• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support a "right to life" amendment?

Whould you support a "right to life" amendment?

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
Kal'Stang said:
I'm Independent. I vote No.

Re Healthcare: I don't believe that people have a right to other peoples services. However I do see a valid reason for the Government to provide healthcare to its citizens as a healthy citizenry means that more people will be able to live better lives and be more productive.

Re Banning abortion: I'm pro-choice. I don't believe in telling others what to believe in or what to do with their own bodies.

Re banning DP: I am pro-DP until such time as our justice system turns from punishment to one of rehabilitation.

Re banning assisted suicide: Refer to what I said about banning abortion.
Click to expand...

How does someone's "own" body involve someone else?
 
Healthcare is a service. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the right to life.

Assisted suicide is aggressive homicide, it violates the unalienable human right to life and should be banned as murder.
Abortion is aggressive homicide, it violates the unalienable human right to life and should be banned as murder.

The death penalty is homicide but it is not aggressive; those who die have been given due process in a court of law, without which no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property (this is explicit in the Bill of Rights). I don't like the death penalty, but it doesn't conflict with the right to life.

This kind of compromise is like compromising food with poison. Two of these changes must happen (banning abortion and assisted suicide) and one must never happen (a "right to healthcare" for us to be a just and worthy civilization.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
This amendment would have 4 specific tenets

The right the healthcare
banning abortion
banning the death penalty
banning assisted suicide

Would you support it?

Its give each side 1 big win and 1 little win, from anecdotal evidence I suspect many conservatives would support this, would any liberals?
Click to expand...

As a hypothetical, almost.

I think the only thing I would add a caveat to would be assisted suicide. In that, if someone is terminal or wants to die, that's their choice. Now IMO assisted suicide comes with restrictions. There needs to be demonstrated some cause and the individual would need to complete a psychiatric evaluation. If one is mentally "healthy" and competent and still wants to end their own life, then I suppose that's their choice in the matter. And abortion would, of course, need to make exception for the mother's life.
 
Crovax said:
That's exactly why ASSISTED suicide would be banned
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. Many people make the distinction. I make no such distinction. To me, they go hand-in-hand. If you're "allowed" (read: they can't really stop you) to do it by yourself, you should be allowed some assistance so you don't botch it up.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
That's what I wonder every time someone steps up to oppose abortion or assisted suicide.
Click to expand...

Well considering that abortions require atleast 3 people and assisted suicides 2 people, I'm just wondering what your definition of "own" is
 
HonestJoe said:
You seem to be working under the all too common assumption that everyone is split between one of two political extremes and that every policy needs to somehow satisfy both.

It seems stupid to lump these four issues together given they don’t actually have all that much in common and each is highly complex and divisive on its own. It seems to me that you’re unwilling or unable to support your position on any of these issues individually so are presenting this “compromise” as a way to get some of what you want.
Click to expand...
I don't see the OP's assumption in this regard as unreasonable. A great many people are indeed split this way.
 
Crovax said:
Well considering that abortions require atleast 3 people and assisted suicides 2 people, I'm just wondering what your definition of "own" is
Click to expand...

I didn't say that a person shouldn't use help from other people if they want it. I said that I don't believe in telling people what to do with their own bodies.

And my definition of "own" is the same as it is in the dictionary.
 
radcen said:
I am aware of that. Many people make the distinction. I make no such distinction. To me, they go hand-in-hand. If you're "allowed" to do it by yourself, you should be allowed some assistance so you don't botch it up.
Click to expand...

I think it is an important distinction, while I wouldn't want any person in pain to botch thier own suicide I would much prefer that anyone wasn't suicided who didn't truly want to be which is much more possible when someone else does the deed. I mean pretty much everyone has suicidal thoughts but few rarely act on them if someone else does the action it makes the thoughts much more likely to come to fruition.
 
Crovax said:
Would you support it?
Click to expand...

Nope, but then I'm probably weird here.

