Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?
- Thread starter mikemac
- Start date
You get 50% for that one, Anna. Some type 2 diabetes and consequently some heart disease is caused by personal neglect.
It is not my place to decide unless it is myself in the situation at hand. In my opinion, having an abortion because someone was complacent and doesn't want to accept responsibility for their own actions is something I don't approve of, but it is not criminal and I am in no position to dictate morals to other people.
As far as I'm concerned, a fetus is nothing more then an appendix until it is born, so claiming it's "Killed" is meaningless to me.... in fact is more meaningless then telling me some poor cow was killed to make the burger I'm about to eat. The cow was already experiencing life on its own, yet not many people put up a stink over how many pigs, chickens and cows are killed each day just to satisfy our hunger......
Seals? Sure, we'll hear about that hypocritical jargon until the cows come home (pun intended).... but amongst all that and then some, the protection of fetuses are at the very.... very bottom of priorities.
Not sure where you're going with this, but if it's towards an argument I had a while back towards "What is Developed?" comparing new born children, unborn children, teenagers, adults and seniors.... is getting beyond splitting hairs to further cloud the argument.
By law, human rights are issued to human beings the moment they're born and considered "Alive".... and as I personally see it, that means separated from the host, breathing on its own, and can interact with the world around it to prove that it is self aware.
Just filling one or two of the above requirements is not enough for me.... it's either all or it's not a living, breathing human being.
Now of course we can start dabbling with premature babies, or the brain dead and I of course have responses for each of those, but they just further go off the beaten topic path, cloud the issue further and don't change my original position.
---------------------------------
Or if your above response was towards determining who's rights over rule another's when rights are conflicting between two parties, you seem to view the same position as I, where the "More Developed" would hold more rights.... which would be the mother in every case, which means the mother has final say, which means giving rights to the fetus is pointless, so why bother? :-?
---------------------------------
Or are you saying that the less developed requires their rights to be upheld over the more developed? If that's the case, then you still infringe on the already existing and protected rights of the host mother, which requires the rights to be re-written, which then opens up the previously mentioned issues of others seeking rights that over rule other rights.
Please clarify.
Agreed.... and I think it should be due to rational reasons as well (No emotional doctrine or excuses used) ~ However, one can not do this, without removing or otherwise modifying the rights of a woman being able to determine what happens to her own body and preservation. Whether someone thinks that if one didn't use proper protection during sex and thus made the decision then and there.... that's not only debatable, but requires proof to determine as fact.
Did they use a condom but didn't work? Did they use birth control that didn't work? Was there intent in having unprotected sex, thus not caring if one got pregnant, or did one do everything they thought they needed to but got pregnant anyways, even though it wasn't their intention to get pregnant?
In any of the above cases, proof is required.
Shall one dig around for condoms in the trash to prove if they used one or if it broke? Shall one count the days on their birth control to show that they didn't miss something or did something wrong?
The problem is that in most cases, proving one's original intentions or the precautions they made to avoid pregnancy is almost impossible.
And "Them's the Breaks" doesn't cut it for me..... the final decision should be left for the woman and man (er, or Men) in question.... but final say is the woman's.... always.
In Universal Health Care, you don't get to pick and choose what is covered and what isn't just because you don't like something.... if you don't like it, go to the US and pay out for your own Private Health Coverage. This is the system we all pay into, these are the services provided.
As I said, there's all kinds of services and coverages in our health care system I don't agree with, but I will not attempt to force them to be removed, because some people genuinely need those services.
Just because some, or maybe a majority of the population abuses a given service (Unemployment/EI) doesn't mean we should abolish that service at the expense of those who really need it and don't abuse it.
Agreed, but these are all things that are a part of life and are covered..... and to sum up the above statistics as people who didn't bother to "Rubber Up" is, no offense, ignorant, because neither you or I know if they did rubber up or not. Condoms and Birth Control are not 100% fool proof.
Nope, but a lot of people get moody when I get long winded.
Very easy to say what someone should do when we're not that someone. Blanket judgments just don't wash for this problem, and in this case, it just opens the door for young women to be further victimized imo.
Didn't really mean to jump into this discussion again because I've debated this subject several times already and feel a bit exhausted by it. No matter how many times I come up on this topic, I'm struck by the a sense of audacity - that so many honestly believe they have a right to dictate how and when such a decision should be made by someone else. It's an inherently and deeply personal decision - some reasons have great validity and some may not appear to from the perspective of an outsider.
I've considered it in this light: I believe myself to be a pacifist. In the extreme sense of the word. I abhor all violence. YET... were I to be placed in a position where anyone I loved was in danger from another, I also believe I would pick up arms and do battle - to the death if necessary... and face my conscience later. We often don't stop to consider what we'd do if we were ever forced to walk in the shoes of those we condemn.
If we're brave enough to ask ourselves that question, from the perspective of someone unfortunate enough to find themselves at the mercy of their own foolishness with such catastrophic consequences, can we be sure our choice would be so pure and true to ideals that have only been tested in an environment that supports those ideals?
But you can't prove that they didn't. You can assume, but you can not prove it.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.
You don't get much of a say on road construction or how much money your local school gets from the government and your taxes.... you can complain about it all you want, but in the end, they make the decisions and tell us after the fact how it's going to be.
