Don’t forget you must leave “spirit” out when treatment vs. non-treatment.
You know, that "spirit" issue got me thinking yesterday. For some reason, Obama's comment about how we can't consider "spirit," i.e., a person's zest for life, in determining treatment made me think about the abortion issue. By the way, I assume abortions will be paid for by this government health plan, though I haven't seen that discussed.
Anyway, when it comes to those truck-sized loopholes about the "mental health of the mother" as justification for abortion, everyone has to accept the patient's word without question. So why isn't the same respect accorded to the 100 year old who wanted the pacemaker? If a woman decides her "mental health" requires an abortion, that's the end of the inquiry as far as government is concerned. If, however, a woman is 65 years old and wants to pursue aggressive cancer treatment (if her "mental health" requires her to fight), then suddenly the government has the right to make the decision for her? I see a lot of double standards when I compare the abortion debate to the health care proposals.