The Culture of Death has been front and center in the news this year. From the Planned Parenthood v. Susan G. Komen spat to the HHS mandate battle, the battle against the anti-life movement in this country has risen to a new and frightful level. With the heightened attention comes a lot more public debate and bloviating and in looking at that those fighting for the right to kill children, willfully disregarding the rights of others to free speech and free practice of religion, and pushing forward the Culture of Death agenda, I find that so many of their arguments are completely disjointed and separated from logic. Let's take a look at a few of the recent arguments I've seen.
1. Throughout the nation this year there have been a number of laws brought to vote that would require women seeking abortions to first have an ultrasound administered. In some cases these laws have started out or ended up requiring the ultrasound be an internal (vaginal) ultrasound and not an externally conducted ultrasound. The rally cry for many of the abortion advocates is that this requirement is akin to state mandated rape, that it violates women's rights by forcing them to submit to a procedure that infiltrates their vagina. And that this mandated invasion of their womanhood is a gross violation of their rights. Now, by itself that seems to be a legitimate concern. Forcing a woman to allow a doctor to insert an instrument into her vagina does sound like a very brazen and gross violation of a woman's body. And, of course, those making this argument fan the flames of that sentiment by bringing up the rape victims that seek abortions. Those unfortunate women that have been forcefully violated will be subjected to yet another invasion of their womanhood which will just add to the trauma. It's some pretty intense and effective rhetoric the way they present it. (In calling it rhetoric, I don't mean to belittle women or their right to protect their body, a woman's body is sacred and I detest any violation of a woman's body that is against her will...)
However, there's a pretty serious piece of the puzzle missing to this argument. A major whole in the logic and the debate: What are the circumstances under which a woman is required to submit to this procedure? It is when she is requesting an abortion. Now, think about that for a moment. What is she asking the doctor to? How is that procedure performed? Do you see what is missing from the pro-abortion argument? In case you don't get what I'm hinting at here it is: Abortions are performed by inserting instruments into a woman's vagina. She walked into the clinic to ask the doctor to insert instruments into her womanhood. If you walk into a cardiologists office and request a triple-bypass is it a violation of your body for the surgeon to cut your chest and crack your ribs? You are submitting to the violation as a necessary part of the procedure.
A woman requesting an abortion has already submitted to the violation of her body to perform the procedure. It's a classic strawman arguing that the ultrasound is a forced violation that the woman is not willing to endure. She's quite willing to have instruments inserted in her vagina.
2. One of the most puzzling, unchallenged aspects of the whole HHS mandate debate is the base premise that contraception has anything to do with healthcare. Pregnancy is not a disease. Nor is it some contagious virus or threat to health. Pregnancy is the natural and healthy consequence of intercourse that leads to a continuation of human life. In fact, most methods of healthcare increase the risk of actual health problems. Spermicides increase the risk of yeast infections and other UTI's. The pill increases the risk of some forms of cancer. IUD's increase the risk of infection. And no form of contraception prevents the transmission of HPV which increases the risk of cervical and other forms of cancers and more frequent sex, which is encouraged when men and women assume sex is "safe", increases the spread of this virus. And those are just a few of the physical health risks associated with contraception. The mental health related issues that result from the uncommitted sex that is encouraged when contraception is widely available and endorsed are also quite real and dangerous.
3. Related to the illogical assumption that contraception is some how healthcare, is the notion that contraception is a right. Our society seems to have decided that healthcare is a right, not only is it a right, but it is an entitlement. Healthcare should not be a privilege reserved to the wealthy or those that have good jobs and/or insurance, it should be readily available to all. But, there are limits to that right? If I want a nose job or liposuction so I can look "prettier" do we consider that to be healthcare that I should not be denied due to financial circumstances? What about tattoo removal? What if I need a crown and I want it to be gold with a diamond embedded? I think we can see the preposterous nature of the last request. I may need a crown, but healthcare is intended to correct a malady or problem and we would probably all recognize that a simple, basic crown is the limit of what one should expect to be provided to them.
Most probably recognize that plastic surgery for personal reasons, not to restore damage from an accident or disease, but purely for aesthetic "I don't like the size of my nose" type reasons is not really what we intend to offer through a universal healthcare plan. The intent is far more to preserve life and make sure life saving services are readily available since we believe that we are all endowed with the inalienable right to life.
And what we are talking about in the case of healthcare isn't that it is a right in the Constitutional sense of the word. We are saying it is an entitlement, something that not only cannot be denied by the government, but something that must be provided by the government. As a simple analogy consider home ownership. We all have the right to own a home, that does not mean that the government must buy your home for you. Buying a home for you goes beyond it being a Constitutional right and turning it into an entitlement...
So... if healthcare is an entitlement, why is it something everyone is entitled to? Is it because we are seeking to preserve life in lines with those inalienable rights identified in our Declaration of Independence? If so, go back to #2 and explain how contraception is healthcare and how it is the healthcare that the government should be paying for... because, the gold and diamond crown is an excessively costly answer to a problem strictly based on some personal desire... likewise, contraception is an excessively costly answer (with added health risks) in concession to personal desires, the cost effective, healthy response to the concerns that contraception addresses is abstinence. Sex is not necessary to personal survival, it is only necessary to survival of the species and contraception seeks to deny that. Beyond that sex is a purely selfish pleasure. And we are not entitled to pleasure, we have a right to pursue our own pleasure, but a right does not mean that others have to finance it for you. If it does, I demand my annual family trip to Disneyland and that all my bar tabs be covered by the government...
