(09-14-2010 12:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "It's just that the right to life, of any fetus, does not guarantee that the woman is obligated to carry it to term"
Funny, the government now considers 'healtcare' a right so much so that it's willing to take money, involuntarily, away from my family to give it to someone else but a mother caryring a baby for 9 months is pillaging it's mother.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your drivel, but I can't tell you how funny I find this. You spend a great deal of your post whining that I'm responding to a straw man (I'm not) then include this little beauty.

Not only does it not even attempt to address the statement in any way, shape, or form, but it's completely contradicted by something I said earlier in the post you are responding to. Since your reading comprehension appears to be more than a little lacking, I'll spell it out for you. I don't speak for the government, nor does the government speak for me, so the position of the government is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. And there is no way a negative right to health care could be used to justify a confiscatory tax scheme designed to provide such services. The very point of negative rights is that they don't define what must be provided to you, but rather what they restrict others from doing to you.