An Abortion "Health Care" Dilemma [Serge]

Scott has a great post here. However, I wonder if supporters of Obamacare have really considered what the inclusion of abortion means in that bill.

Supporters of a universal health care system assert that there is some form of intrinsic right to health care. This is not a right to not have disease (which would be ludicrous), but a right to have another human being treat your disease (and hopefully improve your health) when you get one. And, of course, have the public pay the person providing the treatment.

Whether or not such a right exists is another interesting discussion, but lets assume such a right does exist. Assume we need Obamacare because we have a right to be treated if we get sick. Where does abortion fit into all of this? In the vast majority of cases, a woman seeking an abortion is not sick. The fetus that she is carrying is most often completely and perfectly healthy.

Furthermore, unlike other medical treatments that serve the purpose of increasing the overall heath of the human beings it affects, abortion does the opposite. The abortion procedure does nothing to improve the health of the pregnant Mom, and is specifically designed to kill the child growing inside of her. Health care can usually defined as treating a disease or sickness to increase the overall health of the human that is being treated. However, in abortion , there is no disease. There is no sickness. The treatment does not increase overall health. In fact, an abortion can only be successful if it provides the ultimate failure of health, which of course is death.

So in order to assert our right to be treated in case we get sick, we need to support and fund a procedure which does nothing to treat disease or sickness, but is intended to provide the ultimate failure of health. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?