All men have a right to their bodies and their property; that is all. Your question is like saying; all men are created equal, so shouldn't we force wealth redistribution? Obviously the answer is no; force is neither necessary nor desirable. Besides, you are interchanging the Constitution with the NAP.
Well if they're to sick too work and provide for themselves then I guess they deserve to die because any help from the state would be too "socialist."
Lol the state is good at giving away other peoples money, taken at gun point. There will be plenty of free medical clinics for the poor. If assisting sick people is your passion donate your money and time to this endeavor this is free market capitalism. Socialism is robbing your neighbor to feed your other neighbor and then calling yourself a generous person. Its EASY TO GIVE AWAY OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, its hard to be a generous person and give away your time and resources at least for some it is.
Nah dude. People are evil and selfish, therefore we need a government, which is made up of those people who are evil and selfish... wait.. never mind.
All people aren't created equal, but I'll try to play along anyway. Nope. The idea of deserving state support and free market capitalism are completely incompatible ideas; however, I guess it's not surprising that when you start with a false premise, its logical conclusion is a contradictory.
What qualifies "deserving" support? I don't think anyone can inherently 'deserve' anything, I don't think anyone can be 'entitled' to anything other than the fruits of their labour. So there's no objective way to answer the question, if I had to pick I'd say no. Now don't get me wrong, I'd definitely donate money to charities that deal with that sort of thing, and if a tax pool is collected voluntarily and not through coercion then yes, sure. But does extorting money out of people to give to others become a valid option just because of some interpretation of utilitarianism? You could question whether or not self ownership and private property are truly axiomatic but that's a different thread. Besides, with genetic screening coming closer I think the question will soon be moot.
I think it is. If an unborn child has a genetic disease and we have the ability to remove it but don't aren't we making that child suffer unnecessarily? Does a parent have the right to choose a life of suffering and pain for a child due to some misplaced ideal?
Does that alter the personhood of the child? Can that child still be considered of complete genetic relation to their parents? Wouldn't these children just be a in vitro fertilized clone of their parents' unborn child? Those are trick questions, because they have different answers both biologically and culturally. The reality is that all of humanity doesn't conform to the Euro-American kinship system. This kind of diametric thinking ignores the social reality of issues and in policy implications it usually causes more problems than it solves.
Yeah, I think it'd cause a lot of issues at first and probably raise a lot of questions regarding identity. Which would be interesting to see when tackled on a mass scale. But we're standing on the eve of the dawn of consumer level genetic engineering and cybernetics, I think people's wariness about the subject will fade in time but it seems foolish to me to allow a person to suffer when it can be avoided. However I'm sure I'm just ignoring the social impact of it and thinking there's always people who cling to previous levels of technology for some reason.