Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like

    Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    This is my first debate thread, so if I've neglected to follow a certain format I apologize.

    Note: Any facts or figures I mention apply only to Canada. As I am a Canadian citizen, I am most familiar with the laws and policies of my home country.

    This seems to be an aspect of the abortion issue that isn't often discussed, so I would like to bring it to the forefront. Abortion itself is an extremely controversial topic and as the population is so divided regarding this issue, I was actually quite shocked to learn that our health care program (which is provided to all Canadian citizens free of charge) fully funds all abortions including ones performed in private clinics. Only 2 of Canada's 13 provinces and territories do not cover abortion.
    Source: http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/f...anadabort.html

    However, birth control pills are not funded, and neither are unnecessary surgeries or procedures like cosmetic dental or cosmetic body surgery, or physiotherapy.

    I should also mention that Canada is one of the few countries in the world which has no laws regulating late-term abortions. It is legal here to terminate the pregnancy up to the day of birth. (And the government pays for it). Although late-term abortions made up only 0.3% of abortions performed in Canada in 2003, that was still 320 late-term abortions.
    Source: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/bill_c338.html#facts

    As abortion is clearly a choice and falls under the planned pregnancy category of health care, should it not be paid for out of pocket (just like the pill or condoms)?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Well, this is a bit of devils advocate for me.

    Once it is the case that the Gov sees nothing wrong with killing the unborn, then it becomes hard to argue against it being payed for by the Gov. Take abortion Vs the pill. One could argue that abortions are simply the cheapest, most effective and most direct way of preventing births that would negatively effect the community. There is nothing "wrong" with the Gov paying for one procedure and not another.
    The other examples are cosmetic in nature, and have as far as I know zero effect on the community as a whole. Unless one would argue that a community with bigger breasts is a happier society, much like the Australian Navy Link Of course I assume it is for moral in the story. (It makes my point sound better

    So, it isn't necessary for the gov to treat abortion the same way it treats "the Pill". Even if it were considered the same thing, with all the same benefits to society, it isn't "wrong" for the gov to choose to promote one action over another. The gov does this all the time in other ways, with other actions through tax incentives (I assume Canada has those as well). Simply put, no gov is internally consistent, and there is nothing "wrong" with that.

    Lastly, I will ask this. Isn't Canada a representative Gov? If it is, the people have basically said they want to pay for abortions. Why should the gov go against the will of the people in this area? (If my first question is answered "no".. forgive the ignorant question)
    To serve man.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, this is a bit of devils advocate for me.

    Once it is the case that the Gov sees nothing wrong with killing the unborn, then it becomes hard to argue against it being payed for by the Gov. Take abortion Vs the pill. One could argue that abortions are simply the cheapest, most effective and most direct way of preventing births that would negatively effect the community. There is nothing "wrong" with the Gov paying for one procedure and not another.
    The other examples are cosmetic in nature, and have as far as I know zero effect on the community as a whole. Unless one would argue that a community with bigger breasts is a happier society, much like the Australian Navy Link Of course I assume it is for moral in the story. (It makes my point sound better

    So, it isn't necessary for the gov to treat abortion the same way it treats "the Pill". Even if it were considered the same thing, with all the same benefits to society, it isn't "wrong" for the gov to choose to promote one action over another. The gov does this all the time in other ways, with other actions through tax incentives (I assume Canada has those as well). Simply put, no gov is internally consistent, and there is nothing "wrong" with that.

    Lastly, I will ask this. Isn't Canada a representative Gov? If it is, the people have basically said they want to pay for abortions. Why should the gov go against the will of the people in this area? (If my first question is answered "no".. forgive the ignorant question)
    Canada is a democracy, however the public does not vote on issues like this (with exceptions in the case of referendums but we've had none for abortion).

    I would argue that the price of abortion is substantially higher than the price of manufacturing the pill. What with the cost of compulsory counseling, anesthetic, , non-reusable tools, the paid time of the anesthetist, surgeons, consulting doctors, etc required for abortions, funding the pill would be a more cost-effective use of our tax money and would have the same effect.

