact that abortion is legal, and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for the fact that abortion services will be incorporated into the healthcare system. Its the legal system that needs to be overturned and not free health care.

Being against free health care does not solve the problem; but in fact makes the situation worse. Which is why i say that free health care is the lesser of two evils.

Also when i think of free health care, i am thinking about the NHS, not obamacare.
Click to expand...
Lord, there is a voice of sanity on here! Thanks!
 
ReConverted said:
***Tell that to Pope Benedict. ***

alan.com/2010/11/19/pope-says-health-care-is-inalienable-right-a-moral-responsibility-of-governments/
Click to expand...
That is spin and inaccurate reporting. The pope did not say that governments should provide health care. Read his letter for yourself.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20101115_op-sanitari_en.html

Cardinal Bertone expanded on the popeā€™s letter and said ā€œJustice requires guaranteed universal access to health care.ā€ We already have universal access to health care. It is illegal for hospitals to turn away people who need immediate treatment,even if they canā€™t pay for it.

catholiccitizen.com/2010/03/pope-and-catholic-bishops-dont-support.html
 
It is incredible what principles some people give up to protect the party they are married to. We are not talking about an issue but the acceptance by so many Catholic democrats that killing the most innocent of human beings is the lesser of 2 evils. And then to call that the voice of sanity.
 
dmelosi - Amen. The arguments for ā€œfree health careā€ and the evils of the anti-abortionists are so factually, logically and moraly bankruptā€¦Iā€™m outa here. Iā€™m passionate about these isssues, but not wasting any more time here. I love my more left- leaning friends, but they behave the same way - facts, reality, respect for the good/intelligent parts of other peoplesā€™ views, truthā€¦none of this matters.

As for the NHS, maybe Iā€™ll make one last post-a compilation of just the top ten reasons why my spouse and inlaws are begging us Americans to see the path weā€™re going down; begging us to see that weā€™ll be the ones begging our government to go back to ā€œObamacareā€ once we get a taste of a truly nationalized healthcare system. It may sound goodā€¦but be afraid, be very afraid.

And please, ā€œfree healthcare,ā€ comā€™on people. If we really want to address the issues of reforming healthcare or the assult on religious freedom, and specifically the Catholic Church (can you say ā€œdivide and conquer,ā€ as weā€™re doing right here!) by the HHS mandate, thereā€™s no room or time for such infantile dialogue.

Peace and Love to all - I hope we can get this figured out.
 
dmelosi said:
It is incredible what principles some people give up to protect the party they are married to. We are not talking about an issue but the acceptance by so many Catholic democrats that killing the most innocent of human beings is the lesser of 2 evils. And then to call that the voice of sanity.
Click to expand...
This is a false representation of what has been said. This is what philosophers call a straw-man. This doesnā€™t speak kindly of you.

The argument is not ā€œkilling the most innocent of human beings is the lesser of 2 evils.ā€. I never said that. I pointed out only that the existence of abortion as a legal act has no rational connection to the potential existence of free healthcare. The argument that taxes would be used to fund abortion is irrelevant because the existence of abortion is contingent upon the legal system, and not upon the existence of free healthcare.

While it is a moral tragedy that abortion would probably if not certainly be incorporated into the free-health care system, it is also a moral tragedy to reject any human the potentiality of having universal and equal health care; regardless of their pay grade. It is wrong to treat people according to what they can afford, because it is an attack of the very dignity and value that God gives to all personal creatures. And so the value of human health cannot be dictated by ā€œmaterial valuesā€ because our worth transcends those kinds of value. Therefore all personal creatures ought to have access to the best that medical science has to offer regardless of their pay grade.

For example, a cure for HIV should be equally accessible by the poor and the rich.

Since the rejection of free health care is intrinsically immoral, then it follows that it cannot be rejected in favour of anti-abortion politics. Therefore it follows quite reasonably that the acceptance of free health care is the lesser of two evils since the existence of such does not mean that the problem of abortion cannot be dealt with by other means. Which means the debate on abortion is a legal matter, and not an excuse to deprive people of health care.

I also would like to point out that abortion is as much a cultural (beliefs) manifestation as much as it is legal; and therefore you would do well to convince people that abortion is wrong; rather than deprive poor people of proper health care.
 
ReapReason said:
I think this is a false problem. The state will take money from you in the form of tax to fund free heath care. It is true that some of that money will go to doctors who perform abortions. But, the greater problem is not the fact that some govement funding will go to abortion, but rather the problem is that abortion is legal. You are not responsible for the fact that abortion is legal, and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for the fact that abortion services will be incorporated into the healthcare system. Its the legal system that needs to be overturned and not free health care.

Being against free health care does not solve the problem; but in fact makes the situation worse. Which is why i say that free health care is the lesser of two evils.

