Burning off the dross

Is Abortion Healthcare?

Here’s some questions to ask your US representatives:

Does the proposed healthcare bill allow distinctions between wanted and unwanted human beings?

Isn’t subjective actions against human beings based on various physical features discrimination?

Clearly, it wouldn’t be reproductive health without a child, and I don’t believe you’re saying pregnancy coverage would be excluded from the bill.

We also know that to some, it’s clearly a baby, while to others – an unwanted fetus (Latin for offspring-child).

You’re asking taxpayers to support paying for violent mortal discrimination against a particular class of innocent human beings.

Do you truly believe in choice?

If so, who are you to tell me and every other American who stands for life that we have no choice when it comes to our tax dollars being used to support predatory, discriminating violence in the form of elective abortion, abortive birth control or any other term you use to avoid describing the destruction of innocent human beings?

Because if you don’t exclusively stand on the principle that the life of each human being is immeasurably valuable, then you must believe each life is of some utilitarian value, meaning subjugation of the weakest by the strongest human beings.

That being the case – where do I and the remainder of your constituents stand in that regard?

And why would we want a representative who doesn’t consider us equal?


  1. Completely agree with what you’re saying.

    By the way, somewhat unrelated, I’m currently reading “Embryo” by George and Tollefsen and I think I see where our disagreement came in on my blog. The dualism they describe is generally considered Cartesian dualism, which is a dualism I disagree with. You might want to look into Thomistic dualism, which places an emphasis on how the soul is tied to the body (i.e. the body isn’t impersonal; it is an intrinsic part of who we are).

    J.P. Moreland’s recent book, “The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism” as, from what I understand, he goes into detail on it (I wouldn’t know as I have yet to receive my copy).

    • Thanks for the comment Joel.

      Some time has passed since I’ve focused on the arguments presented by George and Tollefsen in Embryo, although my understanding is that they too reject Cartesian dualism, but present it as an often posited position others use to justify abortion.

      When it comes to metaphysical arguments (and the meanderings that might entail), I offer the Gordian Knot-like shred-test. It’s all a wonderful mind exercise until one has to put their actual physical body on the line. Why should the unborn be subjected to such a shredding? If one’s body is truly immaterial to their person, what better proof than explaining how you’re still a person after your body is shredded?

      Reality has a way of getting to the real truth.

      Specifically, when it comes to abortion, the issue is about the physical bodies of the unborn and what is done to them.