Should Canadian tax payers be funding abortion?

[GreenFish66]

Abortion is not Family planning...It is Abortion .Anti -Family Planning. ..I am with Harper on this issue..It is good to have the abortion option in rare circumstances.That is democracy .However as far as developing regions go ..I fear Hillary Clinton and the liberal view is more about 3rd world population control than helpful family planning ..Harper is right to stay away from their position ...
Developing Healthcare for mothers, children and families is a better place to put our foreign investment dollars......Want to control 3rd world population ...Develope it..Many hard facts show ...Developed countries have less children .Need less children .2.5 I believe is the figure ..1st world countries have a healthier , more productive population.. ....

Yes to family planning..No to foreign money going to abortion..Harper has taken the right position on this one...

 

[JLM]

Abortion is not Family planning...It is Abortion .Anti -Family Planning. ..I am with Harper on this issue..It is good to have the abortion option in rare circumstances.That is democracy .However as far as developing regions go ..I fear Hillary Clinton and the liberal view is more about 3rd world population control than helpful family planning ..Harper is right to stay away from their position ...
Developing Healthcare for mothers, children and families is a better place to put our foreign investment dollars......Want to control 3rd world population ...Develope it..Many hard facts show ...Developed countries have less children .Need less children .2.5 I believe is the figure ..1st world countries have a healthier , more productive population.. ....

Yes to family planning..No to foreign money going to abortion..Harper has taken the right position on this one...

Of course you are right on the abortion issue, as for reducing family size, I'm of two minds about it. I personally think we've gone a little overboard in that respect. I remmeber the days when a lot of families consisted or six, seven or eight kids and society was better adjusted in those days. Society depends on the strength of families and what I can see we are headed in the wrong direction.

 

[GreenFish66]

JLM - "Of course you are right on the abortion issue, as for reducing family size, I'm of two minds about it"........." Society depends on the strength of families and what I can see we are headed in the wrong direction." ...

Solution ...Choose the other mind then .. lol.. Just joshin ya JLM ...Family is important ..But I don't see the need for big nuclear families ... 1 Girl .. 1 Boy ..That's the best family to me..My Grandama Raised 13 ! .. While my Grandpa was at War/ In the military .My Dad has told me the many unbelievable stories ( you know , wearin hand me downs (sisters cloths) ..Walkin miles in 20 feet of snow).. I just couldn't/can't Imagine it ...

Raisin 1 or 2 ... good / well mannered / educated /respectfull / productive child(ren) is hard enough ... It is impossible for me to even try to fathom raising 13 !... Especially as a single mother..

Yet ..Still ...Abortion is not the solution( only as an extreme last resort....And definitely not as a foreign investment )...Sustainable Development/Family planning is ... ..I love all my family ..As much as I hate to admit it sometimes..lol..

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Abortion is not Family planning...It is Abortion .Anti -Family Planning. ..I am with Harper on this issue..It is good to have the abortion option in rare circumstances.That is democracy .However as far as developing regions go ..I fear Hillary Clinton and the liberal view is more about 3rd world population control than helpful family planning ..Harper is right to stay away from their position ...
Developing Healthcare for mothers, children and families is a better place to put our foreign investment dollars......Want to control 3rd world population ...Develope it..Many hard facts show ...Developed countries have less children .Need less children .2.5 I believe is the figure ..1st world countries have a healthier , more productive population.. ....

Yes to family planning..No to foreign money going to abortion..Harper has taken the right position on this one...

Abortion is part of the comprehensive family planning. There is nothing wrong with it. If you are saying that Harper has come out against abortion, he has shown himself to be the prolifer that he is, it doesn’t’ surprise me in the least. I have always held that Harper is at heart a right wing extremist, a zealot, and if given the majority, his teeth and claws will come out. While he is governing from centre right currently out of necessity, in a majority situation he will probably govern from the far right.

And it is condescending in the extreme to tell third world women that they must not have abortions. If they want to have abortion, the choice must be open to them.

Incidentally, the far right whom you seemingly adore are also against any form of contraception, they are not just against abortion. That indeed is the position of Protestant and Catholic Fundamentalists, no abortion, no contraception. No sex education (except abstinence only), no sex before marriage. More children a women has, the better. Indeed, that is the kind of philosophy that is destroying third world Catholic nations like Philippines.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

Crap. It makes good sense. Having everyone pay for universal education makes sense. Having everyone paying for Charlie Coronary because all he wants to eat is Big Macs is stupid. Paying for Susan to have an abortion because the baby would only live 4 months and only in misery for that short period is sensible. Paying continuously for Judy to keep getting abortions because she's too lazy to use a contraceptive is just plain moronic regardless of what "universal" means. Especially since contraceptives are immensely cheaper than abortions. Abortions, take time away from surgeons who could be doing other things for people that have a more rational reason for needing a procedure. Then there's the time of the other medical staff, the bed in the hospital and so on.

