income inequality and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Its too much to ask a woman to devote the next 18 years and more of her life to looking after a child she doesn't want or knows she can't take care of.

If women can't afford the medical centre costs then abortion is being made effectively illegal in America for so many.

Women will get abortions even if they are being told they aren't allowed to make that choice. I have known three women (and probably more, it is a very taboo subject) who went abroad for abortions and another who couldn't afford it, so went backstreet and ended up in hospital for three nights at the taxpayers expense, she told one of the nurses the truth, the nurse said there was no need to tell anyone else and not to say any more.

Misogynist religions and misogynist politicians won't stop people wanting to decide their own futures. The government shouldn't be legislating to control people's personal lives. In case that left anyone confused, women are people.

Maybe they should try a different tactic and recommend legislation telling men what is going to happen to their reproductive bits whether they like it or not, take 18 years of their lives, why only women?

Many of these anti-abortionists are total hypocrites, supporting the death penalty at the same time as saying only God should choose who lives, even if that life isn't viable. Then they are the first ones to object when the woman can't afford to raise the child they wanted her to have and claims money from the government.

Children should not be born unless they have a good chance of being loved and wanted, otherwise you just breed misery.

I do, when it is a matter of a woman consenting to treatment. If a doctor says that she needs it to live then I can think of no reason to take issue. Outside of that public funding should not be made avaliable.

No.

I ask again. Do you, or do you not admit that doctors, not laymen, are the ones qualified for determining what is medically necessary?

Like I said, if a doctor determines that a patient needs a certain treatment to survive then I have no issue with it because it is a matter of consent, not choice. If a woman is determining for themselves that they will have an abortion and the doctor is preforming the procedure then the taxpayer should not pay for it. You are equivocating between two very different things Viper. I agree with you completely that doctors are the ones that determine medical necessity, however, in most cases it is not their choice, they are simply there to ensure that it happens safely.



It is a matter of balance. I have a right to not be involved in the whole thing, that includes my tax dollars. If you want to ensure funding for abortions for those in poorer area who cannot afford the cost of the procedure then by all means set up a charity and use your own money. As for myself, there are many other things I would rather see my money go to support.



In my own case, this would be completely inapplicable. I support a living wage for the underprivileged (I was raised on government support) and completely oppose the death penalty.

Strange use of the word consent.

Why? Whenever a doctor sends me for an operation I have to consent to the treatment.

Hence the "most."

I looked up* 'taxpayer funding of abortion in Australia' and got nothing but a page of pro-life sites; not a single pro-choice view to be seen. Half were about late-term abortions. It makes me wonder what's going on over there.



*Totally off topic, but I wonder when 'looked up' will be completely replaced by 'searched for' or 'googled.'

Well it probably the case that the only people who are taking issue with it are those who are pro-life. The pro-choice movement is quite heavily entrenched in Australia so you will rarely see them defending their stances. That does not mean they don't but it the level of comment from the pro-choice side is probably a reflection of the amount of political pressure they are under. I am nominally pro-life and a member of some pro-life organizations in Australia but I will admit that our movement has not really made much progress in getting the issue on the table.

Now I will admit that my medical education is over 20 years old, but the last time I made a decision on medical necessity (about 2 o'clock this afternoon), "survival of the patient" was not the operative element of that decision.

Life saving treatment is not the only medically necessary treatment. Setting a fractured bone is medically necessary. Prescription drugs to combat everything from allergy to infection are medically necessary. Vaccination is medically necessary. Periodic checkups are medically necessary.

The suggestion that the only medically necessary abortion is one in which the life of the woman is at risk is medically incorrect. At least as far as my medical opinion is concerned.

Though they may pretend to care about medical opinion on this issue, and on one other issue recently discussed on this forum, in reality, it doesn't make a bit of difference to them. They'll keep pushing harmful policies that leave people that aren't as well off and are in need of these treatments out in the cold.

