the right to health

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2010
the right to health
260
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 12:36pm
Question. Why do you think health care is a right? If you do, then doesn't that right extend to people in utero and to the 85 year olds? Or just to those who contribute to society?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2010
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 12:43pm

No. Not a right.

Something which demands something from someone else can't be a right.

A right can't violate the right of another.

>>Luck is what you call it when preparation meets opportunity<<
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 1:13pm

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 6:15pm
How do you define "contribute?"
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-14-2010
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 7:31pm
Good point.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Thu, 08-19-2010 - 11:06pm

Well zygotes, embryos and fetuses in utero cannot hold rights that supersede those of the woman who has inhabited that body since her birth, and must assume all of the short and long term risks inherent in either continued gestation and childbirth or abortion.
In fact, they are not people/human beings until birth.




Edited 8/19/2010 11:08 pm ET by erosia_raunch
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 08-20-2010 - 12:01am

Well, one of the formative documents of our nation, quoted frequently here, states that we all have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since health care is necessary to what we all hold to be a normal length of life, I'd say that it falls under that first right.

I don't know of anyone denying a right to life for 85 year olds, but I do know that insisting on a right to life for unborn directly inflicts upon a woman's right to the 1st two rights mentioned above. And insisting that a fertilized ovum should have the same right to life as the woman who holds it in her womb opens up a whole can of worms regarding the most effective forms of birth control.

Sandy
Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-19-2010
Fri, 08-20-2010 - 1:46am
all great responses. But isn't it a right to "life" not a healthy life, and the "pursuit" of happiness not the guarantee of such. Maybe no one is denying the right to life of an 85 year old but what about health. This is where the question gets sticky - at the extremes. We tend to legislate for the extremes though.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Fri, 08-20-2010 - 4:35am

>>> Well zygotes, embryos and fetuses in utero cannot hold rights that supersede those of the woman who has inhabited that body since her birth, and must assume all of the short and long term risks inherent in either continued gestation and childbirth or abortion.

Liberals conveniently refer to pre-born humans as "zygotes, embryos and fetuses" when they seek the right to exterminate them for their convenience, but hypocritically refer to these beings as "babies" when they intend to give birth to them. Why do you think that is?

>>> In fact, they are not people/human beings until birth.

Do you imagine that these "zygotes, embryos and fetuses" will spontaneously grow into something other than a human? Why do you disparage them until their actual "birth?" Oh, right...because it's easier to kill something "less than" human.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-19-2010
Fri, 08-20-2010 - 4:37am
So you're suggesting that a right to "liberty and happiness" trumps a "right to life"?
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2006
Fri, 08-20-2010 - 8:35am

>>Why do you think health care is a right?


Health care is not a "right".

Pages