income inequality and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Those things have use to a large number of people not just America abortion 9 time out of ten is some whore who makes nothing but bad choices. Why should a womans bad choices be every one else's responsibility but hers. Why stop there how about breast implants butt implants.

How quaint.

I´d like to remind, that actually it must be about two whores. So there must be male whores involved as well. Hope I dont disturb your misogyny with that fact. ^^

If your only concern is the money spent, then I'd counter that providing abortions for those who cannot afford them will save money in the long term. I mean think about it; if someone can't scrape together a few hundred bucks for an abortion, what are the odds they'll be able to raise a kid without going on public assistance?

It is a matter of conscientious objection on my part. Even if we grant that people should be able to determine the matter entirely for themselves there us something about the whole thing in that somehow my own efforts might also contribute to something I would never do. If the hungry need food, then let us help them, if the homeless need houses lets get in and fix that too. If you need a liver transplant and can't afford it, then I am with you. But making me a accessory to the death of the unborn is just too much.

Judgmental in the extreme.
Are you trying tosay that you have never made any bad choices? Or that if you have, yours aren't as bad because you have never had an abortion?

If you are going to take that approach, then you are excluding a very large number of surgerical procedures. If we decline to give access to abortion on the basis that it is a surgical procedure that does not involve a medical emergency, then surely we must apply the same logic to procedures like the surgical correction of a deviated septum, or the resection of benign neoplasms.

And let's not confuse the distinction between elective and emergency procedures and the definition of primary care.

Primary care comes from many sources. Physicians provide primary care when the patient walks into the office. Nurses provide primary care when they administer treatment. Pharmacists provide primary care when they make recommendations about medication choices. But vast amounts of the medical profession do not provide primary care. Specialist physicians do not provide primary care, for example. Access to the specialist system is largely controlled by primary care physicians who make determinations about whether primary care can suffice. Cancer treatment is never primary care. But it is medically necessary. Cancer care might, or might not be elective. But it's never primary.

But abortion services certainly are primary care. A pregnant woman's first contact with the health care system may well be an abortion provider. And if that is her first point of contact, then that is, by definition, primary care.

The key issue is not elective or non-elective; or primary care vs. specialist care. The key issue is "medical necessity." Emergency care is medically necessary to preserve life. But much elective care is also medically necessary to improve quality of life.

The question of medical necessity is not one that should be prejudged, politically. The decisions that arise out of the individual physician-patient relationships should, of course, be subject to accountability and scrutiny--but they should never be predetermined.

Last edited by visagrunt on 05 Nov 2013, 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Completely irrelevant. It's not about the level of the bad choice, but rather about who is responsible for cleaning up the mess. Imagine putting a bank teller in prison just because her bank got robbed. It's absurd! Punish those who commit the offense, not the victims of it.

Agreed that the above post is terribly judgmental. VERY poor choice of words. And it totally does not apply to the article posted in the OP. But it DOES make an excellent point in terms of responsibility for poor choices.

People always bring up such extreme circumstances when it comes to abortion like cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc but that's not what the vast majority of abortions are. If you have unprotected sex and allow yourself to become pregnant then you better have good reason to terminate the pregnancy. The state obviously shouldn't pay for abortions.

Do you object to the government funding of pastoral farms?

A mammogram provided by planned parent could be considered Primary Care. So to could many other services but lets not equivocate between all services that are on offer and provide them all with just one label. Just because an organisation does primary care it does not follow that everything it does is primary care. I am more than happy for planned parenthood to provide additional services but (I remain skeptical as to how much of it they actually do) but we are still logically free to distinguish between one service and another.



I would agree somewhat with that statement. But if we should not prejudice the concept of medical necessity for conservatives we should equally discard interpretations of primary care that align with another set of values. Rather, I am suggesting a compromise where the law would remain the same but that taxpayers would not be forced into the quite ridiculous contemporary situation.



Day to day I would but if there is a major drought then some assistance is warranted.

Yes and only one of the people has a choice in the matter misandry for those who refuse to see it and if two people cant come up with a few hundred dollars then why should every one else have to.

I don't expect the government to make an exuberant number of biased laws to protect me from my constant bad choices but that seems to be what most liberal dogmatic people want to be excused for their actions.

If those two people can't come up with a few hundred dollars, then who is going to pay for raising the child?

Especially if the child, as in this case, is going to live a very short, very miserable life filled with emergent medical interventions until he dies?

Actually, though, part of my point in posting this story wasn't to ignite another abortion debate but in the hopes of initiating a discussion about the options that rich women have vs. the options that poor women have when states make abortions difficult to obtain. My initial thought was not, 'the state should have paid for this abortion,' but that the state should not have made it so difficult for this woman to obtain an abortion after she had made her choice.' A poorer family, or a woman alone, might not have been able to fork out the money for the trip and the procedure, and would then have had the greater burden of caring for a disabled, suffering child until it died (or she could have dropped it off at a 'safe surrender' site, I suppose, and let the state handle the entire cost for its care).