Also when i think of free health care, i am thinking about the NHS, not obamacare.
Click to expand...
i dont agree, legalisation of abortion didnt make abortion a health care, obama made free abortion part of what was suppose to be basic healthcare that is where i have a problem. And do you sit and allow you money to be used for abortion and you say you are not morally responsible?
Ubenedictus.
 
ReapReason said:
This is a false representation of what has been said. This is what philosophers call a straw-man. This doesnā€™t speak kindly of you.

The argument is not ā€œkilling the most innocent of human beings is the lesser of 2 evils.ā€. I never said that. I pointed out only that the existence of abortion as a legal act has no rational connection to the potential existence of free healthcare. The argument that taxes would be used to fund abortion is irrelevant because the existence of abortion is contingent upon the legal system, and not upon the existence of free healthcare.

While it is a moral tragedy that abortion would probably if not certainly be incorporated into the free-health care system, it is also a moral tragedy to reject any human the potentiality of having universal and equal health care; regardless of their pay grade. It is wrong to treat people according to what they can afford, because it is an attack of the very dignity and value that God gives to all personal creatures. And so the value of human health cannot be dictated by ā€œmaterial valuesā€ because our worth transcends those kinds of value. Therefore all personal creatures ought to have access to the best that medical science has to offer regardless of their pay grade.

For example, a cure for HIV should be equally accessible by the poor and the rich.

Since the rejection of free health care is intrinsically immoral, then it follows that it cannot be rejected in favour of anti-abortion politics. Therefore it follows quite reasonably that the acceptance of free health care is the lesser of two evils since the existence of such does not mean that the problem of abortion cannot be dealt with by other means.

I also would like to point out that abortion is as much a cultural (beliefs) manifestation as much as it is legal; and therefore you would do well to convince people that abortion is wrong; rather than deprive poor people of proper health care.
Click to expand...
There really is a bottom line here, what you propose and support is the killing of the most innocent of human beings.

No matter how much you try to twist things to ease your conscience, that is exactly what you are doing.
 
ReapReason said:
Being against free health care does not solve the problem; but in fact makes the situation worse. Which is why i say that free health care is the lesser of two evils.

Also when i think of free health care, i am thinking about the NHS, not obamacare.
Click to expand...
and since when is it morally acceptable to do evil so that good will come of it? Where did you get this idea that it is right to choose the lesser of two evils? This is the worst of twisted moral theology.
Ubenedictus
 
dmelosi said:
There really is a bottom line here, what you propose and support is the killing of the most innocent of human beings.

No matter how much you try to twist things to ease your conscience, that is exactly what you are doing.
Click to expand...
The twisting here is of RRā€™s words. He does not propose and support that.

Letā€™s all go back and re-take that class in critical thinking, OK?
 
dmelosi said:
There really is a bottom line here, what you propose and support is the killing of the most innocent of human beings.
Click to expand...
No! You are making a false accusation. The ā€œlegal systemā€ supports the killing of innocent children and enforces that law upon its population whether you like it or notā€¦ Get it right!!!. The legality of abortion has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of free health care; thatā€™s the bottom-line that you refuse to accept.
 
ReapReason said:
The argument is not ā€œkilling the most innocent of human beings is the lesser of 2 evils.ā€. I never said that. I pointed out only that the existence of abortion as a legal act has no rational connection to the potential existence of free healthcare. The argument that taxes would be used to fund abortion is irrelevant because the existence of abortion is contingent upon the legal system, and not upon the existence of free healthcare.

While it is a moral tragedy that abortion would probably if not certainly be incorporated into the free-health care system, it is also a moral tragedy to reject any human the potentiality of having universal and equal health care; regardless of their pay grade. It is wrong to treat people according to what they can afford, because it is an attack of the very dignity and value that God gives to all personal creatures. And so the value of human health cannot be dictated by ā€œmaterial valuesā€ because our worth transcends those kinds of value. Therefore all personal creatures ought to have access to the best that medical science has to offer regardless of their pay grade.

For example, a cure for HIV should be equally accessible by the poor and the rich.

Since the rejection of free health care is intrinsically immoral, then it follows that it cannot be rejected in favour of anti-abortion politics. Therefore it follows quite reasonably that the acceptance of free health care is the lesser of two evils since the existence of such does not mean that the problem of abortion cannot be dealt with by other means. Which means the debate on abortion is a legal matter, and not an excuse to deprive people of health care.

I also would like to point out that abortion is as much a cultural (beliefs) manifestation as much as it is legal; and therefore you would do well to convince people that abortion is wrong; rather than deprive poor people of proper health care.
Click to expand...
again i disagree, the courts made abortion legal but the courts didnt say that abortion is basic healthcare, obama healthcare did. So when obama is ready to remove abortion from is list of ā€˜basicā€™ healthcare i will listen. It seem you are forgeting that abortion is immoral. As far as it goes i think the government is simply playing games, if it is so concern about life it would not call abortion a basic healthcare. I would rather give to charity to support the poor than to obama to kill children and support the poor. I see the former as pure good and d later as tainted.
Ubenedictus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top