You should not have the right to another persons service. I am not in favor of broad across the board bans of abortion. I am not in favor of complete abolition of the death penalty. And I mildly support the idea of assisted suicide. So it's basically 4 "meh" to "uuuuuuuug no" options for me.

What's more, I am generally against constitutional amendments that put limits on the individual as opposed to limits on the government.
 
Crovax said:
This amendment would have 4 specific tenets

The right the healthcare
banning abortion
banning the death penalty
banning assisted suicide

Would you support it?

Its give each side 1 big win and 1 little win, from anecdotal evidence I suspect many conservatives would support this, would any liberals?
Click to expand...

I am other and no.
 
Zyphlin said:
Nope, but then I'm probably weird here.

You should not have the right to another persons service. I am not in favor of broad across the board bans of abortion. I am not in favor of complete abolition of the death penalty. And I mildly support the idea of assisted suicide. So it's basically 4 "meh" to "uuuuuuuug no" options for me.

What's more, I am generally against constitutional amendments that put limits on the individual as opposed to limits on the government.
Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit arbitrary as far as your reasoning. A right to healthcare does not give you the right to someone's service any more that a right to own a firearm requires that someone manufacturer and sell that item. And as far as a constitutional amendment limiting a person's individual rights there is nothing that would do that it is only limiting others influence on those rights.
 
radcen said:
I don't see the OP's assumption in this regard as unreasonable. A great many people are indeed split this way.
Click to expand...
A great many think they are and think everyone else is too. When you get down to the details of any specific issue though, you find a lot of people nominally on the same side have differences of opinion and a lot of people nominally on opposites sides can have much they agree on. The problem is that you have to cut through all the partisan arrogance to actually see any of that.
 
Crovax said:
This amendment would have 4 specific tenets

The right the healthcare
banning abortion
banning the death penalty
banning assisted suicide

Would you support it?
Click to expand...

The right the healthcare

Support healthcare to whoever requires it based purely on a needs alone basis. Who needs it, gets it.


banning abortion

Not something I will engage in personally but do not support a blanket ban.


banning the death penalty

Yes, support banning although it's a moot point for me as the death penalty was abolished forever in Australia after Federal Parliament passed laws ensuring it could never be reinstated 5 years ago. The last time the death penalty was used was in 1967, many years before i was even born.


banning assisted suicide

Will never personally engage in assisting suicide but do not support a blanket ban.
 
HonestJoe said:
A great many think they are and think everyone else is too. When you get down to the details of any specific issue though, you find a lot of people nominally on the same side have differences of opinion and a lot of people nominally on opposites sides can have much they agree on. The problem is that you have to cut through all the partisan arrogance to actually see any of that.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point.
 
Serenity said:
The right the healthcare

Support healthcare to whoever requires it based purely on a needs alone basis. Who needs it, gets it.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that mean everybody? One does not necessarily "plan" needing healthcare. Instances can just happen beyond one's control.
 
Crovax said:
I think you are being a bit arbitrary as far as your reasoning. A right to healthcare does not give you the right to someone's service any more that a right to own a firearm requires that someone manufacturer and sell that item. And as far as a constitutional amendment limiting a person's individual rights there is nothing that would do that it is only limiting others influence on those rights.
Click to expand...

A "Right to Healthcare" is not the same as "A Right to keep and bear Arms". A "Right to obtain healthcare" or a "Right to use healthcare" would be; but a right TO the healthcare means you have a right TO the service itself. It would be more akin to saying "You have a right to arms", which would suggest you actually have a right to have arms provided to you. I have no issue with some kind of a constitutional amendment mandating that people have ACCESS to healthcare and thus the government couldn't pass laws to prohibit you from having access to it (thus essentially making any government healthcare option something that must be offered to everyone). But one simply saying you get healthcare, is not the kind of "right" we should be enshrining in the constitution.

The amendment about assisted suicide absolutely IS a limitation being placed on individual rights, both on the part of the doctor assisting and the patient wishing for assistance. Such a constitutional amendment would not be about limiting what the government is able to do, but would completely be about limiting what the individual and private sector can do.
 
