The Moral Case for Obamacare violates the Medical Fallacy

About Obamacare–This whole, “it’s the law of the land position” is fallacious. I can tell you that in my personal encounters with individuals who support this egregious bill, this is an argument that they regularly use. “John, how could you be against it—it’s the law of the land—it can’t be stopped.”

You know there are other things that used to be the law of the land—yet the left would not for a minute consider them sacred cows, just because they are or were once “the law of the land.” One that comes to mind is Slavery. You know that the Supreme Court once upheld it? What about the Defense of Marriage Act? This used to be law too—and interestingly enough was brought into existence by a left-wing president. Speed limits are law, yet they change. I remember a road was once 30 miles per hour—now its 45mph. Then there is the assault on the 2nd Amendment. I know plenty of people who would reject my argument if I were to say, “How could you oppose the 2nd amendment, it’s the law of the land!?” How about laws against marijuana? It was once illegal too—but now, Colorado is known for more than snow skiing. There was also a time when women could not be Air Force pilots—not anymore. Finally, there was once a time when abortion was illegal—that was the law of the land. Yet—it didn’t stop the leftists in faculty lounges who wanted to remove the mistakes that lay in the wake of the debris of the sexual revolution—namely—the unwanted ‘parasites’ in the womb. They gladly opposed abortion prohibition laws.

Id also point out that when it is convenient, liberal presidents ignore “laws of the land” in the name of political expedience or for opportunistic reasons. How can they do that? DOMA was the “law of the land.” Obama didn’t enforce it. Where was the outcry from Harry Reid or the rest of the intellectual sciolists?

It is almost as if new progressive laws are virtuous, and any conservative law or objection to a law is viewed as intolerant or ignorant. Remember how GW Bush was called the “Decider” because he acted without the ‘support’ of the left when it came to Iraq? Well, those same dissenters chanted ‘death to Assad’ for Obama when he was going to become the Nobel Peace Prize holding war hawk seemingly overnight.

Rules apply to thee, but not to me.

Another major problem is an argument I heard yesterday. Without Obamacare, “upwards of 60% of women cannot get maternal care for them and their baby during the pregnancy and birth period.  If you oppose Obamacare, you are opposing healthcare for the unborn and for the mother.” REALLY? This is top drawer Platonian-warned sophistry.  What we see is a person who on one hand invokes moral absolutes in order to justify a woman’s ‘autonomy’ in order to adjudicate whether or not giving life to the child growing inside is ‘worthwhile’ or not—and why? Because if she wants the child, it is a baby, if she doesn’t, it’s a zygote. On the other hand—in this argument—the same moral absolute is invoked to make a moral case for Obamacare. “How dare you not give a pregnant mother and her baby (NOTICE BABY not ZYGOTE) health care at the tax payers’ expense.”

Consider this:

“He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist.
And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.
Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself.
He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.
As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.
A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.
A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.
He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.
The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt.
By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything…”

Quite so.

This entire debate can be summed up by something that Chesterton wrote about. He said essentially that though we may differ over whether or not abortion is virtuous, we all agree that they should be performed with sterilized instruments.

This is the essence of the medical mistake. G.K. Chesterton taught us that in medicine we all agree on what a well person is, but disagree on what sick is. In social and political theory however, we agree on what a malady looks like, but tear our eyes out over what a well-functioning society looks like.  The problem is, politicians and social critics continually use medical terminology to talk about social issues–“The health care situation in this country is sick.  It needs to be reformed.”  OR  “The country is sick–vote for my policies, and we can return it to health.”  This is a fallacy says Chesterton.  How can they talk about what ‘well’ is in absolute terms, if the idea of well is the most disputed issue in all of academia?  Only in medicine can this terminology be used.   It is a fact that a man may have pain in his leg and walk into a hospital, and due to medical necessity, come out with one leg less. Never will that man walk into a hospital and in a moment of creative rapture, walk out of the hospital, having being given one leg more.

To continue making the moral argument for Obamacare is essentially invoking the medical fallacy.  Let the people decide–not politicians.


DEFUND this nightmare.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: