RE: Man's morality
December 11, 2013 at 6:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2013 at 7:13 pm by ThomM.)
[/quote]
I do not care what a person's health care covers, so long as I am not asked to pay for it. The moment I am asked to pay for something I should have some say on how the money is spent.
Actually - if YOU are living in the USA - you are already paying for everyone's health care - whether you like it or not.
A hospital cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate medical care - so caring for those who cannot pay - is part of their cost of doing business - for both their institution and the doctors working there. So when they determine how much to charge - their charge to those who do pay has to cover the cost of treating those who do no- or they will go out of business. So - you are paying for those without insurance through higher costs when you buy your insurance - and higher costs when you actually need care.
The same is true for all businesses in the USA - since they include as part of their costs - the cost of loss due to non-payment of some (Or theft as well). Either they cover all of their costs and make a profit and survive - or they will go out of business.
And that is simply how our system of economics works.
In fact - if all people did have equal access (Something that exists nowhere - since even in countries where there is national health coverage - people with money can still choose to pay for something more) - even then you would still be paying based on ALL of the various diseases and maladies - presuming you would not have all of them.
However - the more that have insurance - the less it will cost because there will be less losses and non payment to cover - over a larger insured group.
I could just refuse your ridiculous framing of a bunch of cells as life, and avoid your false dichotomy entirely. Oh look! I'm already doing that!
[/quote]
Actually - even though I am not a theist - a bunch of cells can be life - it is just not a Human. In fact - a single cell can be life - but certainly cannot be classified as a person.
In fact - even in the case of humans - there are stages that the developing life goes through before it becomes a human. It is akin to saying a silkworm is a butterfly - or a tadpole is a frog. If that were true - there would not be a need for the extra terms. It is not true. And it is the same for Zygotes - they are not humans. And worse - statistics show that the overwhelming majority of the Zygotes do not survive. In fact - none of the zygotes that fail to implant survive - nor can they - under natural circumstances.
The problem is - when looking at humans - somehow theists prefer to claim that a zygote already has a "soul" and is therefore a separate individual life.
In fact - if you look a human reproduction - and the amount of survival at
the various stages - survival before birth is actually - statistically rare - compared to the number that do not survive - and yet I see no effort from the theists to honor those that do not survive it naturally. So - the majority of "souls" of all time would be dead before having a chance - something that then questions the god's "perfection".
Do stillborn babies - who died before a "baptism" could happen - go to hell because they still had original sin? Why do they NOT baptize all fetuses that do not reach maturity?
And if you attempt to define a zygote as a human - and it does not survive - would you then require the local police to investigate to make sure the mother did not do something that might have mitigated the loss as well? This would tie up law enforcement completely. And would you put a woman in jail for - say - scrubbing a floor - because that would contribute to the loss of a zygote?
I do not care what a person's health care covers, so long as I am not asked to pay for it. The moment I am asked to pay for something I should have some say on how the money is spent.
Actually - if YOU are living in the USA - you are already paying for everyone's health care - whether you like it or not.
A hospital cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate medical care - so caring for those who cannot pay - is part of their cost of doing business - for both their institution and the doctors working there. So when they determine how much to charge - their charge to those who do pay has to cover the cost of treating those who do no- or they will go out of business. So - you are paying for those without insurance through higher costs when you buy your insurance - and higher costs when you actually need care.
The same is true for all businesses in the USA - since they include as part of their costs - the cost of loss due to non-payment of some (Or theft as well). Either they cover all of their costs and make a profit and survive - or they will go out of business.
And that is simply how our system of economics works.
In fact - if all people did have equal access (Something that exists nowhere - since even in countries where there is national health coverage - people with money can still choose to pay for something more) - even then you would still be paying based on ALL of the various diseases and maladies - presuming you would not have all of them.
However - the more that have insurance - the less it will cost because there will be less losses and non payment to cover - over a larger insured group.
Quote:Doing something to stop the killing now, puts you in a position to condemn the acts that happened 4000 years ago. Ignoring what happens now makes you a foolish hypocrite when you pretend to care what happened durning a flood you do not even believe happened.
I could just refuse your ridiculous framing of a bunch of cells as life, and avoid your false dichotomy entirely. Oh look! I'm already doing that!
[/quote]
Actually - even though I am not a theist - a bunch of cells can be life - it is just not a Human. In fact - a single cell can be life - but certainly cannot be classified as a person.
In fact - even in the case of humans - there are stages that the developing life goes through before it becomes a human. It is akin to saying a silkworm is a butterfly - or a tadpole is a frog. If that were true - there would not be a need for the extra terms. It is not true. And it is the same for Zygotes - they are not humans. And worse - statistics show that the overwhelming majority of the Zygotes do not survive. In fact - none of the zygotes that fail to implant survive - nor can they - under natural circumstances.
The problem is - when looking at humans - somehow theists prefer to claim that a zygote already has a "soul" and is therefore a separate individual life.
In fact - if you look a human reproduction - and the amount of survival at
the various stages - survival before birth is actually - statistically rare - compared to the number that do not survive - and yet I see no effort from the theists to honor those that do not survive it naturally. So - the majority of "souls" of all time would be dead before having a chance - something that then questions the god's "perfection".
Do stillborn babies - who died before a "baptism" could happen - go to hell because they still had original sin? Why do they NOT baptize all fetuses that do not reach maturity?
And if you attempt to define a zygote as a human - and it does not survive - would you then require the local police to investigate to make sure the mother did not do something that might have mitigated the loss as well? This would tie up law enforcement completely. And would you put a woman in jail for - say - scrubbing a floor - because that would contribute to the loss of a zygote?