Crovax said:
This amendment would have 4 specific tenets

The right the healthcare
banning abortion
banning the death penalty
banning assisted suicide

Would you support it?

Its give each side 1 big win and 1 little win, from anecdotal evidence I suspect many conservatives would support this, would any liberals?
Click to expand...

They are different issues and should not be lumped together. Would the healthcare/assisted suicide clauses cause "do not resuscitate" directives to be illegal? You have to keep people alive via any means possible for as long as possible? This gets rather weird.
 
radcen said:
Doesn't that mean everybody? One does not necessarily "plan" needing healthcare. Instances can just happen beyond one's control.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, everybody. Needs alone refers to how quickly one receives treatment.
 
Zyphlin said:
A "Right to Healthcare" is not the same as "A Right to keep and bear Arms". A "Right to obtain healthcare" or a "Right to use healthcare" would be; but a right TO the healthcare means you have a right TO the service itself. It would be more akin to saying "You have a right to arms", which would suggest you actually have a right to have arms provided to you. I have no issue with some kind of a constitutional amendment mandating that people have ACCESS to healthcare and thus the government couldn't pass laws to prohibit you from having access to it (thus essentially making any government healthcare option something that must be offered to everyone). But one simply saying you get healthcare, is not the kind of "right" we should be enshrining in the constitution.

The amendment about assisted suicide absolutely IS a limitation being placed on individual rights, both on the part of the doctor assisting and the patient wishing for assistance. Such a constitutional amendment would not be about limiting what the government is able to do, but would completely be about limiting what the individual and private sector can do.
Click to expand...
Would this ban insurance companies from denying procedures and/or medications that the patient's doctor(s) prescribe?

;)
 
Serenity said:
Yes, of course, everybody. Needs alone refers to how quickly one receives treatment.
Click to expand...

Ok, got'cha. Thanks for the clarification. The way I initially read it was that a person could "opt out" because they deemed it unnecessary for them self.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Not as parsed by the bolded limitations above, no. :no:

The "right to life" begins when one is born, and it is not an absolute right to exist otherwise we would never get sick, be killed, or die in any other way.

No, it is the right to try to stay alive via actions of personal choice and in self-defense. It is also the right to choose how to live, and even when to die.

Thus, in a choice between having a baby and suffering death, injury, or even inconvenience, a woman retains the right to preserve her life (as well as her liberty and happiness too) via abortion.

It is a also a choice in whether or not to keep living. Why shouldn't anyone have a right to choose whether or not to live or die?

As for healthcare? One should have the right to seek healthcare to preserve one's life, but no one should be compelled to try to save your life. That should remain a personal choice of the other person.

Thus in regards to healthcare? If society elects to make it a "civil" right (read privilege guaranteed by social convention), then well and good. Otherwise, whether one lives or dies remains within one's personal ability to try to do so.

So three of the four items would IMO violate individual liberty, and I would not support any Amendment containing them.
Click to expand...

Pro-life will fight tooth and nail that life begins at conception. Not at birth! It's an all or nothing proposition.

Everything beyond that, if death isn't considered as an act of God...forget it.

Assuming those who support the right to life - they must adhere to: No death by wars, no abortions, no lethal force by law enforcement, no death penalty imposed by courts, etc, and if somebody sustains an injury that takes them to the edge of death, that might be considered an act of God, so in order to not waste taxpayers money on medical intervention...if those persons haven't secured their own insurance, it's an act of God.

Oxy Moron: Conservatives who believe in "the right to life" who are against a universal health care program, such as provided in countries like Canada. Although common sense tells us universal healthcare is one of several important ways of persevering life. Conservative argument is, preserving life is not related to the quality of life, so a universal healthcare isn't necessary, consequently, they are totally against it...god bless their little Christian hearts.
 
Dream on Conservatives. Dont like a womans right to choose, go live in Ireland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom