to try to restrict it on the specious pretext of defending it
is a dangerous contradiction.
The right to life can and must be defended only through the recognition of each individual's right to his own life, and only to his own. To restrict the right to life on the specious pretext of defending it, is a dangerous contradiction.
And yet that is precisely what ObamaCare or any other iteration of universal health care attempts to do.
In constructing solutions to health care, or any other social or political challenge, all solutions must first pass this fundamental test of morality:
Does any part of the proposal involve violating anyone's right to life, liberty or property? Does any portion entail the initiation of force against another human being?
Only those solutions which without question consistently pass this test of are worthy of our consideration. Any solution which includes the initiation of force is constructed on an immoral foundation and must be rejected in its entirety.
We don't want just any solution to our social problems. We want a moral solution. Morality restricts the options available to us, placing immutable limits on what methods should even be considered.
Moral solutions to rising health care costs and the increasing number of uninsured Americans can only be constructed within the bounds of respecting every individual's right to life--fully, completely, and across social spectrum.
The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Equality before the law.
This is where we have to start.
Everything else is immoral.