- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
That is not how I think. I naturally am against killing, it just happily coincides with what is also taught in my church. It is like if your doctor tells you to not jump in front of a moving car, I was never planning on it, but thanks anyway for reaffirming what I already thought.
Part of the reason why I do not return to CD as much as I use to is that when I do stop by the check it out every now again, more times than not the majority of debates I see do not seem to make much sense and appear to be a simple grab for points. It would be nice to clean up the site a bit.
The previous, similar situation in charleston got resolved without a riot. And i think there is a simultaneous riot and protest, but the two are not one in the same. The protest group has been trying to keep the peace as rioters simply like to take advantage of the situation
That is not the question. The question is "Is abortion something a woman does to her body or to some other living entity?"
We are not discussing the morality or the legality of the practice of the abortion, we are just accessing what it is.
You comment shows that even though you support abortion, you agree that it is not targeting her body as you describe the mother and the fetus as two separate organisms.
As for the fetus not being alive because it is not sentient, that is wrong. Life and sentience are two different things. Sentience is not one of the requirements of life, as described in any biology 101 class.
But that would end up being a bigger drain on resources. It would be cheaper, more efficient, and lead to better outcomes if primary healthcare was provided. One of the reasons why hospital costs so much right now is that people are waiting til the last minute so that they can use the emergency room, which increases the wait time, and hurts the people that would actually need it.
A better healthcare system would benefit us in a number of ways. The cost is not the problem, and it is not because of the government being inept either. The biggest problem in my opinion comes from private interest groups. The lobbyists they pay for shift new bills slightly in their favor, representives extend their influence to a number of physicians, and skilled PR teams help control the public's perception in ways most people do not recognize unless they are involved in public health careers.
I am looking at case studies that show how standard "supply/demand" economics do not work well with healthcare needs, especially in the oncology field where it has practically become blackmail. Patients are forced to choose between a beyond unreasonable price for medication or death in some circumstances.
As for your notion that charities can take over, it would not work. Aside from the fact that not all charities are as just as they make themselves out to be, people tend to be concerned with their immediate needs to support every charity that would be required to work at its maximum potential if we went the way you were suggesting.
It is difficult to argue with your statement because you apparently lack a fundamental understanding of what they healthcare industry is actually like.
What we need is better policies to prevent manipulation of private interest groups towards the public. After that, I think the steps towards changing out heathcare system will come a bit less difficulty.
We did a comparison of different healthcare systems, and one thing we found about the UK healthcare system is that by making healthcare a goverment provided service, it encouraged support of preventive healthcare programs, which are often overlooked in America.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I am a little frustrated because my response was not an opinion based one. The reference to defining the 4th amendment is purely objective since all one has to do it look it up to see the definition in black and white. While there is a range of interpretations it can be used for legally, it's focus is one unreasonable search and seizures, and does not even broach the topic of healthcare rights in anyway what so ever.
As for my second point about how as health care is provided by a second party making you statement about people owning their own bodies irrelevant, and may even hurt the arguments for healthcare as a right by extension.
I am not questioning you from any social "norms", I am using logic. You don't just shrug off logic as simply a different opinion.
I do not believe so. It is kinda if a biased outlook on the matter. Region is a major part of a large number of peoples person lives, and is often related to a number of moral issues. There are of course many cases of people justifying immoral acts with religion, but without religion they would likely find another rallying cry to defend their actions (my money would be on eugenics being the next runner up).
While I agree with the general sentiment that healthcare should be a right, you argument is invalid. The fourth amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizures, which I fail to see relating to the question of whether or not healthcare should be provided to them.
Secondly, while people do own their bodies, that is not what is being debated. Healthcare is a service provided from a second party to that individual. While an individual "owns their own body" they do not own the second party or the resources belonging to the second party.
Yes, I believe it should be considered a right. That being said, our current healthcare structure is not setup to support that. It would take a lot of effort and changes that both liberals and conservatives would not want to be a part of, but the result would be something that actually benefits everyone on both sides with the exception of a few lobby groups.