  4. #4
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    No. Because in india i think atleast 100 become pregrant everyday.so,in one year 36500 which is only a minimum. A hefty amount will be wasted. Many will try to earn illegal money.other programmes will be slowed down.the government should use money for better medical facilities and to have some good offficers to check sexual abuse and rapes.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    You say abortion is a choice - in most cases it is, but in others, it is not. If the woman's life is threatened, it isn't a choice to have an abortion. She has one because there is no choice. Also if the fetus is suffering from a defect or will die when it is born, I don't consider abortion a choice here.

    Birth control pills may not be funded because they are easier to obtain and also cheaper. I believe that birth control should be cheap and easily obtained.

    Abortion over here is government funded, if I am not mistaken. I think you pay for the abortion, then go to Medicare and claim the money back. I don't have an issue with that.

    Many women, especially in poorer neighbourhoods, cannot afford abortions. If a poor woman has an unwanted pregnancy, why should she be denied the choice of other women because she can't afford the procedure?

    Making woman pay for their own abortions means that rich women can afford them but poor women cannot. That's not fair. Abortion is a right that women have, and have had since Roe v Wade. It should not be available to one group of women but not to another.

    I think they should be government funded.

    For those people who believe that the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for the 'murders' of unborn children - why is it okay to force the taxpayer to cough up the money for an execution? Those taxpayers who don't believe in the death penalty are forced to cough up the cash for a state sanctioned killing. Why is this acceptable, but allowing women a choice is not?
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    You say abortion is a choice - in most cases it is, but in others, it is not. If the woman's life is threatened, it isn't a choice to have an abortion. She has one because there is no choice. Also if the fetus is suffering from a defect or will die when it is born, I don't consider abortion a choice here.
    I should have made myself more clear. I don't consider medically necessary abortions a choice either, however these represent the minority of abortions. Funding these abortions would make sense, as any other medically necessary operations are paid for by the government. The abortions that I do not think should be funded are elective abortions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    Birth control pills may not be funded because they are easier to obtain and also cheaper. I believe that birth control should be cheap and easily obtained.

    Abortion over here is government funded, if I am not mistaken. I think you pay for the abortion, then go to Medicare and claim the money back. I don't have an issue with that.
    Most birth control pills are approximately $25 a month.

    So you have to pay for the operation first, and then get reimbursed? Is that the case with all medical costs in Australia?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    Many women, especially in poorer neighbourhoods, cannot afford abortions. If a poor woman has an unwanted pregnancy, why should she be denied the choice of other women because she can't afford the procedure?

    Making woman pay for their own abortions means that rich women can afford them but poor women cannot. That's not fair. Abortion is a right that women have, and have had since Roe v Wade. It should not be available to one group of women but not to another.

    I think they should be government funded.

    For those people who believe that the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for the 'murders' of unborn children - why is it okay to force the taxpayer to cough up the money for an execution? Those taxpayers who don't believe in the death penalty are forced to cough up the cash for a state sanctioned killing. Why is this acceptable, but allowing women a choice is not?
    However women in poorer neighborhoods can afford birth control pills, so as to lessen the demand for abortions.

    Elective abortions should be treated as elective surgeries because there are other options for women with unwanted pregnancies.

    Also, Capital punishment was abolished in Canada in 1976. So, no taxpayers have had to cough up the cash for executions in over 30 years. I don't believe that anyone should have the right to choose to kill another human being.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong SAR, China
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    I should have made myself more clear. I don't consider medically necessary abortions a choice either, however these represent the minority of abortions. Funding these abortions would make sense, as any other medically necessary operations are paid for by the government. The abortions that I do not think should be funded are elective abortions.
    I think in this case, "necessity" does not include only medical necessity; the lives of the parents are heavily affected by their not being able to have an abortion for financial reasons, even if the child is given up for adoption or something: several months of immobility and lack of income, the costs of pregnancy and childbirth. The government is not responsible solely for the physical lives of its citizens, but also certain aspects of their lives. A person who has been traumatized mentally but unharmed physically does not, medically, have to go to psychotherapy, but it is imperative for him to do so, to resume his life and put the event behind him; thus the government should aid him in doing so.

