Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[Smallc]

Yes and digging deeper I learn that if you have a congentil defect you may have some costs covered...

Quebec will often pay for the treatment. Manitoba now has a tax credit. Everyone covers it on a case by case basis otherwise.

[M.Dancer]

Everyone covers it on a case by case basis otherwise.

In Ontario, only if the fallopian tubes (both) are blocked and only if the woman is under 40. And they only pay for 3 sessions and no drugs.

The cost will still be about 10k

[ToadBrother]

Yes, poor reading skills, you included. TB suggested I claimed that elective was the same as cosmetic..

And you did.

Who can deny that women have have abortions for non medical reasons don't want to look prtegnant...

Surely even you can see the logical invalidity of the above statement.

Or maybe you can't.

[myata]

The leap (of logic, imagination, and/or rational argumentation) here is of course that some folks want to appropriate the privilege to judge which "inconvenience" should be considered "elective", and which, "medical reason". Any "inconvenience" to them and their like should be unquestionnably regarded as "medically necessary", while any one they do not believe or judge to be real inconvenience, "elective". Why? Just because (they know it; they say so).

If any "inconvenience" should be considered elective or even cosmetic, then bye socially funded hip replacement, treatment of chronic conditions, transplants for non fatal conditions, Alzheimer, and many other conditions that aren't deemed fatal and therefore should be treated as only "inconveniences", albeit in many cases, big ones.

And if there are "inconveniences" and "inconveniences" when we'll need something better than a word of an undoubtely very informed poster to make the call which "inconveniences" should deserve social funding, and which, not. Of course we're still awaiting specific and serious argumentation on the specific matter of abortions. Perhaps the poster could come up with a clear set of criteria, principles or rules that could give us a guidance in that choice?

[Bonam]

Look, there's really nothing to the whole abortion debate. Society does not have the right to force an individual to live their life for the sake of another. A woman cannot be forced to sacrifice her freedom in order to produce a child. A woman can choose to do this, and of course many do and consider the reward more than worth the sacrifices involved, but it is not the state's decision. Conversely, other individuals cannot be forced to pay for the choices of that woman.

Abortion should be legal and widely available but not paid for by the government. This also happens to be my view on just about all other services, they should be legal and available but the individual who wants them should have to pay for them him/herself.

[myata]

Abortion should be legal and widely available but not paid for by the government. This also happens to be my view on just about all other services, they should be legal and available but the individual who wants them should have to pay for them him/herself.

Well, without subscribing to that, it would be a logically consistent position. Some here though want treatment of their "inconveniences" paid for by the public, while dismissing inconveniences of others as "cosmetic".

Not to mention those who indeed feel, and insist that some individuals should live out parts of their lives only to satisfy their ideological and/or moral beliefs.

[Muddy]

If anything, I would call it matronizing as the advice or counselling should come from a woman. It's nice that you think that all girls/women at any stage of life can make their own decision on something as important as an abortion. I have no idea how a "law" would be written but I'd like to see those girls/women who might be in a fragile mental state - for whatever reason - have easy access to effective consultation.....or do you believe that if a woman is 6 months pregnant and is having a bad day, that she could arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment to have an abortion - and that's OK with you? And you think she will have no regrets and it won't affect her? And you don't think she should talk to somebody first......because as you say "there's no room for comprimise"?

Is that what you want to teach to your children? If so, then to you, abortion IS inconsequential.

A very good post that I do not believe can be successfully argued against. I have always been of the opinion that getting all the facts and consequences before one acts is a very good idea. I have always said if a loved one was considering an abortion I would try and give the best advice on what little I know about women if approached. But I would be there to love and hold their hand no matter their decision.

[M.Dancer]

And you did.

Surely even you can see the logical invalidity of the above statement.

Or maybe you can't.

Surely then you can explain the invalidity....or maybe you won't.

[Molly]

A very good post that I do not believe can be successfully argued against. I have always been of the opinion that getting all the facts and consequences before one acts is a very good idea. I have always said if a loved one was considering an abortion I would try and give the best advice on what little I know about women if approached. But I would be there to love and hold their hand no matter their decision.

Really? Wow! I left it alone because I considered it an utter eye-roller. So I should give it a cursory run-through after all, I guess.

1. Switching from 'patronizing' to 'matronizing' doesn't make an intrusion any less intrusive- but it's d***ed patronizing to try.

2. " It's nice that you think that all girls/women at any stage of life can make their own decision on something as important as an abortion." Yeah, it is nice- but nice or not, their decisions remain their business and not yours. It is especially their business to decide if, what and with whom they might want to discuss their decisions with. They don't need a beaurocrat, much less a political moralist, making a list of things they should be lectured about.

3. I'd say a pregnancy is a pretty good qualification for being described as a woman, rather than being infantalized as 'girl'. Whatever their age, they are facing the decisions and consequences of full womanhood. Perhaps they also deserve that respect.

