How Abortion Could Railroad the Health Care Reform Bill - Essay Example

ABORTION How Abortion Could Railroad the Health Care Reform Bill Word Count: 531 Abortion could possibly railroad the health care reform bill. House Rep. Bart Stupak was staunchly against having any kind of bill that would federally fund abortion, which would most likely be a disaster if it were allowed. This is because women would be able to get pregnant willy-nilly and then have an abortion at the drop of a hat on the government's dime, in order to be used as a method of birth control. To allow federally-funded abortions would be: morally wrong; socially reprehensible; and fiscally irresponsible.

However much a person is in favor of pro-life and a woman's right to choose, fundamentally, one knows that at the core of abortion is the ending of a human life. Some people could wholeheartedly argue that, "Abortion is morally wrong because it is morally wrong to murder a person made in the image and likeness of God" ("Abortion: The Silent Holocaust," 2010, p. 1). Many people consider abortion to be a moral travesty. Opinion polls support this. "On the eve of the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v.

Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new survey shows a strong majority of Americans believe abortion to be 'morally wrong'" ("Majority of Americans, and Nearly 6 in 10 Young Adults, View Abortion as Morally Wrong," 2010, p. 1). Federally-funded abortions would also be socially reprehensible. Abortion could be begun to be seen as a method of birth control rather than as an option of last resort for women who are unwed mothers or wanting to get rid of a pregnancy. Especially, there is an idea that "sex-selective abortion is a morally reprehensible practice" (Chamie, 2008, p. 1). This is basically because children would be able to be eliminated based on the fact that, perhaps their parent(s) would find their gender to be undesirable and thus abort the child.

Federally-funded sex-selective abortions would connote that the government supports this kind of eugenics. Eugenics was also encouraged under Hitler's rule. Thus, it cannot be discounted that, whatever is good for one person may not necessarily be good for the entire country. Perhaps the country's leaders may be obsessed with having a nation full of children that are only wanted by their parents. This seems reasonable, but life is not always reasonable. Sometimes life is not very fair.

Parents should take care of their children, not dispose of them! As one potential child who may have been aborted said, "My parents had the legal option of killing me" ("Disposable Children," 2010, p. 1). Finally, federally-funded abortions would be fiscally irresponsible. If every woman who wanted an abortion relied on the government to pay for it, the government would not only spend money, but it would spend money ending the lives of millions of innocents. Obviously, this would be fiscally difficult to achieve.

As it was stated on C-SPAN, "to fund abortions is fiscally irresponsible and morally indefensible" ("C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle," 2010, p. 1). This is from the very text of the congressional record. Federally-funded abortions would railroad the health care reform bill, as many people would not want a morally wrong, socially reprehensible, and fiscally irresponsible policy being signed into law. REFERENCESAbortion: the silent Holocaust. (2010). Available: ecclesia.org/truth/abortion.

htmlChamie, J. (2008). The global abortion bind. Available: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-abortion-bind.C-SPAN congressional chronicle. (2010). Available: http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/q=node/77531&appid=595080336.Disposable children (2010). Available: www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/disposablechildren.htmMajority of Americans, and nearly 6 in 10 young adults, view abortion as morally wrong. (2010). Available: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/majority-of-americans-and-nearly-6-in-10- young-adults-view-abortion-as-morally-wrong-82304862.html