Intellectuelle

Though I am not pro-life, I am a supporter of universal health care and I appreciate you making the connection between health care and being pro-life.

Now, if only the folks in Congress could see this connection and vote to override the veto of SCHIP....

I knew the risks I was taking when I decided to post on this topic. Tam, please look a little deeper. The basis for caring about access to healthcare is human dignity inherent to us all. How can you inconsistently desire universal access to health care and not be prolife in all other areas?

If health care is considered to be a right, then is one reasonable in concluding that it has always been a right?

Yet when, in human history, has health care for all been feasible, much less possible? What civilizations past would have considered a healthy life to be a right (vs. a blessing)? It seems to me that we're looking at our technological prowess, combined with a desire to help, and expecting to be able to achieve what human history (and our fallen condition) tells us will not occur.

This is certainly not to imply that we are not to be about ministering to those in dire straits. Indeed, one of the reasons the early church prospered and grew was because of their genuine action towards the sick - those who were cast off by the pagan society around them.

Barring any sincere selfless approach, I think that we'll simply be left with a socialized methodology, which will carry with it all the trappings of apathetic bureaucracy.

I think the problem is we've adopted a civil language in speaking about these issues. This isn't about the rights of the individual but perhaps more about the responsibility of Christians....and not letting secular marxists get away with borrowing from the Christian worldview while asserting a so-called secular language. This is a religious argument they are asserting as it relates to healthcare and we've allowed them to hijack it as a matter of politics.

It's quite a leap IMHO to go from "access to health care is a life issue," which I agree with, to Tam's suggestion that SCHIP is the solution to the problem.

I wasn't expecting to get comments or criticism back from my initial comment. I was actually saying thank you for seeing access to health care as a pro-life issue. I wasn't trying to "hijack" a "religious issue" ( btw: one's stance on abortion isn't a litmus test for someone's commitment to Christ) for secular purposes.

I am an advocate for universal health care (which in my mind, is not necessarily a "Marxist" single payer system) and am also pro-choice because I recognize the larger systemic issues, particularly those related to poverty, that impact a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy.

I am annoyed by pro-life people who think that the way to reduce the number of abortions is to criminalize it. Criminalizing it won't get at the root cause of abortion, which is unintended pregnancies. If you want to stop abortion, how about looking to policy to address the reasons why women lack the financial, emotional, and spiritual resources to carry a pregnancy to
term instead of being quick to throw flames like the work "Marxist" around to people like me who think a function of government is to provide support and opportunities to help people make a better life for themselves.

I am not going to debate the pros/cons of universal health care coverage and the various ways to get to that besides a single payer system.

But, specific to the passage of the SCHIP bill, I find it odd that pro-life people who are so concerned with the sanctity of life for the unborn are so quick to dismiss the fact that there are children whose families cannot afford to buy health insurance for their children. If you are so concerned with the well-being of children, then explain to me how Conservatives are quick to vote against the passage of legislation that will continue a program that provides health care to hundreds of thousands low/moderate income children and families.

Recognizing the "inherent dignity of all persons" is a Christian argument that also finds its way into the founding American principles of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, it's one of the key points at which Christianity enlightens American political theory.

But since politics is a pragmatic art, and since we haven't yet created a Utopian society, we are sometimes limited by how effective we can be in upholding human dignity. Even governments like the US have limited financial capabilities.

So I agree that a universal right to quality health care is one implication of our desire to treat all humans with dignity. It would also be true that a universal right to sleep in a warm, clean and safe place dignifies humanity. Likewise, to not be hungry, to be dressed in adequate clothing, to have a job that does not demean us in any way, perhaps also to have the opportunity to improve ourselves through educational advancement.

Politics has to make real-world choices about what to fund, and how much, and who will pay. If politicians refuse to provide the services, it doesn't necessarily mean that human dignity is being disrespected.

Christians need to resist the trap of seeing the solution to every social problem as a government solution. The church is often far more compassionate and supportive of human dignity than government is. The church has historically stepped in where government has not (most early hospitals were established by churches, not governments or private companies) , providing health care and other humanitarian services. The church should continue to find ways to help those who fall through the gaps of government social programs.