On Health Care and Loving Your Neighbor

There are many things I like to speak of, but those are not the things that I know nothing about. So, then, before I begin let me lay before you the particulars I know about the supposed health care problem in America:

[There is supposedly a problem with health care in America.]

[Umm... that's all I know.]

I say supposedly because I do not follow the news in great detail, nor do I really care to. I do not trust what I hear coming in over the airwaves whether it's from Fox News or MSNBC. I try and pick up a fact or principle now and then, but as soon as the application comes about I turn away the second I see things detour from the previously stated facts or turn into philosophical nonsense.

Allow me this segue to lead to the point proper. President Obama wants both the pro-life and pro-abortion sides to find common ground and hold hands in the abortion debate. The pro-life side argues that all people have a right to life and that those in the womb are persons. The pro-abortion side (defined by Obama) believes that children do not have a right to life unless the mother chooses to grant the child life. Can anyone find the common ground between these two positions? If I was married and you asked my wife if she was pregnant and she said 'yes' and I replied 'no' would you take this response and attempt to find a common ground? Probably not because there is no common ground between the two. In logic we call this the law of excluded middle. Either A or not-A. Something cannot be and not be at the same time. Apply this to the issue of abortion. President Obama would like us to find the common ground between the unborn having an intrinsic right to life, and having a right to life only bestowed by the mother. Do you know what his answer is for this supposed common ground? It's the latter. His answer is that both sides should respect the decision of the mother and work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Well guess what his common ground equates to? That's right! It's the position of the pro-abortionists. Either the unborn have an intrinsic right to life, or they do not. There is no other option.

Obama also took up this position when it came to the issue of another country killing its own citizens. He cried out that we are not in a position to meddle in their affairs. Moral relativism defined. “Who are we as America to say what another country should do?” “Who are we to tell a mother what she is supposed to do with her own body?” According to Obama, when it comes to these issues there is no absolute ethical norm that we can refer to which transcends society.

Yet, when it comes to the issue of health care President Obama comes before the religious right and starts arguing that we have a duty to our neighbor. He even begins to quote the Bible to prove his point. Are you a moral relativist or are you not Mr Obama? Do we have a duty to our fellow man or do we not? Should we meddle in others affairs or do we allow them to live as they please? This immediately starts to set off warning signals in my head. Any case built upon contradictions is not a case for anything at all.

Further, suppose two gentlemen are walking down the street. We shall call one Jimmy and the other George. As they are walking down the road out of the sky comes an alien named Blarg from the planet Blooie. Blarg lands before them, pulls out his blaster ray and shoots Jimmy in the face causing poor Jimmy's face to fall off. Blarg then bids them good day and flies off into the sky singing Def Leppard. Jimmy now needs to have his face resown onto his head, but the only problem is that Jimmy does not have health insurance nor does he have the money to pay for the surgery. George, however, does have the money but refuses to pay for Jimmy's surgery. Is George doing something wrong in this situation? Why should he have to pay for Jimmy's surgery? Sure he could if he wanted to and it would be rather nice of him, but what moral obligation is he breaking by not paying for it? Surely there are a million operations I could afford to pay for right now, but it doesn't make me immoral by not supplying the necessary funds for them.

Now imagine another alien named Zilgabob from the planet Floop comes out of the sky and tells George that there are millions of people in the world who suffer from Blarg blasting their faces off. Zilgabob tells George that he is going to forcefully take his money lest he suffer consequences and use it to pay for all of these faceless victims. Has George done something moral here? No, he had his money stolen from him. Has Zilgabob? No, he stole the money and gave it to someone else. Has anyone actually loved their neighbor here? No, no one has. The only way anyone here could do anything moral was if George decided out of the goodness of his heart that he was going to help Jimmy get his face planted back on. It is good for George to help people in need, but it is not morally necessary to help everyone in need that he can possibly can. Who George helps and when he helps them is left up to the decisions of George, not another person.

Obama is not asking us to love our neighbors, he is asking us to implement a system through which the government will redistribute the wealth in an attempt to supply everyone with health care. Argue what you will about the pragmatic value of such a system, but don't try to tell me that this allows everyone to love their neighbor. If you wish to say that I'm being selfish with my money, then this is a moral problem which all of humanity falls into being diagnosed with, and that includes the federal government. I have no reason to trust the government with being moral when it can't even apply moral principles in a coherent way.

Mr Obama Sir, quit attempting to extend your hand to the religious right, we don't want it--mainly because it's not really there.