I'm incensed that the issue of our "moral" responsibility has entered the debate over access to health care.

First of all, if there is no God to be respected as moral arbiter then there are no arguments to support the term "Right" when applied to access to healthcare.

Second, the term "moral" comes from the term "more" which is a sociological identifier for a commonly accepted standard of behavior. It is neutral, and does not imply a standard of good or bad. Just commonly accepted.

Third, if one is going to espouse a position as "moral" then they should give their coherent rationale undergirding such a position. That's where I'm going for this blog.

What is the undergirding that Obama proposes as the foundation for a moral obligation for access to healthcare? We have heard none except the rally cry of "It's unfair that some have and some have not! All should have!" This appeal to "fairness" smacks against reality when you look under the argument and find nothing there. What is the comparison? What is unfair?

Emotional whipping is the tool of the abuser. We are being whipped with the image of babies ejected from hospitals because there is no insurance, when the same hospitals find the dollars to kill another baby because of their moral imperative called "a women's right to choose". Is that fair? We are being emotionally abused by this whipsaw series of proposals that do not make sense when put into a single idea.

There is no moral sense to the health access debate going on in America today. Do I believe that access to basic health restoration is a good thing? Yes. But I don't believe that just because a treatment exists that it should be used for every purpose on earth.

We will soon be in the scientific era of genetic manipulation. The 1950's were a time of wild thinking of half man/half beast movies. (The Fly) This will soon be a reality in our world. Who will fund this research? We are already through government grants to our universities.

Once government can control the money for healthcare, then they can control where that money is going. When that money is coming from the private sector to industry then the private sector can control what direction industry goes. That's a moral decision from the people. We vote with our dollars. But government, with the ability to tax, can force a person to participate in that which is abhorent to the person. That is not fair.