Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Zan said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because one can recover from the latter but not the former? Just a guess. ;)

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.
Click to expand...
I agree. And I think education is an awesome tool if we can figure out how to use it properly.

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???
Click to expand...
Around here we ensure our survival, and after that we also help out others when we can. We aren't a pair of SPAs here, we don't hoard our assets.


.... 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!
Click to expand...
Enforce them? I don't think so. Encourage and educate people to sustain life where possible, yes.
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
AnnaG said:
lol As if you don't carry on arguing your point even though you know quite well you won't change anyone's opinion. sheeesh
Click to expand...
I didn't say you should stop arguing. I just thought I'd inject a little levity...sheeesh.
 
SirJosephPorter

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Indeed, it is not a coincidence that many prolifers are adamantly opposed to helping the poor, the disadvantaged in any way. Thus, they are opposed to minimum wage (they want to give the employers the right to pay starvation wages), opposed to social assistance (they want churches to handle the charity to the poor, not the government), some are opposed to public education (they want churches to handle the education), opposed to universal health care (they want it privatized) etc.

They want to make it impossible for women to have an abortion, while at the same time making it as difficult as possible for women to raise their babies properly.
 
O

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
158
63
Edmonton AB
AnnaG said:
Because one can recover from the latter but not the former? Just a guess. ;)
Click to expand...

sounds great... in theory... unfortunately Anna, the reality is that the repercussions of this kind of poverty aren't always fixable...

AnnaG said:
Around here we ensure our survival, and after that we also help out others when we can. We aren't a pair of SPAs here, we don't hoard our assets.
Click to expand...

Most of my comments were for just to make a point - I'm merely suggesting that anyone who feels the right to enforce birth upon someone that is not able to care properly for a child ought to put their money where their mouth is.
 
Last edited:
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
AnnaG said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you ain't just whistling Dixie there, Anna and it will be more than 70 or 80% of our taxes, it will be 80% of our income.
 
A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
SirJosephPorter said:
Indeed, it is not a coincidence that many prolifers are adamantly opposed to helping the poor, the disadvantaged in any way. Thus, they are opposed to minimum wage (they want to give the employers the right to pay starvation wages), opposed to social assistance (they want churches to handle the charity to the poor, not the government), some are opposed to public education (they want churches to handle the education), opposed to universal health care (they want it privatized) etc.

They want to make it impossible for women to have an abortion, while at the same time making it as difficult as possible for women to raise their babies properly.
Click to expand...
WOW
(Paraphrasing):

Egg, bacon and spin
Egg, bacon, sausage and spin
Spin, bacon, sausage and spin
Spin, egg, spin, spin, bacon and spin
Spin, sausage, spin, spin, spin, bacon, spin, tomato and spin
Spin, spin, spin, egg and spin
Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, baked beans, spin, spin, spin, and spin.
Spin, spin, spin, spin, gas, spin, spin, flatulence, spin, spin, and spin.
 
A

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Zan said:
sounds great... in theory... unfortunately Anna, the reality is that the repercussions of this kind of poverty aren't always fixable...
Click to expand...
Someone's mismanaging society, then. lol Societies are supposed to be of service to those in them.

Most of my comments were for just to make a point - I'm merely suggesting that anyone who feels the right to enforce birth upon someone that is not able to care properly for a child ought to put their money where their mouth is.
Click to expand...
Like I said, there's always adoption. Killing for convenience is pathetic.
 
gerryh

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
hmmmmmm.... didn't realize that the majority of abortions preformed were for women from impoverished backgrounds where if the child was brought to term it would be subjected to a horrible life of poverty.

anyone have stats to back this up?
 
bobnoorduyn

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
SirJosephPorter said:
You don’t have to pay for birth control. You see the doctor for free, for birth contort advice, diagnosis etc. You pay for the drugs. If somebody has a drug plan, I assume birth control pills also would be covered.

But it is misleading to say that you have to pay for birth control.
Click to expand...

Umm, duh, birth control advice does not equate to birth control. We pay for birth control, and it costs real money whether through a drug plan or not, we still pay out of pocket, it is not misleading, it is the truth, something you have absolutely no grasp of. We do not pay out of pocket for abortion. Your idea of what is fair and equitable is so far out in left field it is laughable, if it weren't so inequitable. Good grief, what kind of talking head are you?
 
lone wolf

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
SirJosephPorter said:
Indeed, it is not a coincidence that many prolifers are adamantly opposed to helping the poor, the disadvantaged in any way. Thus, they are opposed to minimum wage (they want to give the employers the right to pay starvation wages), opposed to social assistance (they want churches to handle the charity to the poor, not the government), some are opposed to public education (they want churches to handle the education), opposed to universal health care (they want it privatized) etc.

They want to make it impossible for women to have an abortion, while at the same time making it as difficult as possible for women to raise their babies properly.
Click to expand...

From which lips do you speak?
 
bobnoorduyn

bobnoorduyn

Council Member
Nov 26, 2008
2,262
28
48
Mountain Veiw County
SirJosephPorter said:
I don’t know where you live, but usual wait for cataract surgery is around three weeks where I live. I think it is comparable over most of Ontario. Nobody has to go blind because of lack of it.

Lasic surgery is to improve one’s vision. That really is cosmetic surgery, one can see fine without it (and with the help of eye glasses or contact lenses). Canada Health Act covers most of medically necessary procedures.
Click to expand...

Well it must be nice to live in the centre of the universe; while I lived in Saskatchewan the wait time fo cataract surgery was over a year, and folks went to private clinics in Alberta which weren't covered by health care. People in NS are denied potentially life saving drugs and/or procedures because of cost and logistics, but hey, as far as you are concerned they take a back seat to elective abortions. I'm just glad I'm not as shallow as you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom