Maternal Healthcare and funding for Abortions

[ToadBrother]

Of course it can be cosmetic....women who do not want the inconvience of pregancy have it so they don't "look pregnant"...

Otherwise if it would simply be an issue of giving a baby up for adoption... varicose veins, hemmoroids, stretch marks, saggy breasts be damned...

Of course it could be cosmetic. But you are using the notion of "do not want baby" to pretty much be equal to cosmetic intentions. It's an absurd leap, and to my mind an unjustifiable one. But if you have some evidence at hand to justify it, you have an opportunity to present it.

[M.Dancer]

Of course it could be cosmetic. But you are using the notion of "do not want baby" to pretty much be equal to cosmetic intentions. It's an absurd leap, and to my mind an unjustifiable one. But if you have some evidence at hand to justify it, you have an opportunity to present it.

If the question "Do you not want the changes to your body that a pregancy will make" was on a survey, then giving a stat would be cut and dried....but it isn't asked so we have to extrapolate...

•25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

[ToadBrother]

If the question "Do you not want the changes to your body that a pregancy will make" was on a survey, then giving a stat would be cut and dried....but it isn't asked so we have to extrapolate...

•25% "don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant"

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

What you're doing isn't extrapolation. It's simply fabrication. You're assuming your conclusion. I have no reason whatsoever to believe your claim, and you appear to admit you cannot provide any such evidence. I think continuing to make the claim, and going further in using your unwarranted extrapolation to make statements as to the funding of the medical procedure borders on the outright dishonest.

[M.Dancer]

What you're doing isn't extrapolation. It's simply fabrication. You're assuming your conclusion. I have no reason whatsoever to believe your claim, and you appear to admit you cannot provide any such evidence. I think continuing to make the claim, and going further in using your unwarranted extrapolation to make statements as to the funding of the medical procedure borders on the outright dishonest.

Hogwash...when less than 10% cite a medical reason for an abortion we are forced to ask why should the state pay for the remaining 90+% who find pregancy inconvient. not wanting people to know they are pregnant, and having an apobrtion to cover it up is by definition a cosmetic solution..

[ToadBrother]

Hogwash...when less than 10% cite a medical reason for an abortion we are forced to ask why should the state pay for the remaining 90+% who find pregancy inconvient. not wanting people to know they are pregnant, and having an apobrtion to cover it up is by definition a cosmetic solution..

You still haven't justified your "cosmetic" claim. Repeating an assertion without evidence does not make that assertion somehow true. In short, I don't believe your claim, and you seem quite unwilling to justify it by any other means than some rather inept rhetorical flourish.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

You still haven't justified your "cosmetic" claim. Repeating an assertion without evidence does not make that assertion somehow true. In short, I don't believe your claim, and you seem quite unwilling to justify it by any other means than some rather inept rhetorical flourish.

I guess I will just have to live with your disbelief.

Never the less, I like many Canadians do not want elective surgery (whether cosmetic or simply because pregancy is incovient) paid for by the state, As Molly said...

To suggest that adult women need a state-sponsored keeper to 'help' them make decisions in their own interests?

She is right. Time to end state sponsored abortions.

[M.Dancer]

Interesting. So do you think mending broken legs for skiers or arterial surgeries for chronic overeaters should also be elective?

Can a person live with a blocked artery or live normally witha broken leg? You can certainly live with a pregancy, as I have often heard, pregancy is not a medical condition.

Do you understand what it means when someone says it is an elective procedure? A boob job is elective...sometimes a hip replacement is too...or not.

[ToadBrother]

Can a person live with a blocked artery or live normally witha broken leg? You can certainly live with a pregancy, as I have often heard, pregancy is not a medical condition.

For some rather absurd definition of "medical condition". You seem to still think you can win an argument by playing enough rhetorical games. You still seem woefully incapable of actually providing evidence of your assertion, so you just argue around it. By now you must know I'm not particularly impressed, overawed or daunted by someone who is, as the expression goes, so unwilling to show me the money.

It's my experience that when people resort to these sorts of rhetorical games, it's usually because their underlying justification is much much different than the public rationalizations they choose to expose interlocutors to instead. In abortion debates, declaring abortion to be an elective procedure is usually a proxy argument for "abortions are bad, and I don't think we should allow them."

Do you understand what it means when someone says it is an elective procedure? A boob job is elective...sometimes a hip replacement is too...or not.

