Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Gary Childress]

As far as realities vs. aspirations go, obviously, aspirations can't always meet reality. However, aspirations are what drive us to improve something.

That is true. But it is also true that aspirations are what made Socialists kill so many people. The unrelenting commitment to an "ideal" that is unattainable made it thinkable for them to murder their opponents. And we see the same thing today, on the Left especially. The rejoicing over the murder of Charlie Kirk, the cries for Trump to be murdered, the rallying cry, "Punch a Nazi" (meaning anybody not okay with the Left's program), all signal unmistakably that the Left remains homicidally inclined.

So be careful what "ideal" you serve. Attainable ideals are good; the unattainable ones can be murderous.

Even in health care, a proposed medical solution to an excessively large clientele has come to be the murder of babies, the elderly and infirm, and even just the depressed. Canada's a cautionary tale, in that regard. And the medical mangling of children in the name of "trans" rights has become one of this century's great evils. There will be more to come, I'm sure...and always in the name of some "ideal."

So are abortion and the MAID programs "murder" as it stands now, or will the MAID program be "murder" when the MAID program is projected to be expanded to include the chronically suicidal?

[Immanuel Can]

As far as realities vs. aspirations go, obviously, aspirations can't always meet reality. However, aspirations are what drive us to improve something.

That is true. But it is also true that aspirations are what made Socialists kill so many people. The unrelenting commitment to an "ideal" that is unattainable made it thinkable for them to murder their opponents. And we see the same thing today, on the Left especially. The rejoicing over the murder of Charlie Kirk, the cries for Trump to be murdered, the rallying cry, "Punch a Nazi" (meaning anybody not okay with the Left's program), all signal unmistakably that the Left remains homicidally inclined.

So be careful what "ideal" you serve. Attainable ideals are good; the unattainable ones can be murderous.

Even in health care, a proposed medical solution to an excessively large clientele has come to be the murder of babies, the elderly and infirm, and even just the depressed. Canada's a cautionary tale, in that regard. And the medical mangling of children in the name of "trans" rights has become one of this century's great evils. There will be more to come, I'm sure...and always in the name of some "ideal."

So are abortion and the MAID programs "murder" as it stands now, or will the MAID program be "murder" when the MAID program is projected to be expanded to include the chronically suicidal?

I think the answer to that is obvious. If it's murder to kill a healthy adult, it's equally murder to kill a child, and equally murder to kill the elderly and infirm, and equally murder to kill the depressed or suicidal. The medical system in Canada is being turned into an engine of death, in these respects...and always, it's in the name of compassion that it is being done. But saying "I'm compassionate" does not excuse murder.

[Gary Childress]

That is true. But it is also true that aspirations are what made Socialists kill so many people. The unrelenting commitment to an "ideal" that is unattainable made it thinkable for them to murder their opponents. And we see the same thing today, on the Left especially. The rejoicing over the murder of Charlie Kirk, the cries for Trump to be murdered, the rallying cry, "Punch a Nazi" (meaning anybody not okay with the Left's program), all signal unmistakably that the Left remains homicidally inclined.

So be careful what "ideal" you serve. Attainable ideals are good; the unattainable ones can be murderous.

Even in health care, a proposed medical solution to an excessively large clientele has come to be the murder of babies, the elderly and infirm, and even just the depressed. Canada's a cautionary tale, in that regard. And the medical mangling of children in the name of "trans" rights has become one of this century's great evils. There will be more to come, I'm sure...and always in the name of some "ideal."

So are abortion and the MAID programs "murder" as it stands now, or will the MAID program be "murder" when the MAID program is projected to be expanded to include the chronically suicidal?

I think the answer to that is obvious. If it's murder to kill a healthy adult, it's equally murder to kill a child, and equally murder to kill the elderly and infirm, and equally murder to kill the depressed or suicidal. The medical system in Canada is being turned into an engine of death, in these respects...and always, it's in the name of compassion that it is being done. But saying "I'm compassionate" does not excuse murder.

If it were simply "murder" to kill a "healthy adult", then everything that happens by all sides during a war would be a "war crime". Is that the case?

[Immanuel Can]

So are abortion and the MAID programs "murder" as it stands now, or will the MAID program be "murder" when the MAID program is projected to be expanded to include the chronically suicidal?

