Is health care a right or privlege Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Is health care a right or privlege - Essay Example Getting good healthcare is not possible for everyone as you need a background of money for that, but every individual has a right to an average rated healthcare. These people are not asking for the best, they just want somebody to help cure them and help them live a little longer. In America 20 per cent of the people are below the poverty level which means that they can not afford to pay for health insurance or for any other medical expenditure incurred by them. This level of poverty shows that one out of every six children goes to bed hungry. The government to solve this problem of health care can allocate a bigger portion of the budget for this service and especially help those people out who are in dire need of it. Another approach that can be used to provide proper heath care is to take it as a personal responsibility. If every individual himself starts living healthy by eating the right diet and causing less of self harm by smoking cigarettes and drinking less alcohol, it would make things much easier. It is not just the government or the doctors who are responsible for health it is every individual. (Christopher et. al, 2004) People who belong to different social strata hold differing opinions about health care. Health care is directly related to the amount of money a person has. The richer you are the more you are concerned about your health. While people who belong to the lower income groups are not really bothered and will not take precautionary steps to reduce the risk of getting sick. In America there are 45 million people who do not have health insurance. (Papadimos, 2007) Aristotle believed that anything that has a soul displays life. The body can grow, decay and provide itself with nutrition while the soul has powers of sensation, thinking and motivation. According to Aristotle, "If the whole body was one vast eye, sight would be it soul. As the eye is a tool for seeing with, but a living tool which is part of ourselves, so the body is like a tool or instrument for living with. Hence we may say of the soul that it is the 'end' of the body, the activity to which the body is instrumental, as seeing the 'end' to which the eye is instrumental." (Papadimos, 2007) What Aristotle is trying to say is that for the soul to be nourished, health care needs to be provided to individuals so that they can grow to their fullest extent. According to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), man would eventually realize the things that are needed to preserve life. He gives us the law of nature which says, "A law of nature (lex naturalis) is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved." (Papadimos, 2007) Basically he said that every human being has a right to anything he wants, even if it is another human's body. He considers three aspects: seeking peace, laying down the right of nature and making covenants, and performance of covenants. By seeking peace he means that if an individual has a problem such as a hearing defect then seeking peace

Homosexual Marriage Needs to Be Legalized Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Homosexual Marriage Needs to Be Legalized - Essay Example This would never have happened if Charlene and Kate were allowed to legally marry. Today, gay marriage is illegal in most states in America, and this is unconstitutional, as it is violating a fundamental right, which is marriage. The most egregious thing about the issue of denying gay marriage is that there really is not a legitimate argument put forth by the other side which would substantiate keeping an entire class of people from enjoying basic rights. For instance, consider the â€Å"slippery slope† argument. This argument states that if homosexuals were allowed to marry, then the legislatures would have to legalize marriage between man and dog, man and daughter, man and 12-year-old boy. This argument does not hold water for two major reasons – one, marriage between two homosexuals is sanctifying a consensual relationship, and all the other scenarios above would not be. And, two, perhaps most importantly, pedophilia, incest and bestiality are all illegal, probably in all fifty states. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, are not, and cannot be due to the case of Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court case which established that sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Therein lies a diffe rence – legislatures cannot be pressured to legalize marriage based upon relationships which are illegal, such as pedophilia, incest and bestiality, therefore the slippery slope argument is not legitimate. Another argument is that marriage is based upon procreation, and, since homosexuals cannot procreate, they should be denied the right to marry. This argument cannot be logically consistent, because, if the argument were to carried out to its logical conclusion, anybody and everybody who would be unable or unwilling to have children would also be denied the right to marry. Your grandmother in the nursing home who met her soul mate at the age of 86? Sorry, grandma, you can't marry because you can't have children anymore. Your sister who had ovarian cancer and had to have a hysterectomy? Sorry, sis, you can't marry either, because you are unable to have children. This is the logical extension of the ?ays can't marry because they cannot procreate argument,one that the supporter s of this argument must adopt if they are to be logically consistent. Of course, the other major argument is that homosexuality is proscribed by the Bible, but this is not a justification for denying a constitutional right. Roe v. Wade4 established this, as it states that morality is not a legitimate concern upon which to base a law that affects one's fundamental rights. And besides, if legislatures are going to start basing their laws on Biblical proscriptions, then they are going to have to outlaw drinking and getting rowdy at Sunday football games, as this would be desecrating the Sabbath, and this is an offense punishable by death according to Exodus 31:14.5 As for the argument that allowing homosexuals to marry would undermine the sanctity of marriage exhibit A to refute this argument would be Kim Kardashian. If her sham of a marriage, 72 days long, is not undermining the sanctity of the institution of marriage, then what is? Of course, it would be unfair to single her out, as there have been countless celebrities whose marriages lasted well short of a year. Not to mention Elizabeth Taylor, who was married eight times. These are just celebrities there are countless people who are not famous who are in the same predicament. Who doesn't have an uncle with five ex-wives? In short, heterosexuals