#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do you support healthcare and contraceptive rights?
Yes.
Side Score: 47
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 29
|
|
Perhaps you are having trouble with the concept of Elaboration. Elaboration means to restate something in greater detail, not restate in exactly the same amount of detail. Healthcare and contraceptive rights mean that people have the right to receive healthcare and contraception Yes, I understand that, but what exactly does that entail? Does this mean that health-care ought to be provided by the government free of cost to citizens as part of a single-payer system funded entirely by taxpayers, or that no-one can be turned away from hospital care regardless of their financial situation, or simply that we ought to have access to healthcare providers? Or are you asking if we believe it is a fundamental human right or constitutional right? Likewise, what does contraceptive rights entail? Does that simply mean access to contraceptives cannot be restricted/banned or that that health insurance ought to cover contraceptives, or that I should get condoms and birth-control for free? These are the sorts of things people want to know when they ask you to be more specific. Side: Yes.
1. I already answered the question at the beginning. 2. You didn't word it like that at the beginning. Due to wording, your question was basically "Do you support healthcare and do you support contraceptive rights". Do you see how that could be a big question? If you write ambiguously, don't assume people can read your mind. 3. These are two different rights. Someone might answer yes to the first and no to the second. Side: Yes.
|
2
points
1
point
While I much rather buy a condom for someone than to bear the expense as a taxpayer of the their unwanted child doomed to a maladjusted statistically-predisposed life of crime as an adult, I'm not sure I believe the argument that people can't afford contraceptives (aside from rare medical conditions) given that you can get a 3-pack of condoms for $1.73, who exactly is having sex that can't afford $1.73? Even if there were language in the Constitution that could be construed as being a Contraceptives right, that wouldn't by virtue of it being a right, necessarily make it free. I have a right to keep and bear arms, but I still have to pay for them. If by Contraceptives right, you mean we should have access to contraceptives unrestricted by government, then I whole-heartedly agree with you. But if you mean that taxpayers should share the cost burden of whoever wants birth-control pills then I disagree. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I know you can't respond, but I thought I'd just mention that we definitely don't have the right to subsidies, and Dana is, of course, completely off on this. I was just pointing out that HighFalutin's little quips were off, as is this whole mantra from the right that the poor want "free" things. Side: Yes.
1
point
2
points
2
points
Prove it. Rights entail that you have an entitlement to something. it's Accepted that you have a right to live, but that does not make that right truly exist. - Should society dissolve and we all return to being the animals that we are, your right to life would be gone in a heartbeat. as would mine. as such no one has a "right" to anything. but I digress as the question asks if I support the right, which despite it's non existance of, my reason for not is also available. - the government providing healthcare is a system that cannot go hand in hand with freedom. if it is to be fair the government would likely have to prescribe behaviors. Commanding citizens to abandon things that "may not be good for them" and that's frankly bullshit. although I do not condone smoking, a government should not be able to ban behaviors they deem harmful. you should be able to smoke a pack a day if that's what you'd like. notions like this is how you can kill a nation from within. one corrupt politician, and the entirety of food is illegal, as "Eating food causes obesity" a condition we can't pay for everyone to have fixed. - Contraceptive rights is a similar slope of nonsense. it's just dumb to think that sex is something we cannot live without and it's the job of the government to provide pills or patches or whatever. if it is a right, then it may also be forced upon us. a world where people are sterilized for no other reason than the fact they can't keep it in their pants. - ya know, impulse control. Side: No.
Regarding Rights There are no natural, universal, or absolute rights. This does not mean that there are no legal rights, or that the language of legal rights is useless to us. One may defend a legal right without believing in the actual existence of such a right beyond its privileging and enforcement. Legal rights are codified rules of order governing a collection of individuals, and they prevail only so long as a preponderance of power (not necessarily a majority) backs them. To say, then, that one supports the right to healthcare or contraception is to express a preference that others in the collective be forced to respect what one values even if they themselves do not. Regarding Healthcare There is absolutely no reason that government healthcare programs must lead to prohibitions against unhealthy behavior. Not only do we have empirical evidence that such programs can function without this consequence, but there are plainly other alternatives. Creating positive reinforcements for healthy behavior, addressing the problems with our food system (e.g. the corn subsidy) that contribute to unhealthy behavior, education campaigns, addiction counseling and support, etc. Even if these were not options and even if the government became overbearing as you suggest it must, you have given us no cause to think this would necessarily be bad. You have observed this is a reduction of personal liberty; so what? What makes freedom so great? A case could certainly be made for a paternalistic nation-state, not that I personally want to make it. Contraceptive Rights If by similar slope, mean slippery and fallacious... sure. You have made a massive leap from being provided with a benefit to being deprived of a liberty. Not only are these distinct policies, but they concern entirely different types of rights (positive freedom to contraception and negative freedom from government intervention) which are regarded and handled quite differently. You need to do more than just assert that being given one right would lead to being denied another. If we let people do anything it could "lead" to something else, but the thing about rights is that they are best considered on their own merit and adopted or rejected accordingly; legal systems are quite capable of doing that, and has been doing so quite literally for millennia. And, again, even if your slippery slope were defensible you would need to explain why it is a bad conclusion; if society is better off, why not do it? There are no actual rights, after all, so the only harm is whatever we imagine it to be. We also know that where contraception is not readily available, people don't just not fuck; that is and unrealistic and frankly naive position with a very predictable outcome: higher rates of unwanted and teenage pregnancies. Side: Yes.
2
points
there's a difference between accepting the notion of rights (legal rights) and actually having rights as an existing thing that are universal and undeniable (natural rights). that was the point that sailed over that head of yours that has a brain. - Natural rights do not exist. and legal rights are given by people for people. Legal rights are a necessary thing for a society to exist. however they are false rights. they do not guarantee that your "Right to life" is universal. so say... an enemy to the society you are in could feasibly invade your society and kill you. that's why we have the military, to destroy those who wish to infringe upon the rights that the government gave you. and police, for when your rights are infringed upon by members of your society. but without the military or the police, your rights would mean nothing to your fellow man. as without consequences there can be no right or wrong. - the appearace of "Right to life" As a near universal thing, may come from a conceptual "perfect system of law" however since the rule can be broken, and the right infringed, the rights are still made by man, and not anything that should be considered universal. - In summary, Rights are an illusion. just like free will. Side: No.
|
