Is abortion “healthcare”

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.

 

Leave a Reply

  Subscribe  
Notify of