BTW, AKA is the acronym for Also Known As

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.

:roll: Fine, let the doctors pay for frivolous procedures if they want to perform them then.

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.

You think a lifer would get the same level of treatment as Harpy? roflmao

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?

Neither. It'd be much better if the gov't just paid for contraceptives to begin with.

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.

Before abortions were legal there were 21,000 of those incidents per year? I really doubt it.

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.

That's a spin and not even close to my point.

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.

Stop being ridiculous. Or are you taking Exaggeration 101 and Inanity 102 from SPA?

 

[AnnaG]

Meh, by that time I'll be rich anyways.

Life and health; they're such nice subjects to be so cavalier about.

 

[AnnaG]

The difference is that he has the law and a pile of science backing him up.
;-)

You are right about the legality. You are wrong that he can back it up with science for two reasons, he rarely backs up anything he claims and two, I've provided loads of science about abortion, life, and humans that refutes his. But apparently you are just as blind as he is to it.

 

[AnnaG]

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.

I agree because there's no alternative. With abortion there are alternatives.

 

[AnnaG]

If a person makes a decision to have, or not have, a child, the resulting medical process is covered.

Ya think?:roll:

End of story.

Cool. Then I guess I'll see you in some other thread.

 

[AnnaG]

A couple of you seem to have the wrong idea about what I am saying.
I am not against abortion. I am against unnecessary and flippant abortion especially since there are better alternatives.

 

[Bar Sinister]

A couple of you seem to have the wrong idea about what I am saying.
I am not against abortion. I am against unnecessary and flippant abortion especially since there are better alternatives.

"Flippant" abortion? Now that is a new one.

 

[JLM]

"Flippant" abortion? Now that is a new one.

That would be an abortion where they give you the finger and say F**k you :lol::lol:

 

[Kreskin]

The cost of heathcare would be higher if there were no abortions. The savings in ICU costs alone easily fund abortion expenses. Should ICU costs be privately funded too?

 

[JLM]

The cost of heathcare would be higher if there were no abortions. The savings in ICU costs alone easily fund abortion expenses. Should ICU costs be privately funded too?

Yeah but there'd be more people paying into it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The cost of heathcare would be higher if there were no abortions. The savings in ICU costs alone easily fund abortion expenses. Should ICU costs be privately funded too?

Saving the cost of one ICU probably pays for 15 or 20 abortions, not just one. As to whether ICU should be privately funded, no doubt that is what some conservatives want, they want to privatized the whole thing, they want to Americanize the health care in Canada.

 

[Praxius]

You are right about the legality. You are wrong that he can back it up with science for two reasons, he rarely backs up anything he claims and two, I've provided loads of science about abortion, life, and humans that refutes his. But apparently you are just as blind as he is to it.

Not as blind as some others in here, as I have supplied plenty of my own evidence in these subjects over the years and in this thread as well.

This topic comes up almost every month in some form or another and there's honestly nothing I haven't heard already from both sides of the argument.

No matter what scientific evidence you think you have, and regardless if a human fetus is considered "Life"... it's still a Human Fetus, not a Human Being, and you don't become a human being until you're born.... and before you're a human fetus, you're a human zygote.

Our human rights are giving to Human Beings, as it should be.

 

[Praxius]

Life and health; they're such nice subjects to be so cavalier about.

If I worried all the time about such things, I'd never live my life in the first place, and that's just not healthy.

 

[JLM]

Not as blind as some others in here, as I have supplied plenty of my own evidence in these subjects over the years and in this thread as well.

This topic comes up almost every month in some form or another and there's honestly nothing I haven't heard already from both sides of the argument.

No matter what scientific evidence you think you have, and regardless if a human fetus is considered "Life"... it's still a Human Fetus, not a Human Being, and you don't become a human being until you're born.... and before you're a human fetus, you're a human zygote.

Our human rights are giving to Human Beings, as it should be.

I guess it all boils down to whether you are interested in being technically correct or morally correct and even the "technical correctness" is questionable.......:lol:

 

[Praxius]

I guess it all boils down to whether you are interested in being technically correct or morally correct and even the "technical correctness" is questionable.......:lol:

The Technical side of things is solid.... and since the "Morally Correct" side of things is subjective to the individual being asked..... I couldn't care less if you or anybody else think's I'm correct in that aspect, because what you think is moral, is different from what I think is moral, or what many others think which can be different yet again.

Which is why I support Choice.... because everybody should be allowed to decide for themselves what is moral

 

[JLM]

The Technical side of things is solid.... and since the "Morally Correct" side of things is subjective to the individual being asked..... I couldn't care less if you or anybody else think's I'm correct in that aspect, because what you think is moral, is different from what I think is moral, or what many others think which can be different yet again.

Which is why I support Choice.... because everybody should be allowed to decide for themselves what is moral

You definitely have that right.