I find this article, Why Elective Abortion Can Never Constitute Health Care by Timothy M. Jackson to present some interesting and valid counter-arguments to a rather bizarre statements made by Leah Torres, a medical doctor and proponent of abortion on demand. In fact, it isn’t difficult at all to make quick work of Dr. Torres’ arguments to support her thesis that abortion is health care: Common sense informs against the doctor’s arguments, but I suspect that is of little concern to her or NARAL, Planet Parenthood and others within the abortion industry, and their supporters, as they routinely need to rely on intellectual dishonesty and repeating falsehoods with an idea and hope not that doing so will make it so, but rather that people will just come to accept certain falsehoods as a given or as true (factual) if they hear it repeated often enough.
Intentionally killing a human being is a direct contradiction of the Hippocratic Oath. No mantra will change that.
The so-called “pro-choice” lobby should change their tactic to one of total honesty: Millions may disagree with them, but at least there could be some level of respect for their honesty. Common sense alone reveals the fundamental truths — The use of semantics, mental gymnastics and redefinition of language makes the pro-choice position seem not only untenable but, perhaps, something untoward or even evil that needs hiding or, at least, a good PR campaign to make people buy into it: A baby becomes a fetus, and a fetus becomes a clump of cells; the ever moving goal posts of when does life begin — I say “ever moving” because a common argument is that “life begins when it is viable outside the mother” … but, of course, what is viable in a tertiary level academic medical centre in Los Angeles can be quite different from what is viable in a rural or even small or medium sized city hospital only an hour or two away. Should women who live within, let’s say, a 60 minute drive of a tertiary level hospital be disqualified from abortion at X months, but the woman who lives further away can have an abortion at the same stage of the pregnancy?
If the pro-choice movement would stop with the intellectual, moral and ethical brinkmanship (I think that’s a suitable term) and be honest … be direct … be blunt … and just say straight up something like “I/we have no problem with killing a human life for convenience or any other reason at the discretion of the mother, and I/we believe that it is a mother’s human right to be able to kill her unborn child if she so chooses.” Then, at the very least I could say that I respect their honesty. I respect that they are not trying to achieve their societal, cultural, legal and political ends through chicanery and deception.
On the other hand, some may argue that it is only through chicanery and deception and wordplay and, indeed, a good PR campaign that the pro-choice movement can even exist: That society would be appalled at the truth. Indeed, society can’t handle the truth.