Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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?

There are two parts to birth control. One is medical consultation, the other is prescription. Medical consultation is the more important and more expensive part. We don’t have to pay for that part. That is why it is misleading to claim that we have to pay for birth control.

Incidentally, if we defund abortion, we must also defund birth control. That is only fair. Women should have to pay to see the doctor about birth control advice, pill prescription etc. That is fully as much voluntary as getting an abortion.

And my idea of what is fair and equitable is far left in the field, really? Well, my idea happens to be the law of the land. My idea is supported by majority of Canadians; at least I have not seen any concerted grassroots movement demanding that government defund abortion, not even in Alberta. Sounds pretty mainstream to me.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
"Those "reasons" sound like a convenience thing to me."

I think a big cause of problems in most aspects of life today comes under the heading of "I don't feel like it"
Back when I was growing up "not feeling like it" didn't enter the picture other than we may have been a little unhappier doing it, but it still got done. But I guess that went out in the late 60s when "doing your own thing" became vogue.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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.

If there was a wait time of one year, I would cross the border for cataract surgery myself. But in Ontario the wait time for cataract is no more than a few weeks. Where I live it is three weeks. I can only speak for Ontario, I don't know the situation in other provinces.

Incidentally, why do you assume that cataract is taking back seat to abortion? And Again, I don't know what is happening in NS, but looked at it overall, Canadian system works pretty well. That is reflected in the health indicators (life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality etc.).
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I forgot to mention that yes, lasic surgery improves one's life but they can get by without it; but what of the unwanted pregnancy? It does go away on its own after nine months. It is not a medically necessary procedure in many cases, just an elective one. Again, why should we collectively pay for it when so many more life altering procedures are denied?

Again, why do you single out abortion as the only elective procedure which should be defunded? Is that because of your prolife views, and not out of your concern for how health care dollars are spent?

If we defund abortion, should we also defund contraception? Hip replacement? Should we defund plastic surgery for burn victims, mastectomy patients etc. (those are elective, voluntary procedures, the patient can survive very well without them).

Why should we defund abortion only and keep all the other voluntary procedures intact? That is the prolifer in you speaking, nothing more.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Is being a "prolifer" a bad thing?

obviously..... and for me, since I am pro-life in every sense of the word, am completely screwed as far as both the left and right are concerned.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
obviously..... and for me, since I am pro-life in every sense of the word, am completely screwed as far as both the left and right are concerned.

"Left" and "right" don't enter into it, Ger, it's got a lot more to do with how your head is screwed on. I'm glad you put that in about raising 7 children at near the poverty line- just puts the argument about "not affording it" in proper perspective. There's no amount of money in the world that can replace the pleasure of a child.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
What's the issue here? Is it ok to get them provided the individual pays for it? Love those cherry-picked ethics. I'm for barrier-free access to care, not just services for the rich.
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
158
63
Edmonton AB
The majority of my life, I have lived at. just above. or just below what is considered the "poverty line" in Canada. My wife and I have 7 kids. Poverty as an excuse????? give me a break!

Excellent gerry - you were able to overcome your obstacles - clearly this makes you a better human being than the frightened pregnant woman who contemplates ripping a part of herself out under the sad belief that this is her only way out.

We should all aspire to your level of superiority... but what to do with the lowly, wanton, selfish wenches who impregnate themselves at will... hmmmm what to do... what to do.... I KNOW! let's smite 'em!! .... I see now it's the only thing to do - that tolerance and compassion crap is so tiresome and really... a waste of all our time.... yep we can sort this out in three easy steps: condemn them, shame them, and them finish it off with a good old fashioned smiting!

Thanks gerry, I feel heaps better now - I'm all awash with the spirit of WWJD now.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Excellent gerry - you were able to overcome your obstacles - clearly this makes you a better human being than the frightened pregnant woman who contemplates ripping a part of herself out under the sad belief that this is her only way out.

We should all aspire to your level of superiority... but what to do with the lowly, wanton, selfish wenches who impregnate themselves at will... hmmmm what to do... what to do.... I KNOW! let's smite 'em!! .... I see now it's the only thing to do - that tolerance and compassion crap is so tiresome and really... a waste of all our time.... yep we can sort this out in three easy steps: condemn them, shame them, and them finish it off with a good old fashioned smiting!

Thanks gerry, I feel heaps better now - I'm all awash with the spirit of WWJD now.