    Personally I think whether abortions should be funded depends on the ability of the mother/ parents of the fetus to pay for it; in other words, that abortion should be partially funded by the government. It's not like abortions should be handed out like food stamps or whatever.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    Elective abortions should be treated as elective surgeries because there are other options for women with unwanted pregnancies.
    I assume the options you mentioned deal with after the woman has the baby, and gives it up for adoption or something. But even if the woman cannot pay for an abortion, has the baby and gives it up, there is still the pregnancy itself to consider. Like I said earlier in my post, the innate costs of pregnancy and childbirth are still significant. Government-funded abortions can allow the mother to avoid this cost and continue her life with minimal disruption.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Other than lost wages, there are no innate costs of pregnancy and childbirth. What specific costs are you referring to?

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive
    Canada is a democracy, however the public does not vote on issues like this (with exceptions in the case of referendums but we've had none for abortion).
    They don't have to directly vote.. for them to have a say. The people are being represented, so it is inherently their will that is done. If something happens that is not their will, and it is not changed. Then the "will" can be doubted.. IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive
    I would argue that the price of abortion is substantially higher than the price of manufacturing the pill. What with the cost of compulsory counseling, anesthetic, , non-reusable tools, the paid time of the anesthetist, surgeons, consulting doctors, etc required for abortions, funding the pill would be a more cost-effective use of our tax money and would have the same effect.
    The argument can be made, no doubt. But as I said there is nothing "wrong" with the gov funding a bad program, or a less efficient program than another.
    So to say that the gov "shouldn't" fund abortions... is beyond the ability to argue once we submit that abortions are nothing more than another medical procedure.
    At least that is what I get from the way you are attacking the topic in your OP.

    It is still perfectly reasonable for the people to have the gov pay for an inefficient program, because they like the "perk", or because they think it is "pretty" or has a nice logo. The whole matter becomes a subject of choice. The people want it (per the representatives they put it), so the people get it.
    To serve man.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    I should have made myself more clear. I don't consider medically necessary abortions a choice either, however these represent the minority of abortions. Funding these abortions would make sense, as any other medically necessary operations are paid for by the government. The abortions that I do not think should be funded are elective abortions.

    Most birth control pills are approximately $25 a month.
    How you determine which abortions are medically necessary?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    So you have to pay for the operation first, and then get reimbursed? Is that the case with all medical costs in Australia?
    Not all medical costs. I think Medicare covers part of the cost of the abortion, not sure how much.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    However women in poorer neighborhoods can afford birth control pills, so as to lessen the demand for abortions.
    Birth control isn't always effective, and if the woman is very poor, she might not be able to afford even $25 a month for her pills.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    Elective abortions should be treated as elective surgeries because there are other options for women with unwanted pregnancies.
    Other options like adoption? The woman may not want to give birth, though. Also, consider the time she will need off work in the late stages of her pregnancy. That's loss of earnings - who will pay her wages? What about her rent, her groceries, her bills? What about an ultrasound and other medical treatment she will need throughout the pregnancy? Who pays for that? What about the birth itself? Things can go wrong - she may well be more out of pocket giving birth than she would be having an termination.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    Also, Capital punishment was abolished in Canada in 1976. So, no taxpayers have had to cough up the cash for executions in over 30 years. I don't believe that anyone should have the right to choose to kill another human being.
    That's in Canada. I think the issue of taxpayer funded abortions is more of an issue in the states - and the US does have the death penalty in many states.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong SAR, China
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    Other than lost wages, there are no innate costs of pregnancy and childbirth. What specific costs are you referring to?
    Off the top of my head, prenatal and postnatal care, as well as costs of childbirth, the average in the US being $8,802, barring complications (http://www.ehow.com/facts_5391105_av...ild-birth.html).
    "More guns equal fewer deaths...by this logic, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons."
    Timothy Egan, NY Times

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive View Post
    However, birth control pills are not funded, and neither are unnecessary surgeries or procedures like cosmetic dental or cosmetic body surgery, or physiotherapy.
    In America, Medicare funds penis pumps and medically prescribed physiotherapy. And some states fund contraception devices, including the pill, for low income families.