Many elective surgeries are covered by Provincial health plans. My oldest was tongue tied and had a minor elective surgery on her tongue. It was not a health hazard, but merely caused a rather minor speech impediment. I was not presented with a bill for the surgery.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

For some rather absurd definition of "medical condition".

yeah...okay

You seem to still think you can win an argument by playing enough rhetorical games.

Usually when someone says to another, that they are using rhetoric, they either don't understand the definition of rhetoric, or they cannot counter the argument.

You still seem woefully incapable of actually providing evidence of your assertion, so you just argue around it.

My assertion is that less than 10% of abortions are for reasons other than inconvience. If you seem stuck on the cosmetic...that's your problem, but as you have already conceded that some could be, I shan't bother myself too much over it

By now you must know I'm not particularly impressed, overawed or daunted by someone who is, as the expression goes, so unwilling to show me the money.

You were shown that over 90% of abortions are for inconvience...that is the money...whether you are brave enough to own it is another story.

It's my experience that when people resort to these sorts of rhetorical games, it's usually because their underlying justification is much much different than the public rationalizations they choose to expose interlocutors to instead.

Surely you could have phrased that more rhetorically? I mean, baring that, offer a citation. Without proof I can't accept it.

In abortion debates, declaring abortion to be an elective procedure is usually a proxy argument for "abortions are bad, and I don't think we should allow them."

It's my experience that when people resort to claiming that a position is a bait and switch, it's usually because they can't defend their own postion. I could say that, if someone declares that abortion is a necessary nedical procedure that requires complete funding, they are really saying abortiuon is good....

I think I will need another citation.

Many elective surgeries are covered by Provincial health plans. My oldest was tongue tied and had a minor elective surgery on her tongue. It was not a health hazard, but merely caused a rather minor speech impediment. I was not presented with a bill for the surgery.

And many electives are not covered so I don't know what you are trying to prove other than a minor surgery that corrected a minor problem was covered...(and probably shouldn't be..)

Edited May 4, 2010 by M.Dancer

[ToadBrother]

My assertion is that less than 10% of abortions are for reasons other than inconvience. If you seem stuck on the cosmetic...that's your problem, but as you have already conceded that some could be, I shan't bother myself too much over it

You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion, and your defense seems now to amount to "Nya nya nya!" and the ever more revealing answering with mirror demands (despite the fact that I have not in fact made any assertion).

You could just admit you don't have any evidence, that your assertion isn't really evidence based at all, but instead you seem to think that you can argue in circles.

Edited May 4, 2010 by ToadBrother

[M.Dancer]

You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion, and your defense seems now to amount to "Nya nya nya!" and the ever more revealing answering with mirror demands (despite the fact that I have not in fact made any assertion).

You could just admit you don't have any evidence, that your assertion isn't really evidence based at all, but instead you seem to think that you can argue in circles.

What are you asking for? Citations that show that pregnancy changes the apprearence? That some women who have abortions do so cause they are unwilling to be pregnant? That most abortions are elective?

According to this site, 98% of abortions are elective.

Most of the reasons listed for having an abortion fall into a few categories.

Medical/rape/incest 7%

Peer pressure/societal pressure 2.5%

Inconvience 90%

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm

Reading skills...so under used...

[M.Dancer]

Interesting. So do you think mending broken legs for skiers or arterial surgeries for chronic overeaters should also be elective?

Irony...

When someone complains about rhetoric in one post, then in the same thread tosses out this rhetorical gem...

Along with poor reading skills hypocrisy follows a close second...

[ToadBrother]

Reading skills...so under used...

No, because you still haven't given me a reason to view elective as representing anything other than... well, elective. You're the one making the leap, so justify it.

[Keepitsimple]

.

Without thought to her own welfare? Do you have any idea how incredibly patronizing that is?

It's a human rights/personal physical integrity thing- even a life and death matter.... Either you have first dibs on use of your body/body parts, or someone else has. There's really no room at all for compromise there. None at all.

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.

[M.Dancer]

No, because you still haven't given me a reason to view elective as representing anything other than... well, elective. You're the one making the leap, so justify it.

Progress....so we argree that 90%+ are elective, which means there are no health reasons at stake.

Now justify why the state should pay for them any more than why the state should pay for ...a boob job.

[ToadBrother]

Progress....so we argree that 90%+ are elective, which means there are no health reasons at stake.