I think the answer to that is obvious. If it's murder to kill a healthy adult, it's equally murder to kill a child, and equally murder to kill the elderly and infirm, and equally murder to kill the depressed or suicidal. The medical system in Canada is being turned into an engine of death, in these respects...and always, it's in the name of compassion that it is being done. But saying "I'm compassionate" does not excuse murder.

If it were simply "murder" to kill a healthy adult, then everything that happens by all sides during a war would be a "war crime". Is that the case?

There's a well-established distinction between murder and mere killing. You can kill somebody without having murdered him.

For example, if a man enters your home to steal and harm your family, and in the process of resisting him, you cause him to die, you are not a murderer. It was self-defence. Or if you kill by accident, it's an accident, not a murder. In neither case did you set out to kill somebody.

The controversial case, of course, is war. If Hitler wants to kill you, is killing his troops a case of self-defence? What if he only wants to subdue and enslave you? War has a way of making many ethical situations unclear. You'd need particulars in order to know whether or not one had murdered in war.

[Gary Childress]

I think the answer to that is obvious. If it's murder to kill a healthy adult, it's equally murder to kill a child, and equally murder to kill the elderly and infirm, and equally murder to kill the depressed or suicidal. The medical system in Canada is being turned into an engine of death, in these respects...and always, it's in the name of compassion that it is being done. But saying "I'm compassionate" does not excuse murder.

If it were simply "murder" to kill a healthy adult, then everything that happens by all sides during a war would be a "war crime". Is that the case?

There's a well-established distinction between murder and mere killing. You can kill somebody without having murdered him.

For example, if a man enters your home to steal and harm your family, and in the process of resisting him, you cause him to die, you are not a murderer. It was self-defence. Or if you kill by accident, it's an accident, not a murder. In neither case did you set out to kill somebody.

The controversial case, of course, is war. If Hitler wants to kill you, is killing his troops a case of self-defence? What if he only wants to subdue and enslave you? War has a way of making many ethical situations unclear. You'd need particulars in order to know whether or not one had murdered in war.

OK. Is assisting someone who wants you to kill them so that they can avoid chronic and terminal illness "murder"? And if so, why?

[Immanuel Can]

If it were simply "murder" to kill a healthy adult, then everything that happens by all sides during a war would be a "war crime". Is that the case?

There's a well-established distinction between murder and mere killing. You can kill somebody without having murdered him.

For example, if a man enters your home to steal and harm your family, and in the process of resisting him, you cause him to die, you are not a murderer. It was self-defence. Or if you kill by accident, it's an accident, not a murder. In neither case did you set out to kill somebody.

The controversial case, of course, is war. If Hitler wants to kill you, is killing his troops a case of self-defence? What if he only wants to subdue and enslave you? War has a way of making many ethical situations unclear. You'd need particulars in order to know whether or not one had murdered in war.

OK. Is assisting someone who wants you to kill them so that they can avoid chronic and terminal illness "murder"? And if so, why?

Of course it is. And it is, because their life belongs to God, not to you. You're taking that which is not yours to take, and rightfully belongs to your Creator. John Locke saw this clearly: which is why he said that all men have "the right to life."

[Gary Childress]

There's a well-established distinction between murder and mere killing. You can kill somebody without having murdered him.

For example, if a man enters your home to steal and harm your family, and in the process of resisting him, you cause him to die, you are not a murderer. It was self-defence. Or if you kill by accident, it's an accident, not a murder. In neither case did you set out to kill somebody.

The controversial case, of course, is war. If Hitler wants to kill you, is killing his troops a case of self-defence? What if he only wants to subdue and enslave you? War has a way of making many ethical situations unclear. You'd need particulars in order to know whether or not one had murdered in war.

OK. Is assisting someone who wants you to kill them so that they can avoid chronic and terminal illness "murder"? And if so, why?

Of course it is. And it is, because their life belongs to God, not to you. You're taking that which is not yours to take, and rightfully belongs to your Creator. John Locke saw this clearly: which is why he said that all men have "the right to life."

Does my life belong to God? I can't willfully and knowingly seek a less painful outcome with a medical professional's assistance if I contract some excruciatingly painful malady?

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Is assisting someone who wants you to kill them so that they can avoid chronic and terminal illness "murder"? And if so, why?

