No. I wont tell congress to exclude abortion from health care. I will say that the legality of abortion and its acceptability has to be based on something more substantial than whether a baby has a heartbeat. And that begins by taking a measured and realistic look at when life actually begins and adjusting our perceptions accordingly. Otherwise, the issue becomes stalled at the false thresholds of birth and conception. Here's a good place to start.A national health care plan that excludes abortion when the Supreme Court has ruled it legal, is not a national health care plan that serves the interests of the people. The premise that taxpayers who oppose abortion shouldn't have to pay for them with their tax money carries obvious implications the media ignores: What about contraceptives? Why should a woman denied insurance payment for an abortion be forced to subsidize the prostate exam of a man who insisted he not have to fund her abortion? Why should Christian Scientists who believe only in healing by prayer be forced to subsidize their neighbor's heart surgery?The idea that taxpayers shouldn't pay for insurance that covers medical services they don't support is fundamentally incompatible with the very concept of insurance. If every interest group wields veto power over the medical care insurance can cover, insurance simply can't work. That isn't the only logical inconsistency on the part of abortion foes that the media fail to examine in their coverage of this controversy. Many of those who are most adamant that the government not allow abortions to be paid for by health insurance plans are the same conservatives who argue against health care reform by warning of the prospect of a government bureaucrat getting between a patient and their doctor.There is no compulsion in the law to violate your own moral conscience vis a vis the right to life. If you recuse yourself from the burdens of citizenship by refusing to pay taxes because you think it's going to stop abortion, that's your right, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences. But you should be mindful of the larger implications of that action when it no longer works in your favor as a result of someone else's refusal to fund your own health needs for reasons they deem equally valid. This ultimately takes us nowhere. You do not have a moral obligation or a mandate from God to impose your morality on those who choose to exercise a legal right of which you do not approve, no matter how wrong headed, vile or evil you imagine them to be. Those who do not elect to abort will not be able to dictate terms to those who do, so long as the law grants them the right to do so. The language of the bill is based on the law as it exists, not as you imagine it should be. Do you want to flatten the law to pursue what you perceive is the devil? Do so at your own peril.
Dean,Liposuction would be "a medical procedure I don't support" (at least from tax funds); abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.
I can truly understand those that have trouble with the church's teaching, but something seems amiss when we put our faith in young Youtube "experts" (Dean's first link) and ignore centuries of popes, bishops, and the strong moral sense of the faithful.I like his discussion of false thresholds, and birth is clearly, medically, logically, biologically, and obviously, merely when the child comes out, not the moment at which life is bestowed. But I disagree with him that conception is another false threshold: what happens at that moment is utterly unique, in that reproductive cells containing the father's DNA and the mother's DNA come together to form NEW DNA. And whose DNA is it? It is somebody's DNA. It can't belong to a potential being, for the being already IS. Conception is the only true threshold, for there is no point during the pregnancy at which a transition from no life to life takes place. Our Youtube friend seems to think that a fetus has rights only when it can think. I know a few adults walking around who don't think much--but I still think taking their lives away would be killing, not a "procedure." We can't base the value of the fetus on his or her abilities or feelings, but rather on his or her existence.I'm not attempting to make a full argument, and I know it won't get me anywhere anyway. What I'm really saying is: why are thousands of bishops, dozens of popes, millions of faithful of different faiths, and clear biological evidence all eminently IGNORABLE while some enormously intellectually self-righteous Youtube blowhard who seems smart because he uses words like "zygote" trusted implicitly and cited as reference?By the way, I'm as concerned about a troubled health-care system as much as anyone. I don't believe abortion is health care, millions agree with me, and we merely feel, in spite of whatever merits pending legislation might have, that something utterly unacceptable is being foisted upon us.
Post a Comment