Now justify why the state should pay for them any more than why the state should pay for ...a boob job.

And again, you continue to assert that elective is the same as cosmetic. The issue here is that I don't actually agree with your reasoning, so you have to convince me with something other than repeating the assertion over and over. Your continued use of rhetorical devices rather than simply providing some reasonable evidence suggests to me that all you have are rhetorical devices, and since they do not in fact, in any way, represent evidence of the assertion, I posit that you cannot prove your assertion at all.

[M.Dancer]

And again, you continue to assert that elective is the same as cosmetic.

Again your lack of reading comprehension is showing. I have not made that claim. I am satisfied you agree that some do...and most who have abortions have them for non medical reasons.

The issue here is that I don't actually agree with your reasoning, so you have to convince me with something other than repeating the assertion over and over.

Yes I hear you don't agree that 90%+ abortions are elective and not related to the health of woman....personally whether you agree with these facts or not doesn't bother me.

Your continued use of rhetorical devices

Rhetorical devices? Like asking rhetorical questions regarding broken limbs and blocked arteries? I would be ashamed to do that...

rather than simply providing some reasonable evidence

Were the links too difficult to open? Were the statistics presented in a fashion that mystified you?

suggests to me that all you have are rhetorical devices,

devices? Like broken legs? Anecdotal references to tongue twisted kids?

and since they do not in fact, in any way, represent evidence of the assertion, I posit that you cannot prove your assertion at all.

My assertion is that there is no compelling reason to fund abortions to those who health is not affected by what is a normal event in life. If someone wants to have an abortion let them and let them pay for it. If you think this needs some sort of proof, I eagerly await your non rhetorical argument explaining why....because your own rhetorical slight of hand has studiously avoided why the state should pay for a matter of inconvenience.

[ToadBrother]

My assertion is that there is no compelling reason to fund abortions to those who health is not affected by what is a normal event in life. If someone wants to have an abortion let them and let them pay for it. If you think this needs some sort of proof, I eagerly await your non rhetorical argument explaining why....because your own rhetorical slight of hand has studiously avoided why the state should pay for a matter of inconvenience.

Since the taxpayer funds other elective surgeries, could you please explain why abortion shouldn't be in that column. Without, of course, trying to equate elective surgery with cosmetic surgery. You know, without basically throwing out that empty assertion that you refuse to back up after repeated requests to do so.

[M.Dancer]

Since the taxpayer funds other elective surgeries, could you please explain why abortion shouldn't be in that column.

Given that many elective procedures are not funded, why should abortion be funded? Corrective eye laser surgery covered? No...laproscopic bands? No...Uvulectomy? Oesophagoscopy-gastroscopy?

Without, of course, trying to equate elective surgery with cosmetic surgery. You know, without basically throwing out that empty assertion that you refuse to back up after repeated requests to do so.

I suppose asking you again to argue why abortions, including those for reason not associated with a medical reasom is futile....doesn't fit in your rhetoric...

[Molly]

Abortion in most cases is just extreme cosmetic surgery.

It should (in most cases) be seen as elective surgery.

Just thought you'd like a small reminder of why folks seem to think you have suggested that abortion is cosmetic.

[ToadBrother]

Given that many elective procedures are not funded, why should abortion be funded? Corrective eye laser surgery covered? No...laproscopic bands? No...Uvulectomy? Oesophagoscopy-gastroscopy?

I suppose asking you again to argue why abortions, including those for reason not associated with a medical reasom is futile....doesn't fit in your rhetoric...

What rhetoric? I am repeatedly asking a question you refuse, nay, you cannot answer.

I already said many elective procedures are not funded. But many are. So you need to justify why abortions would end up in the not-funded column. And you need to do it in a rational fashion, and not with the fallacious hand waving you've tried on me so far.

[M.Dancer]

Just thought you'd like a small reminder of why folks seem to think you have suggested that abortion is cosmetic.

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

And again, you continue to assert that elective is the same as cosmetic.

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

[M.Dancer]

I find it ironic that the state will pay 100% of the costs to have a life ripped from a woman's body yet the state will not cover 1% of te costs of IVF treatments.

[Smallc]

I find it ironic that the state will pay 100% of the costs to have a life ripped from a woman's body yet the state will not cover 1% of te costs of IVF treatments.

That depends on the province.

[M.Dancer]

That depends on the province.

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