    In my view, until abortion is either declared illegal and/or a purely cosmetic elective procedure, lack of money should not prevent poor women from access to legal, medically prescribed abortions. To do otherwise would likely violate the Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment.

    http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...-birth-control

    http://www.northcoastmed.com/ed_pumps.htm

    Equal Protection Clause: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...xt=rachel_rose

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Should Rhinoplasty (aka nose jobs) be funded by the government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    You say abortion is a choice - in most cases it is, but in others, it is not. If the woman's life is threatened, it isn't a choice to have an abortion. She has one because there is no choice.
    In most cases, a nose job is an elective procedure, that is to say, not medically necessary. Some women, and men for that matter, just don't like how their nose looks. But in some cases, it is a medically necessary procedure. Blunt trauma can make it hard to breath and cause chronic pain to the face that requires surgery to correct. Also, consider some people born with defects to their noses and sinuses that make surgery necessary to improve the quality of their lives, not only from a pain standpoint sometime, but also from a looks standpoint - some children think they are freaks because of a birth defect.

    So, should we just fund all nose jobs, because sometimes they are medically necessary?

    Many women, especially in poorer neighbourhoods, cannot afford abortions. If a poor woman has an unwanted pregnancy, why should she be denied the choice of other women because she can't afford the procedure?
    Many people, especially in poorer neighborhoods, cannot afford rhinoplasty. If a poor person has an ugly nose, why should they be denied the choice of other people because they can't afford the procedure?

    Making woman pay for their own abortions means that rich women can afford them but poor women cannot. That's not fair. Abortion is a right that women have, and have had since Roe v Wade. It should not be available to one group of women but not to another.
    Making people pay for their own nose jobs means that rich people can afford them but poor people cannot. That's not fair, either. Cosmetic surgery, whether elective or medically necessary, is a right that everyone has. It should not be available to one group of people but not to another.

    Right?

    I think they should be government funded.
    I think nose jobs should be government funded.

    Now, what is different between your scenario, and mine? Non-medically necessary abortions are an elective procedure. Non-medically necessary rhinoplasty is an elective procedure. And an "unwanted" pregnancy is well within the power of an individual woman to prevent as opposed to someone who was either born with a messed up nose or who suffered accidental trauma.

    So, why shouldn't the government pay for people to get nose jobs?
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  14. #14
    orangejet
    Guest

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Government funded abortions creates an unnecessary moral dilemma for anyone who opposes abortion. The fact that I, as a Catholic, and as a person view abortion as the murder of a human inclines me not to aid it in any way. I therefore find it morally objectionable to help fund it. Hence, I cannot pay any taxes in order to ensure that I am not aiding any murders of children. New laws (In America at least) are causing lower funds by tempting tax evasion.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,220
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    So, why shouldn't the government pay for people to get nose jobs?
    Having a big nose cannot possibly be compared to pregnancy. It cannot be compared to the physical and emotional side effects of the pregnancy itself, not to mention the birth.
    I can understand where you are going with it, though - and I wouldn't really care if cosmetic surgery was government funded.
    Frozen In Time Yearning Forbidden Wishes Damned And Divine
    Scars Of My Broken Kisses What Will Follow If Tomorrow's Blind? My Eternal Night.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    Having a big nose cannot possibly be compared to pregnancy. It cannot be compared to the physical and emotional side effects of the pregnancy itself, not to mention the birth.
    I can understand where you are going with it, though - and I wouldn't really care if cosmetic surgery was government funded.
    The thing is, I can replace abortion for rhinoplasty in your scenario, one for one. You are loudly declaring your "right" to have an abortion, and one payed for by the tax payers no less, but your post is little more than a whine when compared to another elective procedure.

    Abortions of "convenience," that is to say, an abortion for a non-life threatening, non-fetal birth defect, non-rape pregnancy, are cosmetic procedures. Having a big nose could lead to being picked on and terrible low self esteem, so it can equal "unwanted" pregnancy on an emotional level. And a big, ugly nose is genetic - there is no way to avoid having one other than rhinoplasty, whereas a pregnancy can be avoided by simply not having sex... unless, you are suggesting you believe in virgin birth? I'm saying: An "unwanted" pregnancy is still the fault of the mother, minus those exceptions listed above. Why should my tax dollars go to fix your mistake? Weren't you the one railing on against a girl who went yachting against good advice, and now she (or her family) should pay for her rescue? The very rescue she herself didn't even ask for??? Do you see the disconnect?

    If I say "Sex can lead to pregnancy," why does pregnancy enjoy a free ride, yet if I say "Yachting in the Indian Ocean in the winter can be dangerous," you attack the girl (more like, her somewhat wealthy family) who just did that and say she is responsible for paying for her rescue?

