S
StudentMI
Guest
It also doesn’t say anything against such a system. It is left up to individual cultures and societies to decide how best to meet the needs of the common good while obeying the Church’s teachings.
yes, but the argument is still valid.This is a Church document, not just someone.
You are prepared to argue against Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II? Good luck.yes, but the argument is still valid.
rights are from Godupant:
You are prepared to argue against Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II? Good luck.yes, but the argument is still valid.
Okay. That tells me you’re not familiar with Newman’s point.rights aren’t new doctrine, people have worked for a longtime, people have been needing healing for a long time. it isn’t a right if it wasn’t one before.
the terminology is wrong or really the way we are currently using it is wrong
principals are permanent, so are rightsOkay. That tells me you’re not familiar with Newman’s point.
As I said.It also doesn’t say anything against such a system.
The right to work in order to provide oneself with the necessities of life has always existed, it’s one of the natural rights that’s inherent to being a human being and that cannot be legitimately taken away.when did it become a right?
How so? I think that it’s clear that I’m not doing that at all.You are confusing natural with civil rights.
man can’t grant rights, he can only take them awayYep. But our understanding of such things develops over a period of time.
the right to healthcare is the issue, the right to work was the start of the quote provided.The right to work in order to provide oneself with the necessities of life has always existed
the topic is healthcare, whether it is a right or responsibilityAgain I will trust the Church on this issue, not you.
I think we’re talking past one another anyway. I’m not arguing for a public health care system. I’m simply stating what the Church says.