income inequality and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

That is precisely my point. But you don't seem to get that.



Umm not even the crazy Gutmacher institute takes that position. Just because a doctor is involved does not mean it constitutes health care. By that same logic, we have no grounds for determining that a lethal injection is not health care, because all we are going on is ideology and clearly it is between the doctor and the patient. Most abortions are abortions of choice, the doctor is present to ensure that nobody (except the child) is hurt in the procedure. If a doctor says that an abortion is medically necessary, I have little objection to the state paying the bill because I am in favour of public health care. I see no good reason to think that we should spend the additional finances covering all procedures when there are waiting lists for much more serious health conditions. We have better things to spend our money on and I object to being involved in someone else's abortion, being asked to pay for it and then being told that I have no right to an opinion. There is something quite malignant in a position where I am not only told to be quiet but I am required to have my tax dollars participate. It seems no matter how much we discuss this, you are not going to get it. The simple fact is that what I suggest is already the case in many places so it is not impossible, you are defending a non-issue, hence why I have resisted engaging you on that subject.



I have worked for a minister for health. I know that the majority of publicly funded abortions are preformed, at one hospital my state, are for non-health reasons on international students who do not want to take precautions with contraception. The department of health tracks statistics within the system for the purposes of deciding what it will and will not cover. It draws on its own internal regulatory process to determine this end. Those regulations are set by the minister, in consultation with the department and several panels of doctors. In my home state, we determine what services will and will not be covered and we do it all the time. At present abortion is covered, in almost all circumstances by a copay system, outside of life saving procedures. Abortions of choice are already split into a separate category and funded separately. So visagrunt's position that not determination cannot be made, is totally bunk, because it is already managed as such, in my state and in many places around the world.

My position and the position of the minister I worked for, was that we ought to not fund abortions of choice when people already need extra funding for life saving procedures. Government funded medical systems are not completely flushed with cash and difficult choices have to be made but because at one point we had a super left wing minister, abortions of choice got onto the list, within the regulations and I would bet real money that in most cases elsewhere, this is exactly what happens. In the real world difficult choices have to be made and in Australian political life we have what is called a conscience position, wherein one is not bound by party policy to support certain issues. I see no major issue with expanding that to cover abortions of choice. If you really want them covered you can make a charity, but I believe that there are much higher priorities for those government funds and don't want to be involved in it anyway. So it is much better to keep public healthcare as depoliticised as possible (because if left wing chaps keep sneaking in stuff like this, make no mistake, if it becomes a major part of the culture war conservatives and libertarians will win the debate) and to keep its limited resources on the highest priorities. The fact that visagrunt continues to insist that no determination can be made, is proof that he has precisely no idea about how health care is done.

You might have deceived yourself into believing that this is your point, but you aren't fooling anyone else. I don't think you're a liar; and I don't think your stupid, so the only conclusion I am left to draw is that you are being deliberately disingenuous.



I haven't suggested that most, or all abortions are not motivated by the personal preferences of the patient. What I have stated, quite categorically, is that no one--most particularly you and I, is qualified to inquire into the decisions made by a patient and her doctor.

As for your opinion, you have every right to it. But it is of no weight or relevance when it comes to the medical treatment of a person over whom you do not exercise guardianship.



I never said that it could not be done--I said that it should not be done, unless there is a rational, objective, policy based rationale for doing so.

Singling out abortion for different coverage than other procedures in non-life threatening situations does not appear to me to meet that test.

Ministers are, of course, fully capable of making bad, subjective, irrational and feckless decisions. But that doesn't mean that they should do so.

So...it's an alien?

This is true...though I'm assuming YOU are human. When I've gotten in these discussions before, I've been quick to point out that life actually begins BEFORE conception because the union of two LIVING sex cells results in the conception of a new human being. The difference, though, is that sex cells belong to the parents and thus by themselves are not unique. They contain unique combinations of DNA derived from each respective parent, but they belong to their respective parents. Skin cells are living cells, too, but we don't get upset when they die. Sex cells are no different in that respect.

The union of sex cells result in the conception of a new, unique individual life form that belongs to neither parent but to itself. It is very much human, and it very much is A human. There is no end to the absurdity of arguing otherwise.

Sure, that is why we have regulation to determine that based on a doctor's opinion what is covered and what is not.



I think both you and I see government and how it functions rather differently. I see government to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Taxes are a reflection of my participation in that great democratic bargain. The description of government in your post on the previous page describes it as akin to some foreign thing, that acts more on its own will, that I interact with only remotely and that I have little right to claim ownership of taxpayers dollars. That view, is based on the rather insupportable idea that tax-payer money has no relationship to taxpayers. My view is that government should not necessarily be minimal but that we should not wage culture wars in ways that discredit our rather important institutions. There are people out there that will attack those things, in total on the basis of corruption by political forces. That view, while shortsighted, is not entirely wrong, if the bureaucracy takes on a view that is not shared by the people and goes about a job of implementing policy that people take serious issue with, using taxpayer funds. Further, I would tend to think that severing the relationship between government and the people, is less healthy than my view where the two are considered mutually supportive.



