On the "eve" of the potential passing of one of the most significant and radical changes in our country's history, ObamaCare, I thought these words would serve well repeating...
If you had two people in front of you who needed help, who would you help first? The person whose life is in danger or the person whose health is in need of improvement?
I would like to think that the rational person would see the obvious moral obligation is to help the person whose life is in danger. And I would like to think that the other person would completely understand it and in fact help if possible.
So why then does President Obama want to rush to help "fix health care" by telling everyone to "buck-up" and give him a bill that overhauls our current way of doing "health care"...yet he wants everyone to be patient and wait for a reduction in abortions?
I am confused. This would be like telling the person whose life is in danger to wait and see how it goes while attending to the needs of an ill person.
Furthermore why does President Obama want to reduce abortions? If the fetus is a person at conception, then the obvious rational moral choice is not to work to reduce abortions but to eliminate them all together. If the fetus is not a person until born, then why care how many abortions are performed?
Again if you had two people before you, one whose life is in danger or one whose health is in need of care, who do you help first? I think the answer is simple and obvious, but then again maybe I'm confused.