:roll:


Ya know..... if pregnancy happened through no fault of thier own, I would probably support you. The fact is, however, there is only one way to get pregnant and it doesn't happen by accident.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Politicians love emotionally charged issues like abortion. It takes a lot of heat off them for their excesses, like their wages, retirement funds and expense accounts, not to mention bloated contracts to their friends and supporters.

80 million pales beside the cost of the war in Afghanistan which serves no purpose than to destabilize the country and protect the poppy crops for the CIA. Ah, but collateral damage is just an acceptable part of modern warfare. We get all worked up about terminating a fetus but killing children in foriegn countries is just part of business.

Yes, abortion and Quebec separation are emotionally charged issues and getting all worked up about it plays right into the hands of those who are really screwing us. If we could get pregnant from that kind of screwing we would all be demanding abortions.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Politicians love emotionally charged issues like abortion. It takes a lot of heat off them for their excesses, like their wages, retirement funds and expense accounts, not to mention bloated contracts to their friends and supporters.

Our politicians hate the issue of abortion. Look at this thread - no politician in his/her right mind would want to stir up such a hornets nest, it's a guranteed losing proposition. No matter what stand the politician takes, he/she is guaranteed to alienate a huge chunk of voters.

That's why our politicians avoid the issue whenever possible.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Our politicians hate the issue of abortion. Look at this thread - no politician in his/her right mind would want to stir up such a hornets nest, it's a guranteed losing proposition. No matter what stand the politician takes, he/she is guaranteed to alienate a huge chunk of voters.

That's why our politicians avoid the issue whenever possible.
You couldn't be any more right if you tried, that's why they call it a "political hot potato".
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
So?

..... 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.

The point being is that it doesn't matter what you or I like... this is how it is, these are the health issues covered by our health care and if you plan on removing coverage for one, you have to remove coverage of all..... and since that will never happen, there's nothing more to debate in this aspect.

AKA: It makes no sense to try and justify removing abortion being covered if the others mentioned above, and then some, are left covered and will most likely never be removed from coverage.

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.

Your assumption is irrelevant. I personally think it's good to cover these things, because I know that there's a very good chance that you, I and many other people are going to be hit with one illness or another that could have been prevented in one fashion or another. Since none of us are perfect and we all make mistakes or bad decisions in life, it's foolish to assume everybody should be punished by denying coverage when they need it, simply because they don't fit into the cast of a perfectly moral and infallible human being you subjectively specified.

The whole point of universal health care is to ensure that anybody who needs medical help/coverage, regardless of who they are, what they did, their religious beliefs, gender, race, etc..... that everybody gets medical attention when they need it.... Not when you think they should get it because of hangups over what they may have done in life.

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.

It doesn't matter how they came to be in their situation, it doesn't matter about their personal reasons or decisions..... a doctor is supposed to treat all patients equally and when someone needs treatment for something that is legally allowed in our country, they're supposed to do it, no matter what the background of the situation is. Damit Jim, they're doctors, not Judges, .... they should act like one.

Even murderers are supposed to get the same level of care and treatment as you and I, even if you think they should be left to die.

Right. Pure negligence. Start paying for it and the rate of negligence will drop.

No, it'll just be swept under the rug as people start seeking alternative measures and while some stats on paper may show a big drop in abortions performed in hospitals, People are being put in greater danger because they either can't afford to get the treatments they may or may not need.... you'll have more babies tossed in dumpsters, being killed and tossed away, people so scared to figure out what the right thing to do is and take matters into their own hands, sometimes causing even more harm to themselves, or even death.

So you have to ask yourself something. Is it better for these "unwanted" babies to be aborted while still in the womb, or is it better that they're born, take their first breath and see the world they've been brought into, only to be suffocated and dumped somewhere.... or worse, just tossed in a dumpster alive to slowly starve and freeze to death?

People talk about costs of abortions, yet how much does it cost tax payers to find a half dead baby in a dumpster, try and save it through medical intervention, and even if it survives, what's the cost of keeping it alive, finding a home for this baby, the cost to law enforcement to track down, arrest and prosecute the person who left this baby to die?

I bet it's a lot more.

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.

I haven't seen a doctor in almost a decade, thus since I hardly use our health care, I guess I should have all sorts of money coming back to me.

But heading out to that physical means you have to go out in public, cross the street, drive a car, risk your health and life against things you could easily avoid if you just locked yourself away.