    So, why don't you fight with such vehemence to have free cosmetic surgery provided by the government? You said you "wouldn't really care if cosmetic surgery was funded by the government," but you went out of your way to fight for abortions.

    Why?
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong SAR, China
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    The thing is, I can replace abortion for rhinoplasty in your scenario, one for one. You are loudly declaring your "right" to have an abortion, and one payed for by the tax payers no less, but your post is little more than a whine when compared to another elective procedure.

    Abortions of "convenience," that is to say, an abortion for a non-life threatening, non-fetal birth defect, non-rape pregnancy, are cosmetic procedures. Having a big nose could lead to being picked on and terrible low self esteem, so it can equal "unwanted" pregnancy on an emotional level. And a big, ugly nose is genetic - there is no way to avoid having one other than rhinoplasty, whereas a pregnancy can be avoided by simply not having sex... unless, you are suggesting you believe in virgin birth? I'm saying: An "unwanted" pregnancy is still the fault of the mother, minus those exceptions listed above. Why should my tax dollars go to fix your mistake? Weren't you the one railing on against a girl who went yachting against good advice, and now she (or her family) should pay for her rescue? The very rescue she herself didn't even ask for??? Do you see the disconnect?

    If I say "Sex can lead to pregnancy," why does pregnancy enjoy a free ride, yet if I say "Yachting in the Indian Ocean in the winter can be dangerous," you attack the girl (more like, her somewhat wealthy family) who just did that and say she is responsible for paying for her rescue?

    So, why don't you fight with such vehemence to have free cosmetic surgery provided by the government? You said you "wouldn't really care if cosmetic surgery was funded by the government," but you went out of your way to fight for abortions.

    Why?
    I'm going to try a new line of argument here: it's in the interests of taxpayers to pay for abortions, in that the costs of paying for an abortion is far, far less than the cost of having to support another human being in the world. Especially if the case in question is of a mother who already cannot pay for an abortion, then how is the child going to grow up to be a productive member of society except if that is paid for by taxpayers?

    Look forward to your reply.
    "More guns equal fewer deaths...by this logic, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons."
    Timothy Egan, NY Times

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arraetrikos View Post
    I'm going to try a new line of argument here: it's in the interests of taxpayers to pay for abortions, in that the costs of paying for an abortion is far, far less than the cost of having to support another human being in the world. Especially if the case in question is of a mother who already cannot pay for an abortion, then how is the child going to grow up to be a productive member of society except if that is paid for by taxpayers?

    Look forward to your reply.
    Do you also agree then that we should summarily execute all prisoners currently serving life sentences? That would be cheaper than caring for them in the prison system, wouldn't you agree?

    As to your "too poor for an abortion, too poor to raise a child" scenario, there are waiting lists to adopt. There are people in this world with the means to raise a child and the desire to do so.

    But this also makes me beg the question - how much does it cost to not have sex? And how much are condoms? Or the pill? And if a woman had enough money to squander on birth control, and god forbid it fails, why does the cost of an elective surgery need to fall on me, the taxpayer, and not on her, the one who decided to have sex and run the risk of becoming pregnant? Why does she get to have the fun and also not have to pay for it?

    Why does abortion deserve it's own category of defense? I understand a lot of the same people arguing for government-funded abortions are the same people who support a universal health care system, but why don't these same people start or support threads about certain other programs, like free glasses, or free dental, or free mammograms, or free prostate exams, or any kind of free exam that supports early cancer detection, or free osteoporosis scans, or free diabetes tests, or free lipid panels, or free genetic testing?

    Abortion seems to some people to be an unalienable right on par with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And these are the same people who throw out that Roe v Wade somehow guarantees this so-called Right. Obviously, these people have never read the Opinions (that is official, Justice opinion, not random-Joe-off-the-street opinion) about the finding, which clearly state that the potential of life of the fetus should be weighed against the "privacy" of the mother, and all subjected to the will of the State's vested interest in both!