You mentioned the over eaters, smokers, drinkers, chronic drug users, etc.... what about people into extreme sports, sky diving, etc.?
Should they all pay for their own issues too?
Ok, how about people with their own illnesses, rare medical conditions? You don't have those illnesses and neither do I..... let's toss that out of our UHC system too while we're at it.
Eventually you end up back to a private system because the UHC system cover's squat..... and that's something I don't agree with.
Well, I was in the position at one time. I kept my baby. I had loads of pressure to about from some and loads of pressure the other way, too.
*shrugs* It's a public forum.
I agree.
With me it was mostly that I couldn't decide, so I just carried to term, but also that I was positive that the baby would be healthy and that adoption was an alternative. As it was I decided shortly before giving birth (the day before) that I wanted the baby.
If there is a moral high ground here I would hope to find it somewhere near compassion.
If you've never made a mistake that you just couldn't find a way to make right, I envy you, but I also feel you've missed out on an inherent aspect of the human condition. We are defined not only by the actions we've taken, but by the mistakes that have brought us to our knees.
If you've never made a mistake that you just couldn't find a way to make right, I envy you, but I also feel you've missed out on an inherent aspect of the human condition. We are defined not only by the actions we've taken, but by the mistakes that have brought us to our knees.
Anna - I know you have a huge heart - I've been accused of the same thing - it's clearly an issue that can be seen from two polar opposite stances and I'm going to respect yours by shutting up now. 
Hugs.
back atcha ;-)
... and now, I'm off to walk a dawg and enjoy some of this gorgeous day!
I don’t know what you mean by very expensive. It costs a modest amount when compared to other surgical procedures. It probably costs less than delivery by Caesarian section. So I don’t think you can condemn abortion on the ground that it is expensive.
And doctors should pay for the privilege of doing it? That is a strange way of putting it, why should doctors consider it a privilege? To a doctor, it is a medical procedure, same as removing the appendix, hip replacement or anything else. It is only right and proper that doctor get paid for it.
Nice way of completely F'n up what was said. Score any points for its propagandic value?
Juan, I did look up the costs of both abortion and Caesarian section delivery (I have the complete fee schedule on my computer). For an induced abortion, the surgeon gets 190 $. For a Caesarian, he gets 535 $. It is more profitable for the surgeon to persuade the woman not to have an abortion and later to deliver her baby by Caesarian.
I'm curious: I'd like to see some polls on the subject.....broken down by gender.
I think the entire "men trying to control women's bodies" argument is brain-dead........and should be aborted......
I think the entire "men trying to control women's bodies" argument is brain-dead........and should be aborted......
This discussion gets more interesting by the hour. First, women claim they should have control over their bodies, which I can buy- up to a point. Then some guy adds that that control should be happening while they are getting accidentally pregnant and that I can buy into - up to a point and then some guy adds that men shouldn't be concerning themselves with it, which I buy into- up to a point. But then another man who is the supporter of his family and pays the bills thinks he should have a say and can't find any argument with that. Meanwhile the fetus has never had a chance to voice his/her opinion.,
Apparently there is differing information out there:
Since no level of government has released cost figures for abortion, we can only estimate what the direct costs of abortion are. (These estimates exclude any indirect costs, that is, costs for follow-up procedures for immediate complications and side effects, and longer-term treatments for associated post-abortion problems. See book, Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence . Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2002.)
We use the figure of $80 million a year, based on an average cost of $800 per abortion for 100,000 abortions. In 2001, the Canadian Institute for Health Information reported 106,418 abortions. They admit that is at least 10% below the actual number of abortions performed because of reporting problems from some provinces and private clinics. So, the $80 million figure is already low for the 2001 year and if past trends continue, the number of abortions has undoubtedly increased in the past two years.
We arrived at the average cost of $800 based on the following numbers published by abortion advocates and in the media. Since hospital abortions constitute roughly two-thirds of all abortions performed in Canada, we used an average of the $500 cost (at the low end) of a clinic abortion and $1000 (again, at the low end) estimate for hospital abortions. We are quite comfortable that the $800 cost per abortion is in fact a very low, conservative estimate of the cost and that the $80 million a year figure is probably an underestimate of how much taxpayers spend on medically unnecessary abortions.
Here are the published estimates of the cost of abortion.
. "The average cost for an early surgical abortion at a private abortion clinic is about $500, while the cost for the same abortion at a hospital can exceed $1000," said Joyce Arthur of Pro-CAN. "Hospitals have bigger bureaucracies and more overhead. Most use general anesthesia for abortions, while clinics use less expensive local anesthesia and conscious sedation. Abortion clinics deliver more 'bang for the buck' than hospitals."
www.prochoiceactionnetwork -canada.org/release-Nov-29-02.html
. Abortions are significantly more expensive in hospitals. An early surgical abortion at a clinic costs between $450 and $550, while the same abortion at a hospital can be estimated at about $900 to $1200.
Oh? How come I had to pay for my daughters' birth control, and now that they are no longer under my roof they have to pay for it themselves? If we personally have to pay for contraception I sure as hell don't want to be collectively paying for others' abortions.