If you are concerned that the object of this post is to revisit the question of abortion you will be disappointed. I’ve expressed myself on that issue quite clearly and those who have read this blog for some period understand that I argue against this “procedure” on Constitutional, rather than moral grounds. Nevertheless, with the advent of Roe v. Wade, abortion procedures are the law of the land. So is Obamacare and so was slavery. That something is the law of the land does not mean that it is necessarily a good thing.
Clearly, whether your position, is Pro Life or Pro Abortion, if we knew with certainty that a fetus, at some given moment in time, was a person, we would feel compelled to offer it all the protections to which any person who was born was afforded by our Constitution. But we can’t. Frankly, looking at the number of mass murders both in this country and elsewhere throughout the world, describing the perpetrators of these atrocities as human seems a stretch.
Those who are Pro Abortion justify their position variously. One such justification is that performing an abortion to save a mother’s life seems reasonable to me. I have more difficulty with the case of rape or incest – but I suppose a person could make an argument in those cases as well. As we all know, these represent a very small percentage of the millions of abortions which have been performed since Roe v. Wade became the “law of the land.”
Returning to my original thesis, by defining a fetus as a “non-person”, we can justify performing abortions. Were it otherwise, I think even those who are morally moribund might find it difficult to justify their views. That a fetus is nothing more than an “appendage,” to be dispensed with as desired, is the official position of this administration. Or is it?
In the previous post, I wrote about Obamacare’s first day as the “law of the land.” As part of that post I published the regulation which deals with the question of whether a person, seeking insurance on the health exchanges, would be entitled to receive a “subsidy,” based on that person’s income and family size. I suspect that this regulation, which was approximately four times the length of the post in which it was included, might not have been as diligently read as the language in which it is written is confusing and about as interesting as reading the list of preservatives contained in a box of Rice-A-Roni.
So for purposes of extracting something that is germane to this post, the following is a quote from the regulation which enables a person to determine how many people are in a household so that their insurance “subsidy” can be calculated accurately:
“Family size means the number of persons counted as members of an individual’s household. In the case of determining the family size of a pregnant woman, the pregnant woman is counted as herself plus the number of children she is expected to deliver.” – 42 CFR–PART 435
There is little in the regulation which is easily understandable to the average person. But this particular paragraph seems crystal clear to me. At the same time that Obamacare mandates that all insurance contracts pay for abortion procedures, presumably because the fetus is a non-human appendage, it then goes on, in this regulation, to define the unborn fetus as a person or, in the case of multiple births, persons – calling them children.
With this administration in charge, it’s got to be a confusing and dangerous time for kids – especially ones who have yet to be born.