Not really. If we can justify her case on a "humanitarian" basis, then we can also justify "anything/everything for everybody". Reality says, however, that we can't do everything for everybody just because it would make us feel good to do so. "Everything for everybody at the expense of others" is not affordable. Lines need to be drawn somewhere.
Excellent. I'm sure when God asks you about lines being drawn one day when you pass away (hopefully far from now), you'll have no problem elaborating. No one is saying do everything for everyone. When it is life or death, life should be chosen if possible.
1) 1)Better get over it. 2) Mighty big "if" there tsing. Please list the govt programs that haven't increased in scope and or mandate once created. Everything the govt does grows uncontrollably from the creation of the personal income tax, Fed, social programs, regulation , laws. Please list the issue govt has seen fit to NOT expand it's interest in? I don't get why some people think of "leprosy" when charity is mentioned. I formerly used to do quite a bit of pro-bono work. Problem is you cannot give charity cases the same expectations /demands of paying customers. heck some people would be unwilling/unable to even cover the malpractice insurance and all the other govt regulation compliance needed to treat them, and if they did they'd feel so entitled they would actually think they are paying for my services. So please don't tell me govt is the solution to "charity"
I have no problem saying it isn't the govt's responsibility and if "GOD" wants to discuss that matter with me I'm up for it.
you are not thinking very rationally tsing and I'm not arguing this specific case one way or the other. 1) I believe the girl is 10 so would be able to accept adult lung. 2) If medically she is a poor choice but others are a good choice why waste a resource appropriate for someone else to feel good?. 3) Do we have an over abundance of adult lungs 4) I believe organs should be available for sale it would increase supply for "charity " cases. 5)knowing the answers to the above are important. 6) I'm not arguing for or against the girl getting the lung , under our current system I would tend to favor for it .
Federal judge orders Sibelius to put dying little girl on adult organ recipient list. Amounts to age discrimination. Sanity prevails - at least for now. Makes me smile.
I didn't say government was the solution to charity. And just because the government programs to date have increased constantly in scope does not make my argument invalid. I've already stated - several times - that I do not support the government's version of the "Safety net". I also mentioned that the version of what I am talking about would offer basics to the poor (see the 3 squares comment) and allowances for extreme hardship cases. That's it. You don't agree? Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But don't put words in my mouth.
1) So at least you admit I'm right in your first phrase but just like all liberal programs you're hanging your hat (validity ) on "we're gonna get it RIGHT THIS TIME ". 2) Quite frankly people who are making the most convincing argument based upon the merits of their points don't go around whining
I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth so : Please tell me what you are talking about above if you're not talking about govt run charity in reference to "a national program to support the needy." thanks