Of course you have to worry about such matters; it just took them longer (ridiculously, inexcusably so) to come up with birth control that works with your plumbing.
Edit: The above line is addressing mystic up there, but hereafter the 'you's are meant to be generic. Sorry about that.
Contraception isn't the same thing as abortion. There's nothing that I could take that would induce an abortion. I'm all for contraception.
And to be honest, if you don't think that smokers are 'deserving', then I suggest you work to make smoking illegal. Not to be snippy, but either make something legal or don't; this paternalistic crap about how smokers are a pathetic breed who don't deserve medical treatment because they are making use of a legal substance that happens to also be a popular source of tax money is also inexcusable in my book.
In the event that healthcare funding was infinite, then yes, spread the love.
When it isn't, I think a degree prioritisation is necessary. If I had the choice of giving a donor heart to a 20 year old or a 50 year old - and I had just the one heart - I'd give it to the 20 year old. I don't have particularly high moral horse on this issue, but rather a small budget.
It is obviously a benefit to our greater society to keep it legal.
Absolutely. Making something legal doesn't mean making it a right.
I suspect the difference in our positions is down to the meaning of the word 'right'. I do not believe that any patient has a 'right' to receive medical treatment. To me, the idea of having a 'right' is something you demand from the state, or forbids the state from doing. It is clear that there are two types of interaction - positive (in the sense that the state must do something) and negative (the state must refrain from doing something). Negative rights are, to my mind, the only thing that deserves to be called a Right
, in that negative rights are real and legal and enforceable. By contrast, the postive goals tend to be aspirational.
If I am lying bleeding on the ground, I don't have a right to treatment. The state can't make me better by refraining to act. Rather, the state has to do something to make me better.
Why does this distinction matter? It's a question of legal theory in the end - if you want a coherent idea of what a right is, then the word 'right' has to include property and ownership. I can only own a defined and distinct thing (for example, a house). You cannot complete a positive goal. You can never be completely and forever healthy.
This doesn't mean that I think people should be left to die. I think the state has an obligation to treat them, but if they die then I haven't breached any human rights in not being able to cure them.
Again, coherence with the rest of the legal system is important to me. Up to 24 weeks? By all means. Abort away. After 24 weeks, the fetus is viable. You should therefore apply the same standards to any other form of human existence. We therefore end up with fairly strong protection to all people who require technological assistance to live. I wouldn't want a coma patient's life support to be turned off merely because it's cheaper to do that than to reduce hospital bureaucracy. Again, protected doesn't mean immune - if you want to do something to get past these protectiones, then you have to have a good reason. "Because I feel like it" is insufficient. Because it will cause suffering, pain, or will be disproportionate? That's a reason.