4. Fragile mental state?!! Speaking of patronizing... ! I sincerely hope that you are equally concerned that boys of whatever age should recieve 'counselling' before they are allowed to proceed with a private decision, in case they are in a fragile mental state. We wouldn't want them to hate themselves, now would we?

But, btw, providing ready access to couselling doesn't require legislation at all. Enforced lecturing though, can't be done without legislation. If you have to force people, then it's not 'access'.

5." .....or do you believe that if a woman is 6 months pregnant and is having a bad day, that she could arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment to have an abortion - and that's OK with you? " If it actually comes down to that, then yeah, I do, but what you are describing is a completely mythical situation.

Accessing abortion at 6 months gestation is nigh on to impossible without a very extraordinary medical reason for it to be done- and even then it is very difficult. (A woman might even be asked to continue carrying a known-to-be dead fetus without intervention to be free of it.) I see no sensible reason to write legislation to address problems that don't exist... unless the hope is that they might be used to interfere where they were not intended to tread.

6. "And you think she will have no regrets and it won't affect her?" Patronizing. Your major personal decisions might result in long term regrets, too, yet you are considered adult enough to make them. You are assumed to be the one best qualified. Why would a woman be less so?

7. "And you don't think she should talk to somebody first.." What I think is irrelevant to her decision. She certainly shouldn't be forced to talk it over with the 'counsellor' of the states choosing.

8. "because as you say "there's no room for comprimise"?

Righto. There isn't. Either women have the first right of possession of their own physical selves, or else they don't. It's black or it's white- completely binary.

9. "Is that what you want to teach to your children? If so, then to you, abortion IS inconsequential."

I taught my children to respect themselves, trust themselves, and take responsibility for themselves and for the quality of the community in which they live... and to take no crap from folks who try to diminish them.

[Keepitsimple]

Really? Wow! I left it alone because I considered it an utter eye-roller. So I should give it a cursory run-through after all, I guess.

1. Switching from 'patronizing' to 'matronizing' doesn't make an intrusion any less intrusive- but it's d***ed patronizing to try.

2. " It's nice that you think that all girls/women at any stage of life can make their own decision on something as important as an abortion." Yeah, it is nice- but nice or not, their decisions remain their business and not yours. It is especially their business to decide if, what and with whom they might want to discuss their decisions with. They don't need a beaurocrat, much less a political moralist, making a list of things they should be lectured about.

3. I'd say a pregnancy is a pretty good qualification for being described as a woman, rather than being infantalized as 'girl'. Whatever their age, they are facing the decisions and consequences of full womanhood. Perhaps they also deserve that respect.

4. Fragile mental state?!! Speaking of patronizing... ! I sincerely hope that you are equally concerned that boys of whatever age should recieve 'counselling' before they are allowed to proceed with a private decision, in case they are in a fragile mental state. We wouldn't want them to hate themselves, now would we?

But, btw, providing ready access to couselling doesn't require legislation at all. Enforced lecturing though, can't be done without legislation. If you have to force people, then it's not 'access'.

5." .....or do you believe that if a woman is 6 months pregnant and is having a bad day, that she could arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment to have an abortion - and that's OK with you? " If it actually comes down to that, then yeah, I do, but what you are describing is a completely mythical situation.

Accessing abortion at 6 months gestation is nigh on to impossible without a very extraordinary medical reason for it to be done- and even then it is very difficult. (A woman might even be asked to continue carrying a known-to-be dead fetus without intervention to be free of it.) I see no sensible reason to write legislation to address problems that don't exist... unless the hope is that they might be used to interfere where they were not intended to tread.

6. "And you think she will have no regrets and it won't affect her?" Patronizing. Your major personal decisions might result in long term regrets, too, yet you are considered adult enough to make them. You are assumed to be the one best qualified. Why would a woman be less so?

7. "And you don't think she should talk to somebody first.." What I think is irrelevant to her decision. She certainly shouldn't be forced to talk it over with the 'counsellor' of the states choosing.

8. "because as you say "there's no room for comprimise"?

Righto. There isn't. Either women have the first right of possession of their own physical selves, or else they don't. It's black or it's white- completely binary.

9. "Is that what you want to teach to your children? If so, then to you, abortion IS inconsequential."

I taught my children to respect themselves, trust themselves, and take responsibility for themselves and for the quality of the community in which they live... and to take no crap from folks who try to diminish them.

I respect that you are entitled to your opinion Molly. For the record, I can't think of anything a man would go through that would compare with a woman having a baby.....but if there was (or if men could have babies........forget it, we're not tough enough!), I would be suggesting the exact same safeguards.

[myata]

This would be #4, and still counting. Not to worry, we'll take as long as one needs:

- if all inconveniences are "cosmetic", then should the public stop funding all non fatal "inconveniences"?

