Have you tried the health care in Canada and England? You may want to try it before you subject yourself and the rest of us to it.




Also, who's going to pay for it? Please don't say the government because you know as well as I do that by saying "the government" you simply mean the taxpayer.




Last I checked, we are in a recession. Unemployment is almost at 10% (which means tax revenues are already down) and we are acquiring a national debt so large that we are passing the tab on to our grandchildren.




Do we really want to increase taxes on the other 90% who are already struggling in this recession? Please don't say "tax the rich." The income level used to define "the rich" is dropping faster than the market has dropped, so pretty soon, any of us who has a job will be "rich" and will have our taxes raised.




As for me, I already have enough bills and taxes to pay -- including medical bills. I don't need a government bureaucrat telling me when, where and how I can get the medical treatment I need.




You think this doesn't happen? You think health care in Canada is better than in the U.S.?




People who support nationalized medicine believe that it will give everyone a "right to health care." This just isn't true. In Canada, if you're waiting patiently in line for services, it doesn't mean you will get the service in the order in which you're standing in line. Other people can and do go ahead of you. Why? They have insurance! So in reality, you don't have a right to any particular service. You're just another number that will have to wait its turn (and hope someone doesn't jump the line in front of you). According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadians are on waiting lists to get into hospitals. With a population of 33,487,208 (July 2009 est.), or roughly the population of California, that's a high percentage of Canadians.




And what about higher quality?




Both British and Canadian officials have told their citizens for years that their medical systems are the envy of the world. Fact: Canadian and British doctors see 50% more patients than American doctors do. The result is less time per patient.




Equal Access?




In 1980, the British goverment put out a report that said essentially that they hadn't made much progress in equalizing health care since 30 years prior when Britain's National Health Service was started.




More efficiency?




A good way to measure efficiency is hospital length of stay. If this was the measurement used around the world, the current system in the U.S. would be the most efficient. However, in Britain, where as many as 1 million people could be waiting for hospital admission, 15% of the beds are empty and another 15% are used by patients who have chronic disease who really are using the hospital bed as a very expensive nursing home facility!




A study that compared Kaiser in California with Britain's program also showed that while both programs were spending about the same per patient, the Kaiser patient was getting more services.




Please research the different programs around the world carefully. I don't want to wait in line for medical services that my family desperately needs when, right now, I can walk right in and get it.




Nationalized medicine? NO THANKS!

You don't do yourself any good by ignorantly making fun of what was a valid point. He never said you abort adult women, he stated that female babies were being aborted. Everyone knew what he was attempting to say. Congratulations on making yourself look ignorant and mean.

What you're saying about the zygote/embryo is the following:

1. it’s alive.

2. it’s a unique member of the human species

3. It has its own unique blueprint or DNA. It's an individual.

4. It can only be a human being, not a canine or some other animal.

5. BUT, it's not a baby?

Aren't you attempting to play with semantics here? We can call it a baby, zygote, embryo, or fish food. What we call it isn't important. The fact that it IS a life -- and you agree it is -- is what's important.

If it makes you feel better not calling it a baby, then go ahead and call it what you like, but it doesn't take away from what is being done to those children. You can't make it something other than what it is just because what it is doesn't conveniently fit into your argument.

What about partial birth abortion? Many of those babies -- or embryos -- while premature, could have survived. There have been cases of premature births that have survived that are much earlier than what is allowed for the late term, partial birth abortions.

Have you heard of the case of the botched abortion where the baby didn't die? They threw it in the trash! But I guess no one wanted it, and what we want apparently defines reality.

Also, your argument of why a 40-week pregnancy if the heartbeat, etc. began so early is a non sequitur. Just because the baby needs 40 weeks to be born doesn't mean it isn't a baby before then. The implication of your statement is that if it can't sustain itself, it isn't a human. In that case, babies/children aren't human for quite a few years after they're born! If you follow your logic to the end, the elderly in nursing homes aren't human either because they can no longer care for themselves. Since when do we define the value of life as the ability to care for one's self?

You know, there's a bird nest out in my yard that has one small chick in it. That bird will be ready to fly away on its own in 7-8 weeks. My children will take 18 years or more! Does this mean there's something wrong with my children? Does this mean they're not really human until they can survive on their own? Life processes vary from species to species. Pregnancies for humans happen to be 40 weeks, but what if the baby is born at 35 weeks? Is it not yet a baby for another 5 weeks? Gestational periods in no way determine when a baby is a baby.

On the point of the heart beat and EEG, ultrasounds and other medical devices that my wife and I had access to in hospitals proved without a shadow of the doubt there is a heartbeat. We heard it as early as 10 weeks with both are daughters although the doctor informed us that the heartbeat actually starts much earlier. You just can't detect it. And the brainwaves? Well that was evident with the equipment the hospital was using also.

Finally, it comes down to the fact that God values all human life. I noticed one of the other comments mentioned Matthew 7:16. An interesting verse selection from someone who uses "colorful language."

Indulge me by quoting one more passage from Scripture:

"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:14-16)

If God values the zygote/embryo/baby this much, maybe we should too.