This does not constitute an argument against my position. I have given you three reasons for preferring my view. The first is that abortion should not be publicly funded because it makes pro-lifers complicit in its action and as such we have a right to conscientiously object. Second, there are more important things for us to spend our borrowed money on (it really is ludicrous to borrow money to pay for publicly funded abortions of choice and then bill the surviving kids). Thirdly, I believer culture wars harm and discredit our public institutions which should remain as neutral as possible. You can disagree with those considerations but I have made them and they are quite reasonable. If you accept the third one, it is really only a matter of time before people end up using those same institutions to impose ideas you don't agree with (like denying climate change and evolution in the classroom).



They are, and it is done on a regular basis by interpreting the necessary regulatory framework though which public health is administered.

I think you're accusing visagrunt of things he isn't doing.

Not, it doesn't. Paying taxes isn't voluntary.

Compulsion does not preclude representation or responsibility, if that government is of the people.



There is much of that going on in this thread. Feel free to explain where you think I am wrong.

The government pays for abortions but not for contraception?! Even I think that's twisted.

you're begging the question. Of course you find it absurd that other people disagree with you about what 'a human' is. I don't think that a single cell, nor an undifferentiated clump of cells, nor a non-sentient fetus, are humans (noun), though they are indubitably human (adjective).

Sorry, you have misunderstood me. The government pays for contraception, it is available as a copay through medicare and for free through university health services. The international students, disproportionately, don't use it and instead use abortion as the means of contraception.

sounds like there needs to be some mandatory sex ed at the university in question. Abortion is the worst form of birth control there is, in terms of stress and harm to the woman's body. I personally think it's a necessary option, but it's way worse for a woman than the myriad of other options out there.

I agree completely with the fact that abortion is the worst form of contraception. However, those students have already received sex ed. The state's internal research found that they had a culturally differing views of abortion and unplanned pregnancy. It seemed quite a reasonable idea, that people coming from a country where abortion carries less of a stigma, personal health is viewed differently and unplanned pregnancy has a significant stigma the rates of abortion would be higher. Simply educating people about the risks of abortion to one's health is not enough if they come from a country where everyone smokes inside, the pollution outside will kill you and people resist wearing seat-belts. There is just a different social view on harm.

I DO understand it. It is YOU that is always refering, that YOU want to choose FOR ME.

I do NOT choose for you. Abort or dont abort. Choose freely. NOT my desicion. But if I pay you, NOT YOUR DESICION!

GOT THAT IN YOUR EGOCENTRIC MIND?

Forbidding you to choose for me, what you aint got a right to do IS NOT choosing for you. Its only defending MY RIGHT, to choose FOR ME.

And what is abortion TO ME is as well MY THING to choose. Not yours. Do you choose, that for you its termination of potential life? I am fine with that. But YOU are the hypocrite, that wants to force your CHOOSE on me, while in the same post blaming I would be the one not accepting other chooses.

For me I choose its needless killing and for me I choose I dont support that.

Either accept what I choose, as I accept your choose, or choose not to accept what I choose, but then dont even have the idea to expect others to accept your chooses.

Anything medical necessary. Absolutely fine with that. But stuff you choose to do, without any need to do so, is not of my concern. You are free too chose, there are hospitals offering the service you want, but just like everything else not necessary its simply your stuff and not other peoples concern, what you do in your free time.

Just for the record, the best birth control methods (other than abstinence) are around 95% effective (on a per year basis). That means even when using contraception there is a 1 in 20 chance of pregnancy each year. It is estimated that around 70 million women in the US use birth control, which means that around 3.5 million women in the US using birth control still get pregnant every year. So don't just assume that any woman who is pregnant just forgot to use protection.

I am as well assuming, that we are not living in Ethiopia. I fully understand, that if the children you have are already suffering from starving, that its senseless to give a child live, that will cost another one already existing childs life. All of that are understandable reasons for me, just like braindead babies, babies with open backspirals, all other kind of babies without any chance of living, babies caused from a rape whatever.

But around here its mostly simply about "not fitting into my life-plan" and such issues. Goddamn life is about a tons of things, not fitting in our life plans. I had as well life plans, not planing a baby until now, but I am simply aware that having a lifeplan does not protect me from stuff happening against my life plan. And that includes far worse things then getting a baby in a non perfect situation. Like cancer, car accident with following lifelong palsy, ...

Yes babies can happen. But unlike tons of other things that can happen, they are not the end of the world, but part of living in that world. If you want to get rid of it by all means, without any more reason then "not fitting in my life plan", I wont bother and accept someones free choice. Friend of mine as well aborted. Asked some technical questions about it, but didnt bother them about my opinion towards it. I was not involved, abortion here is legal, so my personal opinion to it is of not matter for them.

But the moment you ask me to pay it, I would be involved. And forcing me to get involved into abortion, takes me my personal right to choose freely to personally not get involved with it.