    Sorry for the pseudo-rant, but it's frustrating that people just go "Roe v Wade!" and think that somehow gives them unlimited dominion over their uteruses when , in fact, it does not. The State (the government of the United States, in this specific instance) recognizes the fetus as having a Right to Life, just like a born person, except for the specific exception of when that Right may be subjugated in lieu of a woman's Right to Privacy, at the discretion of the woman, but only before a certain, arbitrary time decided upon with the State's "vested interest" in the health of the mother and the potentiality of the fetus's life in mind.

    Seriously, read the damn thing, people. You might learn something.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    42
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    How you determine which abortions are medically necessary?
    A medically necessary abortion is one that, were it not performed, would lead to severe medical health risks for the mother.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tarja View Post
    Other options like adoption? The woman may not want to give birth, though. Also, consider the time she will need off work in the late stages of her pregnancy. That's loss of earnings - who will pay her wages? What about her rent, her groceries, her bills? What about an ultrasound and other medical treatment she will need throughout the pregnancy? Who pays for that? What about the birth itself? Things can go wrong - she may well be more out of pocket giving birth than she would be having an termination.
    If a woman is working, then she would have enough money for birth control pills, eliminating the need for abortion.

    If a woman consents to sex, she accepts the possibility of pregnancy, and assumes the responsibility of dealing with the pregnancy in whatever way she decides. If she elects to have an abortion, that is her choice and her money, not mine, should pay for it.

    Also, it is a woman's right to take paid maternal leave. There is government assistance for people who cannot work. Ultrasounds and medical treatment are all free.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Hong Kong SAR, China
    Posts
    78
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should Abortions be funded by the Government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Do you also agree then that we should summarily execute all prisoners currently serving life sentences? That would be cheaper than caring for them in the prison system, wouldn't you agree?

    As to your "too poor for an abortion, too poor to raise a child" scenario, there are waiting lists to adopt. There are people in this world with the means to raise a child and the desire to do so.

    But this also makes me beg the question - how much does it cost to not have sex? And how much are condoms? Or the pill? And if a woman had enough money to squander on birth control, and god forbid it fails, why does the cost of an elective surgery need to fall on me, the taxpayer, and not on her, the one who decided to have sex and run the risk of becoming pregnant? Why does she get to have the fun and also not have to pay for it?

    Why does abortion deserve it's own category of defense? I understand a lot of the same people arguing for government-funded abortions are the same people who support a universal health care system, but why don't these same people start or support threads about certain other programs, like free glasses, or free dental, or free mammograms, or free prostate exams, or any kind of free exam that supports early cancer detection, or free osteoporosis scans, or free diabetes tests, or free lipid panels, or free genetic testing?

    Abortion seems to some people to be an unalienable right on par with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And these are the same people who throw out that Roe v Wade somehow guarantees this so-called Right. Obviously, these people have never read the Opinions (that is official, Justice opinion, not random-Joe-off-the-street opinion) about the finding, which clearly state that the potential of life of the fetus should be weighed against the "privacy" of the mother, and all subjected to the will of the State's vested interest in both!

    Sorry for the pseudo-rant, but it's frustrating that people just go "Roe v Wade!" and think that somehow gives them unlimited dominion over their uteruses when , in fact, it does not. The State (the government of the United States, in this specific instance) recognizes the fetus as having a Right to Life, just like a born person, except for the specific exception of when that Right may be subjugated in lieu of a woman's Right to Privacy, at the discretion of the woman, but only before a certain, arbitrary time decided upon with the State's "vested interest" in the health of the mother and the potentiality of the fetus's life in mind.

    Seriously, read the damn thing, people. You might learn something.
    On a purely economic view, which is what I was arguing on, yes, it (executing life sentence prisoners) makes more sense that keeping them in prison. But obviously there are mitigating moral factors in such actions.

    And my example was a poor one, I didn't consider other methods of rearing the child at the time, sorry.
    "More guns equal fewer deaths...by this logic, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons."
    Timothy Egan, NY Times

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Social Programs and the Proper role of government
    By WhoamI in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: September 1st, 2009, 10:49 AM
  2. Libertarian Philosophy
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: June 16th, 2009, 09:06 AM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last Post: January 14th, 2007, 02:42 PM
  4. Where are you, politically?
    By starcreator in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: February 4th, 2006, 06:48 PM
  5. Religion and America
    By Feefer in forum Religion
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: January 8th, 2005, 10:24 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •