Well, first, you don’t need sex. You don’t really need to procreate either. It is best if you do. But it is not a need. But you also don’t need free expression, guns, private property, or the vote. It’s all arbitrary when you really get down to it.
The only way to critique any argument about rights, effectively, is to attack the concept of rights in the first place. Then it becomes somewhat objective and un-assuming.
so if you’re ever in an accident (that’s completely not your fault) you would expect the doctor to just lets you die if you were layed off the previous week?
“so if you’re ever in an accident (that’s completely not your fault) you would expect the doctor to just lets you die if you were layed off the previous week?”
Or the doctor could just bill you.
Or you’d most likely have disaster insurance.
There’s lots of situations where this would be covered (pun intended) without a silly mandate.
In addition to many different ways to contract the cure, you may also expect/hope the doctor will save you without any compensation, but you certainly cannot demand it.
That’s his prerogative. No one owes you, or anyone else, anything.
The whole premise of your argument is some crazy rightsism, that people ‘deserve’ things or have a ‘right’ to them or that other people have a ‘duty’ towards you or others. No, no and no. You’re on your own, if you want someone else’s assistance you make it worth their while or fack off.
Nobody dies because they don’t happen to have money that week. All you need is the ability to come up with the money at some point in the future and somebody will lend you the money. I think many people confuse a you-must-pay-for-stuff economy with an you-must-have-money economy. Obviously if your survival is worth, say, a million Dollars in future earnings, but you don’t have the money for an operation that costs 50.000, it would be stupid for someone with money to forgo that opportunity to earn interest by letting you die.