Come on Avro. I said earlier that there would be exceptions. Rape would be among them.
Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?
- Thread starter mikemac
- Start date
Come on Avro. I said earlier that there would be exceptions. Rape would be among them.
As I said to a male pro lifer who was ranting about abortions, "If you don't like abortions, don't have one. What other people do is none of your business."
In Canada we have a "universal health care system". I am left wondering what part of "universal" don't people get.
In Canada we have a "universal health care system". I am left wondering what part of "universal" don't people get.
The part that has anything to do with 'universal'.
Universal Health Care means that teeth aren't covered, because apparently that's not part of health.
Medicines and drugs aren't covered, because that's not part of health.
Corrective eye surgery ('lasic' procedures) isn't covered.
Cosmetic surgery isn't covered, except when it is, maybe, kind of.
Abortions are or are not covered, depending on where you live, maybe, kind of.
etc etc
What part of our system is 'universal' as it stands today?
Yes.... "Typically" which is also known as "I don't have actual figures towards how many raped women have late/full term abortions, but I'll just sway my guesstimation to support my side of the argument while leaving some room for error."
;-)
I think this is just a red herring some prolifers are pulling. Could you tell me which clinic or hospital in Canada performs abortion after 8.5 months of pregnancy (unless there are serious complication affecting woman's health or her life)? It doesn't happen. Doctors do a good job of policing themselves, in spite of there being no law regulating abortion.
If that is all prolifers stuck with (not having abortion), there wouldn’t be a problem. But what makes the prolife viewpoint so odious and offensive is that prolifers are not merely content with not having abortion, they want to impose their viewpoint on rest of the society.
They ‘know’ that fetus is a human being since conception, they are set in their view and they want to impose that view on everybody in the society, whether others agree with them or not. The ultimate aim of prolifers is to ban all abortions (or rather, drive abortion underground, in many countries in the world where abortion is illegal, it is more frequent, more common than many countries where it is legal).
I promised myself I'd stay outta this thread yesterday, but the whole " morality" aspect of the pro-life argument has been bothering me. If one wants to argue the morality of abortion, (IMO) it only carries merit if the argument is taken to the absolute – that is, if it’s immoral to abort a foetus – viable or not – then it only stands to reason that poverty and it's effects on the health and well being of a child should be considered equally immoral.
Why is it not ok to kill a foetus, but it *is* ok to abuse a child with financial neglect?
Before I get a back lash on this post - I'm not by any means suggesting that all children living in poverty were or should have been in line to be aborted - what I AM suggesting though is that until we can take proper care of the children already IN our care (and yes, I say 'we' because when children are in need, by default they become the responsibility of every single one of us) , we need to stop adding to the currently burgeoning population of under nourished, under housed, under clothed, under educated and of course, under medically covered (and otherwise poverty afflicted) children.
If we're to assume the onus of ensuring every foetus is carried to term, that onus should extend to the life of that child until the age of maturity.
Soooooo.... can anyone who is pro-life answer me as to why you have medicine in your cabinet, food on your table, clothes on your back and a decent roof over your head while More than one in seven Canadian children lives in poverty???
.... so once you've taken care of all the ones we already have in various states of distress, and still have oodles and buckets of never ending resources at your disposal, the by all means, enforce more births!
Why is it not ok to kill a foetus, but it *is* ok to abuse a child with financial neglect?
Before I get a back lash on this post - I'm not by any means suggesting that all children living in poverty were or should have been in line to be aborted - what I AM suggesting though is that until we can take proper care of the children already IN our care (and yes, I say 'we' because when children are in need, by default they become the responsibility of every single one of us) , we need to stop adding to the currently burgeoning population of under nourished, under housed, under clothed, under educated and of course, under medically covered (and otherwise poverty afflicted) children.
If we're to assume the onus of ensuring every foetus is carried to term, that onus should extend to the life of that child until the age of maturity.
Soooooo.... can anyone who is pro-life answer me as to why you have medicine in your cabinet, food on your table, clothes on your back and a decent roof over your head while More than one in seven Canadian children lives in poverty???
.... so once you've taken care of all the ones we already have in various states of distress, and still have oodles and buckets of never ending resources at your disposal, the by all means, enforce more births!
This seems to be a prerequisite when joining a forum....the ability to beat dead horses.....or at least comment on it....:lol:
The average cost for an abortion is about $800 in Canada. Your $535 is only a part of the cost. And a condom and/or a tube of contraceptive gel is a LOT cheaper.
In the real world, people make mistakes.
I don't think medicare should cover abortions, but I also think they should be relatively easily available.
So?
Someone could have heart problems due to a poor diet as well when continually told by their doctor and family to start eating better, reduce stress, etc.
And someone getting into a car accident? Well that depends on if it was preventable and/or they were responsible for the crash.[/quote]So? Like I said, I don't like paying for a quadruple bypass because some idiot wanted to eat cheeseburgers and donuts 5 times a week. Educate people about how to eat properly. Educate people about safe sex.
Yup, exactly.
So tell me, how many of those "everyone" would suggest it's good to pay for cheeseburgers/donuts per week, abortions whenever someone got too lazy to use a contraceptive? Not very bloody many, I bet.
Accidents happen. Just as in contraception, accidents happen. But social reasons for abortions are just inane.
Those are being stupid deliberately, not accidents. It's called negligence.
Enough.
Right. Pure negligence. Start paying for it and the rate of negligence will drop.
Baloney. Both of us get our physicals every year (out in the real world) and stay healthy. Living in a bubble is not feasible. So quit exaggerating. You're starting to sound like SPA.
Yup.
It was mismanaged. The Swiss seem to have no problem at all mixing private insurance/medicine with public.
It works fine for you. Just wait till the baby boomers and their kids all pile into the system between their 60s and 90s and 70 or 80% of gov't budgets will be on health care.
And people grumble about taxes now. Just wait a decade or two.
So? You don't think people are human until out of the womb and impose your viewpoint around like you're some kind of an authority. What's the difference?
So the solution is to can the emotional garbage long enough to think of something between your anti-life religion and the pro-life religion.