Of course it is. And it is, because their life belongs to God, not to you. You're taking that which is not yours to take, and rightfully belongs to your Creator. John Locke saw this clearly: which is why he said that all men have "the right to life."

Does my life belong to God?

"All souls are mine, says the Lord." (Eze. 18:4)

[Will Bouwman]

...aspirations are what made Socialists kill so many people.

Ah well, Mr Can, the 'socialists' you refer to are no more real socialists than any misguided soul who has tortured, burnt, fought in wars, killing and otherwise been a thoroughly bad egg in the name of Christ, is a Christian. As a non-socialist yourself, I'm afraid you are not qualified to say what a real one thinks.
Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

The unrelenting commitment to an "ideal" that is unattainable...

Tell me Mr Can, is the "ideal" set by Jesus Christ attainable for you?

[Immanuel Can]

...aspirations are what made Socialists kill so many people.

Ah well, Mr Can, the 'socialists' you refer to are no more real socialists

See, that's the funny thing about Socialists today. They'll tell you there never WERE any "real" Socialists.

That means that the Russians were all idiots. The Chinese? Fools. The North Koreans? Clueless. The Cubans? Got it wrong. The Romanians, Albanians, Zimbabweans, and every other -ian and -ean on the planet, who thought they were Socialists? Morons. None of them could get it right.

"But I, Mr. Western Socialist, know what "real Socialism" is. And if I were the latest Socialist dictator, then we'd all have it. And life would be ice cream every day."

We call "horse manure."

Of course Socialism has been tried...and tried...and tried...and tried...and in no version has ever succeeded, or even come close to being anything but an unmitigated disaster. And we don't believe you know what "real Socialism" would be, and we don't believe that you would do any better than all those billions of poor souls who have been forced into the effort to make real an "ideal" that only kills people and crashed national economies.

There's no market for your story here.

[Gary Childress]

Of course it is. And it is, because their life belongs to God, not to you. You're taking that which is not yours to take, and rightfully belongs to your Creator. John Locke saw this clearly: which is why he said that all men have "the right to life."

Does my life belong to God?

"All souls are mine, says the Lord." (Eze. 18:4)

And what if the Bible is wrong? Would that make a difference in whether the MAID program is "murder" or not?

[Immanuel Can]

Does my life belong to God?

"All souls are mine, says the Lord." (Eze. 18:4)

And what if the Bible is wrong? Would that make a difference in whether the MAID program is "murder" or not?

If the Bible is wrong, then murder isn't a sin. And then there's nothing to debate. Is that your position?

[Will Bouwman]

See, that's the funny thing about Socialists today. They'll tell you there never WERE any "real" Socialists.

That means that the Russians were all idiots. The Chinese? Fools. The North Koreans? Clueless. The Cubans? Got it wrong. The Romanians, Albanians, Zimbabweans, and every other -ian and -ean on the planet, who thought they were Socialists? Morons. None of them could get it right.

How many people calling themselves Christians have it right? How many are idiots, fools, clueless, wrong, morons?
Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

See, that's the funny thing about Socialists today. They'll tell you there never WERE any "real" Socialists.

That means that the Russians were all idiots. The Chinese? Fools. The North Koreans? Clueless. The Cubans? Got it wrong. The Romanians, Albanians, Zimbabweans, and every other -ian and -ean on the planet, who thought they were Socialists? Morons. None of them could get it right.

How many people calling themselves Christians have it right?

Well, that's for God to say, isn't it? Christ defines what a Christian is...I don't, and you don't.

But one thing for sure: even the worst expressions of false and pseudo-Christianity, such as the RC's or the Mormons, never killed more than a miniscule fraction of the 140 million that the Socialist "ideal" killed in the last century. So it seems the Socialists have the field of homicide all to themselves, statistically. Nobody comes within a million miles of them...not even the Islamists, who would desperately love to catch up with that total, but are still not more than 5% of it.

So much for the "idealism" of Socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.

That you can even think this is so obviously absurd that I don't know what to say. You're saying, "Having to serve more people will not cost more than serving fewer."

Ummm...yeah, right.

And here's some more of those people the "universal health care" system in Canada is "already serving," according to you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jme1crQuE-A&t=126s Just how much money will it take to detox, house, rehabilitate and return those people to society? It will be free, according to you.

I have no words.