Publicly funded abortions

They are exactly the same. If you set your house on fire by doing something stupid the fire dept. will still come and put it out. Usually health and safety go together almost like one word, it strange the many people don't see it that way. They only want safety, but not health. :shrug:

Of course as an argument against public heath care, publicly funded abortions is a bad one since many state government already do those and no one seems to be to up in arms about it. I could go get an abortion for free right now. Technically I helped pay for it too, but so did everyone else in California.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Abortion activists insist that it's a personal decision. If so, it should be personally funded. If you're going to demand that taxpayers subsidize it, it's only fair that abortion laws be up for a vote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would feel horrible asking a rape victim to pony up the money

and if the funding is for rape victims only, I think there will be more women saying they were raped.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If someone is asking the state to pay for their abortion, odds are they don't have the money to raise the child either. So the state can either pay for an abortion or for the care of maintenance of the child for at least 18 years. Which would you rather pay for as a tax payer?

 

Neither.

 

to further your point, there actually used to be an ocupational health act and an ocupational saftey act and the goverment of the day thought that was silly and merged them. Health and saftey DO go hand in hand. When you give first aid to someone do you act differently if its a trauma (saftey) vs an illness (health), hell no. You just treat the pt as best you can

anyway of course public hospitals should provide abortions as stipulated under law. The whole point of having a Universal health care system is so that EVERYONE can access the same level of health care, why should the ritch be able to access a service which is not avilable to the poor? that goes against the fundermental principles that UHC stands for.

On a purly economic basis it makes sense to, if you have large families at the lower SES and small families at the upper SES then sociaty will eventually slip into idiocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

BTW to the thread starter, pitty you didnt select an open poll so that everyone can see who voted for which.

 

And it's not a good thing. Though, I am not interested in getting into this debate.

 

yes i know, sociaty is bad, lets all move to somalia right norse. Wake up call. ONLY YOU want that, no one else with more than 1 brain cell actually thinks that would be a good idea

 

Actually, society is great. Especially when society is charitable.

I just don't think bureaucratic gov't is better than noble charity. If you want to help others, I agree with you 100%. But let's do it ourselves...how about that?

 

Would you be okay with making the person repay the state for the abortion costs?

 

I don't see why women can't have abortions paid for with public money, what if, the woman was raped and it resulted in pregnancy? That wasn't her fault, who should pay then?

And like Orelander said, we're paying for a war we don't agree with so why not abortions?

 

It's a legitimate and legal health care procedure, therefore it should be covered under any private or public health care plan.

 

I think aside from medical necessity and cases of criminal consequences [rape or forced incest] they should be considered elective and paid for by the people who opt for them.

 

You mean rape or rape?

 

What difference does rape or incest make?

It's still an elective procedure. So is most medical care - people can live with all kinds of health problems, and most health problems are consequences of choices made.

Consequences of obesity, for example. Of sedentary jobs. Of shift work in factories.

 

One can make a very good case regarding the mental health of the victim.

~Raithere