- if somebody thinks of this particular inconvenience as being less "inconvenient" than some others, should they provide some substantiated, rational argument to that extent? Or just their saying so should suffice?

- if their saying so should suffice, would that signify that every single one of us should be coming up with our own lists of "incoveniences" that we deem unworthy of public funding? Just because we say so?

- if every one of us starts to limit publicly funded treatment of other's inconveniences, how long would it be before we hit #1, ie. are left without any publicly funded treatements for "inconvenient" i.e. non fatal conditions?

The logical conclusion that can be derived from this brief deliberation is this: we can have public health insurance based on reason, facts and rational argumentation. Or we can have irresponsible and unsubstatntiate mouthblabbering and no public insurance (for non fatal conditions).

Please take your pick.

Edited May 5, 2010 by myata

[Muddy]

Well Molly you sure are sure of yourself. I have been around a long time and I have come to the conclusion that people need people. And Yes, men are people too. We love and care for our families and from time to time we give advice even to our grown children. They may or not like the advice but at least they have something to ponder. I can not begin to imagine a young girl (yes there is that word again) who goes off and gets an abortion and is traumatized by the experience and can not bring herself to share her feelings with her closest love ones. It must be very lonely. Like men I don`t think all girls are as tough as you Molly.

[myata]

4. Fragile mental state?!! Speaking of patronizing... ! I sincerely hope that you are equally concerned that boys of whatever age should recieve 'counselling' before they are allowed to proceed with a private decision, in case they are in a fragile mental state. We wouldn't want them to hate themselves, now would we?

Nice point. I have here a vivid image of a deeply emotional worship inspiring and soul piercing lecture every time you reach out for a six pack of beer. That's about as serious as these unasked for cermons sound to me.

[Keepitsimple]

Nice point. I have here a vivid image of a deeply emotional worship inspiring and soul piercing lecture every time you reach out for a six pack of beer. That's about as serious as these unasked for cermons sound to me.

Perhaps you missed my reply to Molly:

I respect that you are entitled to your opinion Molly. For the record, I can't think of anything a man would go through that would compare with a woman having a baby.....but if there was (or if men could have babies........forget it, we're not tough enough!), I would be suggesting the exact same safeguards.

[myata]

Perhaps you missed my reply to Molly:

But you missed the point, though: one doesn't need your "safeguards" anymore than you need somebody's unasked for safeguards when buying your beer (hopefully!). Very simple truth of the matter is that it's individual's private choice and therefore falls (far) outside of your sphere of competence (said very mildly). And as is common understanding in civilised societies, in these matters it is polite and appropriate to withhold one's advise unless (or until) it's requested.

[Mr.Canada]

I think it smacks of elitism and eugenics. The socialist elite want less black babies so they want to kill them through abortion. This approach seems awfully racist to me. I wonder how the socialists are getting away with this while no one says a word about it. The white socialists are targeting the black African nations and demanding they have abortions en masse. This is no different then killing blacks by firing squad. How are they getting away with this racist agenda?

[Keepitsimple]

But you missed the point, though: one doesn't need your "safeguards" anymore than you need somebody's unasked for safeguards when buying your beer (hopefully!). Very simple truth of the matter is that it's individual's private choice and therefore falls (far) outside of your sphere of competence (said very mildly). And as is common understanding in civilised societies, in these matters it is polite and appropriate to withhold one's advise unless (or until) it's requested.

I didn't miss your point - you agree with Molly and I respect that. I was emphasizing that my opinion is not a patronizing one and would be the same for men if we had to endure something as traumatic as an abortion. As to your comment about civilzed societies, let's take countries like Germany, France and Italy - and can you imagine the "outrage" if the Conservatives (or even Liberals) tried to pass any of these into law?

Germany: Counselling for all abortions is mandatory. Abortions are illegal after 90 days unless the mother is in medical danger ot the baby is known to be severely "defective".

Italy: Abortion on demand up to 90 days - otherwise illegal unless the mother is in medical danger ot the baby is known to be severely "defective".

France: Abortion on demand up to 10 weeks if 18 years or older. Counselling is mandatory between 10 weeks and 12 weeks. Abortion is illegal after 12 weeks unless the mother is in medical danger ot the baby is known to be severely "defective". Abortions under 18 must be approved by a judge.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Bonam]

I think it smacks of elitism and eugenics. The socialist elite want less black babies so they want to kill them through abortion. This approach seems awfully racist to me. I wonder how the socialists are getting away with this while no one says a word about it. The white socialists are targeting the black African nations and demanding they have abortions en masse. This is no different then killing blacks by firing squad. How are they getting away with this racist agenda?

Gotta keep that third world population down dude. The less of them there are, the less can immigrate to Canada and ruin our quality of life, right? ;p

[Argus]

Germany: Counselling for all abortions is mandatory. Abortions are illegal after 90 days unless the mother is in medical danger ot the baby is known to be severely "defective".