Get the doctor to do a house call.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
The point being is that it doesn't matter what you or I like... this is how it is, these are the health issues covered by our health care and if you plan on removing coverage for one, you have to remove coverage of all..... and since that will never happen, there's nothing more to debate in this aspect.

AKA: It makes no sense to try and justify removing abortion being covered if the others mentioned above, and then some, are left covered and will most likely never be removed from coverage.



Your assumption is irrelevant. I personally think it's good to cover these things, because I know that there's a very good chance that you, I and many other people are going to be hit with one illness or another that could have been prevented in one fashion or another. Since none of us are perfect and we all make mistakes or bad decisions in life, it's foolish to assume everybody should be punished by denying coverage when they need it, simply because they don't fit into the cast of a perfectly moral and infallible human being you subjectively specified.

The whole point of universal health care is to ensure that anybody who needs medical help/coverage, regardless of who they are, what they did, their religious beliefs, gender, race, etc..... that everybody gets medical attention when they need it.... Not when you think they should get it because of hangups over what they may have done in life.



It doesn't matter how they came to be in their situation, it doesn't matter about their personal reasons or decisions..... a doctor is supposed to treat all patients equally and when someone needs treatment for something that is legally allowed in our country, they're supposed to do it, no matter what the background of the situation is. Damit Jim, they're doctors, not Judges, .... they should act like one.

Even murderers are supposed to get the same level of care and treatment as you and I, even if you think they should be left to die.



No, it'll just be swept under the rug as people start seeking alternative measures and while some stats on paper may show a big drop in abortions performed in hospitals, People are being put in greater danger because they either can't afford to get the treatments they may or may not need.... you'll have more babies tossed in dumpsters, being killed and tossed away, people so scared to figure out what the right thing to do is and take matters into their own hands, sometimes causing even more harm to themselves, or even death.

So you have to ask yourself something. Is it better for these "unwanted" babies to be aborted while still in the womb, or is it better that they're born, take their first breath and see the world they've been brought into, only to be suffocated and dumped somewhere.... or worse, just tossed in a dumpster alive to slowly starve and freeze to death?

People talk about costs of abortions, yet how much does it cost tax payers to find a half dead baby in a dumpster, try and save it through medical intervention, and even if it survives, what's the cost of keeping it alive, finding a home for this baby, the cost to law enforcement to track down, arrest and prosecute the person who left this baby to die?

I bet it's a lot more.



I haven't seen a doctor in almost a decade, thus since I hardly use our health care, I guess I should have all sorts of money coming back to me.

But heading out to that physical means you have to go out in public, cross the street, drive a car, risk your health and life against things you could easily avoid if you just locked yourself away.

Get the doctor to do a house call.

One thing is certain, no radical changes are going to happen today or in the next month. With taxes sky rocketing and our health system close to total collapse, we've gradually got to make changes in a sensible direction. Right now we have to tread a fine line between funding what is "necessary" and what is sensible. You can't go telling a 60 year old heart patient that his operation won't be funded because he smoked and ate junk food. While I don't think making private health insurance mandatory, I think it should definitely be an option for people who want it (this must be covered in the Charter :smile:) then people could decide what they personally want covered and how much deductible they want and be assessed according to risk. That way people who wouldn't be affected by the abortion issue directly wouldn't have to pay for it.
 
Last edited:

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Here are some abortion figures comparing one nation to another. I find it interesting that the USA which has a large anti-abortion movement has a much higher rate than Canada.

Abortions (per capita) (most recent) by country


USA is a very puritanical country; they feel uncomfortable talking about sex (that is why pornography is such a huge, thriving industry there, anything forbidden by the society, many people get a thrill out of indulging in it). That is why they are against sex education in schools; they don’t want to talk about sex. Sex education in most schools consist of telling women to keep their legs firmly shut, and that is it (most school teach abstinence only sex education).

The inevitable result is that people have poor knowledge of contraception. There is plenty of misinformation about contraception, outright lies and myths propagated by the abstinence only lobby, the religious right.

Ignorance about contraception leads to many unwanted pregnancies. While the puritans in USA oppose abortion fully as fiercely as they oppose sex education, abortion is legal; there is not much they can do about it (except maybe murder abortion performing doctors). Large number of unwanted pregnancies results in a large number of abortions.

So the large abortion rate in USA is really not all that surprising. Abortion rate in USA in almost twice as high as that in Canada.

So if Americans want reduce number of abortions they should follow Canada in making contraceptives available and accessible easily.