None of those medical situations are reflected in the case of abortion. Pregnancy is not an allergy, nor is it a fracture, nor is it a vaccination. I have no issue with women having free access to heath care to help them with their pregnancies.

There are times when a doctor recommends termination as a treatment and I have no real issue with taxpayers getting those bills but outside of that they can handle it themselves, there are other things we should be spending our money on, rather than borrowing it to pay for abortion of choice and giving the bill to the kids that make it though. According to statistics from Guttmacher, an organization I have very little time for, the rate of termination to protect the health of the mother is 2.8%. If they can tell, then we can tell. To be perfectly honest, if those were the only abortions occurring we would not be having this discussion.

Around here, those who need nose replastic do get those payed by the insurance, because this something necessary, for a normal life. Those who want out of fun a beauty correction of their absolutely normal nose, that is not needed for a normal life, dont get it payed.

So I dont see, how exactly, an abortion of an normal healthy kid, payed by the public was necessary to live a normal life. We have here in europe rather small children numbers, buts its not that few, that you become an abnormality with a kid.

There is a difference for me between accepting abortion and supporting it. I can accept, that in north corea people get killed out of ridiculous reasons by the regime. But I definitely dont plan to ask the regime there for their bank account number, to send them money, so that the poor guys dont need to pay so much money for the bullets. You want to abort? Then do it, around here this is easily possible without any bureaucracy, and in my oppinion if you want to do it, then do it as fast as possible, before the human being really becomes a human being with nerve, brain ... Additional the earlier it is done, the less complications are, so its as well an advantage for the mother. You can expect me to accept facts, and the existence of abortion is a fact. But only because there are sh***y facts, I have to accept, that doesnt force me to support that.

Specially when the argument of the acceptance of that sh***y facts relies on "But it is my personal decision, and noone has a right to be involved." So if I have no right to be involved, then I accept that and denies to be involved into this, by paying for it. You hardly can talk about the right to personally decide that, when in the other moment you denie the same right, that you demand for yourself, to others. If someone expects me to accept his personal choice about abortion or not, then I have the same right of an personal choice. Forcing me to pay someones abortion, is definitely taking me the right to do MY personal decision about it, because my personal decision is that I dont want to be involved into that.

The bottom line is that--so far as I am aware--you have no qualifications upon which to pronounce upon whether or not abortion is medically necessary. You haven't even demonstrated an understanding of the term, let alone the capacity to apply it to an individual patient's circumstances.

That doesn't matter to him. He just thinks you're wrong somehow. He reminds me of a certain other poster about a certain other procedure that was very recently discussed here.

Now in British Columbia, it seems, such people don't really hold sway, so I wish I could live there, but I probably can't, because British Columbia is in a different English-speaking country, and I hear it's really hard to immigrate to another English-speaking country nowadays. Where I live and appear to be stuck at the moment, people like 91 and that certain other poster hold sway and it hurts me and other people each and every day. Considering the politics of where I live, carrying on the fight here seems utterly futile.

Amazing where this kind of "logic" can lead.

I don't smoke and I think smoking is nasty, so I don't want my tax dollars used to pay for people who smoke. That means if you are on welfare you aren't allowed to use the money you get to buy cigarettes. Oh, and I don't like you drinking either, so it's the same for booze.

I think fat people are gross and so I don't want my tax dollars used to fund food stamps because some people buy junk food with them.

I think people should live in houses, not apartments, so I don't want my tax dollars used to fund Section 8 housing except if it's single family homes ...

The point is, we all pay taxes and we all indirectly support all kinds of things that we would not personally send a check to on our own. My tax dollars support a military that I think is grossly overfunded and overutilized. I can b***h about it all I want. Soldiers and their families would likely disagree with me. They can b***h about it all they want.

Bottom line? The "I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortion" is yet another dodge to try to restrict access to it further.

I agree with what you said. Since paying taxes is not voluntary (with exceptions of things like road taxes and tobacco taxes etc), the taxpayer is not somehow morally responsible for how the tax money is spent.