Italy: Abortion on demand up to 90 days - otherwise illegal unless the mother is in medical danger ot the baby is known to be severely "defective".

France: Abortion on demand up to 10 weeks if 18 years or older. Counselling is mandatory between 10 weeks and 12 weeks. Abortion is illegal after 12 weeks unless the mother is in medical danger ot the baby is known to be severely "defective". Abortions under 18 must be approved by a judge.

Oh the poor women in those evil patriarchal neo conservative societies! Hhow horrible their lives must be! I bet they have to resort to back alley abortionists with coat hangers!

[Cuzzin E]

Is Mrs Clinton aware that abortion isn't even legal in some American States? Clean up your own backyard and all

[waldo]

Is Mrs Clinton aware that abortion isn't even legal in some American States? Clean up your own backyard and all

really? Unconditional... even conditional? Which American States?

[DFCaper]

2. " It's nice that you think that all girls/women at any stage of life can make their own decision on something as important as an abortion." Yeah, it is nice- but nice or not, their decisions remain their business and not yours. It is especially their business to decide if, what and with whom they might want to discuss their decisions with. They don't need a beaurocrat, much less a political moralist, making a list of things they should be lectured about. So why do we have stautory rape laws? Or are you against those as well?

3. I'd say a pregnancy is a pretty good qualification for being described as a woman, rather than being infantalized as 'girl'. Whatever their age, they are facing the decisions and consequences of full womanhood. Perhaps they also deserve that respect.

See Above

5." .....or do you believe that if a woman is 6 months pregnant and is having a bad day, that she could arbitrarily decide on the spur of the moment to have an abortion - and that's OK with you? " If it actually comes down to that, then yeah, I do, but what you are describing is a completely mythical situation.

Accessing abortion at 6 months gestation is nigh on to impossible without a very extraordinary medical reason for it to be done- and even then it is very difficult. (A woman might even be asked to continue carrying a known-to-be dead fetus without intervention to be free of it.) I see no sensible reason to write legislation to address problems that don't exist... unless the hope is that they might be used to interfere where they were not intended to tread. How? Because no doctor would perform it as we are luck here to have Doctors with some morals? If this means nothing to you and something to other people, why not allow regulation against it. Nothing to you but important to others.

See Bold above

Also, Haven't some of the Liberals backed Harper on this?

Edited May 6, 2010 by DFCaper

[waldo]

So why do we have stautory rape laws? Or are you against those as well?

you would presume to equate regulated legal abortion consultations with legislated laws against illegal rape? Seriously?

Because no doctor would perform it as we are luck here to have Doctors with some morals? If this means nothing to you and something to other people, why not allow regulation against it. Nothing to you but important to others

within the context of the rarest of the rare abortion scenarios (6 month+ gestation), for a problem that you presume exists, where does your reference to, as you say, "Doctors morality" come forward? Do you maintain morality exists across the gestation timeline - from conception... or do you reserve a specific point in time that you apply a morality attachment... at 3 months?... at 4 months?... at 5 months?... at 6 months? When exactly?

[Molly]

How? Because no doctor would perform it as we are luck here to have Doctors with some morals?

There is no demand because there is no need, and thus no facilities available and no providers. IMO, that's a good thing.

Hoever, you know what makes late-term abortions? Interference with more timely access. Everyone who can get it done earlier, does, nearly all by 12 weeks, and the vast majority of the rest that are done for any reason, within the week or two after that. By 6 months/26 weeks- only the very worst tragedies are left. Mothers or fetuses that might not or probably shouldn't survive a birth. Parents who mourn.

If this means nothing to you and something to other people, why not allow regulation against it. Nothing to you but important to others.

Whatever would possess you to think this means nothing to me?

[bloodyminded]

1. Switching from 'patronizing' to 'matronizing' doesn't make an intrusion any less intrusive- but it's d***ed patronizing to try.

Ha! Just so.

2. " It's nice that you think that all girls/women at any stage of life can make their own decision on something as important as an abortion." Yeah, it is nice- but nice or not, their decisions remain their business and not yours. It is especially their business to decide if, what and with whom they might want to discuss their decisions with. They don't need a beaurocrat, much less a political moralist, making a list of things they should be lectured about.

Yeah. "Small government"...until the womenfolk are making private decisions.

4. Fragile mental state?!! Speaking of patronizing... ! I sincerely hope that you are equally concerned that boys of whatever age should recieve 'counselling' before they are allowed to proceed with a private decision, in case they are in a fragile mental state. We wouldn't want them to hate themselves, now would we?

Sure. So when a man does or doesn't wish for his wife or partner to have an abortion...well, these are important consideraitons, and he should have to go "talk to somebody" about it first.

Ye gods.