Publicly Funded Abortion; No Bueno

Posted in the New York Times this week, an editorial highlighting the exclusion of abortion coverage in the National Health Care Reform Bill argues against the validity of such a clause. The author defines this restriction as, “an improper government intrusion into Americans’ private lives,” denoting that certain types of procedures should not be specified under coverage, but rather, that all procedures, regardless of nature, should be covered under the plan.
The author explains a new proposition that would segregate funds, prohibiting the federal tax subsidies from funding such procedures, but rather, the funds from premium plans and co-payments would have to finance such coverage. Disagreeing with the foundation of the compromise, however, the author attests that current plans already provide such coverage, with a large fraction of employer-provided policies covering the procedure.
The author of the selection obviously takes a liberal approach to the subject. Being a controversial subject, credibility, or a lack there of, is irrelevant to label the author with, for all opinions are acceptable as such. Demonstrating a desire to fully back abortion under all provisions of health care does, however, happen to be an opinion that I strongly disagree with. While I agree that hypocrisy reigns freely in our national government, that rights of individuals should be preserved as well as defended, this is not a right that should be under debate. Before the technology was developed making such a procedure possible, abortion was not an option for women, nor was it ever thought of as morally acceptable if it was. Regardless of necessity or simple convenience, preventing a child from the opportunity of life would not be plausible.
Taking the debate to the moral level, I find that it is as heinous as murder. In war, men fight and die in the name of defense. An unborn child, however, has no ability to defend itself. It will die. Whether a conglomerate of developing cells, or fully functioning union of organs and blood vessels, it should have the opportunity to live. We are all guarantied the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unborn child, however, is denied that fundamental first right.
Expanding the argument to a imposition on the masses, forcing the common individual to fund such subsidies that would directly finance such operations would be unconstitutional. Prayer was removed from school because it could no longer be required of students to participate in an activity that they did not support or believe in. The Ten Commandments were removed from a courtroom because they did not support a free environment, but rather one of a certain point of view. If such actions were taken to protect the convictions of the non-religious and the diversified, how could I be required to compromise my Judeo-Christian values under the auspices of a better society? If I felt that abortion was legalized murder, how could I be required to fund a government health care plan that supported such actions? Abortion and Euthanasia coexist. Who are we to play God?