income inequality and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Divisive threads: now two great topics combined!
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/abortion-res ... n-oklahoma

You've almost got me convinced to move to Oklahoma.

Why should tax-payers be forced to pay for someone's abortion? Seems quite selective when it comes to the term 'choice'.

Women chose, and everyone else pays -- Welkom to America, komrades!

Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for anyone's healthcare?

I don't have an issue paying for primary healthcare but I do when it comes to electives. By all means if your cancer treatment bill gets too high then I am there for you but its a long bow to draw to make me and my family pay for choice to have an abortion. If you think it is an issue that can be taken care of through collective funding then by all means donate to planned parenthood and create a charity for it.

It's no secret where I stand on the abortion issue. Referring to abortion rights as "reproductive justice" makes me sick. There is no justice in taking a human being's life...I hate the death penalty even, but I hate the necessity for it even more. What "justice"?

Having said that...

I don't think abortion should be COMPLETELY banned. Oklahoma is on the right track. But we have to be careful. If a woman's life is directly threatened by bringing a pregnancy to term, every effort should be taken to save the baby IF AT ALL POSSIBLE; any other procedure that inevitably results in a baby's death should be a last resort ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to save the mother's life IF it is a medical certainty that the mother's life is on the line.

Having said THAT...

I disagree that the couple here made the right choice in getting an abortion. However, this is a truly sad situation in which there is no easy answer. My heart goes out to them. This is a matter of conscience for them, and I can't judge them for that.

@91: I'm not sure this really applies as a typical elective. It's an elective in the sense that they could have had the baby, but not an elective in the sense that they had to make some kind of decision. I'd cringe at the thought of taxpayer money going to killing another human being; but I'm not sure it's best to support a human being that, for all practical purposes, is dead before it's even born. This one has got me stumped. What complicates the matter is that the couple didn't really WANT to go that direction; they genuinely felt that this was a loss and felt that termination was necessary on several different levels. I just can't judge them that harshly. What seems to get the most attention in the abortion debate is the contempt baby-killers have for the unborn. I don't see that contempt here, though it certainly isn't lacking with some of the others quoted in the article, at least in tone (it wouldn't be a very good PMSnbc article without it). While I disagree with their decision, I have to be somewhat sympathetic in THIS case.

I guess I missed the part where it was anybody else's business what goes on in a woman's body.

"I don't want to pay for someone else's abortion" is just a straw man argument. Most insurance policies don't even cover abortions anyway--abortion is the true "cash and carry" business because of the controversy surrounding the issue.

And as far as being okay with covering someone's advanced cancer treatment--really? Suppose the person is 89 years old and whatever punishing chemo regime they are willing to undergo will not extend their life longer than a few months anyway? You still on board with that? Really?

Selective when it comes to your application of the word selective.

By this logic, why should tax-payers be forced to pay for roads, police, or huge military white elephants such as aircraft carriers and stealth bombers worth more than their weight in gold?

I think Uncle Sam should pay for abortion.

the absolutist "abortion = murder" argument allows for no nuance in cases where the pregnancy is either non-threatening to the mother physically , but nonetheless mentally destructive and/or in the case where the survival of the baby is not viable.

Such was the case here in Northern Ireland, where a foetus was conceived without a brain and the psychological effects drove the mother to the brink of suicide. Under other circumstances she herself was pro-life, but was forced to go to England for a termination because of the psychological damage of being pregnant with a child that is effectively, already dead in the womb.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24458241

You've forgotten about the cases where the pregnancy is a product of rape.

Because you don't get to choose what constitutes, "elective."

I would agree with that.



Even if we restrict to the elective form of the procedure that would defund that vast majority of abortions. And no I don't, lets just go with the NIH on this one. The definition of an elective is something which does not involve medical emergency, most cases of abortion would not meet that criteria. I am happy to give some flexibility on that definition but it is too long of a bow to draw to insist that public funding for abortion on demand constitutes, in all cases, primary care.



What has that got to do with the price of tea in China? We are discussing abortion and once again you want to attack the US.

Most of the Indians who lived in Mississippi moved to Oklahoma a long time ago. Probably they will welcome you to their reservations.

I would say, why not make it easier to have people sterilized instead? That would cut down on abortions, and not everybody needs or should have kids anyway. I would love to see that, especially if they would get rid of the 'You need to have some kids first" that makes it hard for people-who-never-want-kids to get it.