Cutting funding for abortions

[Mr.Canada]

What about cutting funding for non essential abortions?

We don't pay for other non essential cosmetic services so why should abortion be any different?

If the pregnant persons life isn't in danger they should have to pay for their own abortion since it isn't medically needed.

If a pregnancy is threatening the mothers health fine, OHIP will pay otherwise the people are on their own.

100,000 abortions are performed a year. I doubt they were all medically necessary.

Think about the good that all those tax dollars could do. $1000 an abortion. That's $100,000,000 spent on abortions per year in Canada.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[socialist]

What about cutting funding for non essential abortions?

We don't pay for other non essential cosmetic services so why should abortion be any different?

If the pregnant persons life isn't in danger they should have to pay for their own abortion since it isn't medically needed.

If a pregnancy is threatening the mothers health fine, OHIP will pay otherwise the people are on their own.

100,000 abortions are performed a year. I doubt they were all medically necessary.

Think about the good that all those tax dollars could do. $1000 an abortion. That's $100,000,000 spent on abortions per year in Canada.

Most of them are probably rape and incest.

[Smallc]

If a pregnancy is threatening the mothers health fine, OHIP will pay otherwise the people are on their own.

And how do you think the cost would compare to paying for an unwanted child?

[Mr.Canada]

And how do you think the cost would compare to paying for an unwanted child?

I don't see anything wrong with people taking responsibility for themselves. They are free to have an abortion so long as they pay for it themselves.

[Smallc]

I don't see anything wrong with people taking responsibility for themselves. They are free to have an abortion so long as they pay for it themselves.

And what if they can't pay for the abortion, and don't want the baby? What then? What will cost the taxpayer more?

[Mr.Canada]

And what if they can't pay for the abortion, and don't want the baby? What then? What will cost the taxpayer more?

There's always adoption, that's free.

Maybe people will take more responsibility for their actions then and stop using abortion as free birth control.

[Black Dog]

There's always adoption, that's free.

Sure if you discount all the prenatal medical care, the cost of delivery and of course the fact you're making forcing someone to push out a kid.

Maybe people will take more responsibility for their actions then and stop using abortion as free birth control.

Two things:

1. According to U.S. data, the majority of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.

2. Abortion is taking responsibility for your actions.

[Mr.Canada]

2. Abortion is taking responsibility for your actions.

Letting someone else pay for it is not. If they believe so strongly in abortion why not pay for it themselves. People who believe in it can even set up a foundation to collect money for people who are unable/unwilling to pay.

[Black Dog]

Letting someone else pay for it is not. If they believe so strongly in abortion why not pay for it themselves. People who believe in it can even set up a foundation to collect money for people who are unable/unwilling to pay.

Why not? Tell me, if someone smokes, should they be forced to pay the cost of healthcare if they develop cancer? Should fat people be forced to pay for triple bypasses? Should people who drive too fast be forced to pay their hospital bills if they crash? Under your criteria, you could really exclude just about anyone from healthcare. Abortion is not a cosmetic procedure. It is an important health care service.

[Mr.Canada]

Why not? Tell me, if someone smokes, should they be forced to pay the cost of healthcare if they develop cancer? Should fat people be forced to pay for triple bypasses? Should people who drive too fast be forced to pay their hospital bills if they crash? Under your criteria, you could really exclude just about anyone from healthcare. Abortion is not a cosmetic procedure. It is an important health care service.

The conditions you mentioned are life and death situations, abortion rarely is.

Abortion is rarely neccessary to keep the person alive, if it is a life and death situation or a rape then fine the state would pay otherwise no. I don't see why everyone is so afraid to take responsibility for themselves.

[Smallc]

There's always adoption, that's free.

Not really....especially if they aren't willing to wait to get rid of the baby.

[Mr.Canada]

Not really....especially if they aren't willing to wait to get rid of the baby.

Np then, just pay for the abortion. Problem solved. I can guarantee that a socialist group would pop up to raise money to pay for the abortions for people who couldn't afford it. Much like how a food bank works now.

[Smallc]

or a rape

How do you find that to be an excuse for something that you don't believe in? Is a person that is the product of rape less worthy of life than a person who is the product of consensual sex?

[Black Dog]

The conditions you mentioned are life and death situations, abortion rarely is.

Cancer and heart disease are among the biggest killers. Maybe if people knew they would have to pay for their treatment for these illnesses, they'd take more responsibility for their choices.

Abortion is rarely neccessary to keep the person alive, if it is a life and death situation or a rape then fine the state would pay otherwise no. I don't see why everyone is so afraid to take responsibility for themselves.

Tell me: why abortion, specifically? There's plenty of other medical procedures out there that are non-lifesaving that are covered (ironically, hysterectomies and caesarian sections are among the most common elective procedures) that you could make the argument for. Yet you choose abortion: why is that?

[Guest Derek L]

And how do you think the cost would compare to paying for an unwanted child?

Good point………If anything, State sponsored abortions should be encouraged for Canadians on social assistance………

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It's too bad more right wing ideologues didn't believe in evolution.

Because if they did, they'd allow all abortion rights people all the abortions they want.

Because really, they are only limiting their contribution to the gene pool. Factored in over a few millenia, greatly removes people with a genetic disposition to abort. I like this train of thought because... it's simple and doesn't need exceptions for incest, rape, etc and does justice over the long term to people who are predisposed to choose it for convenience/vanity/lifestyle.

[Guest Derek L]

It's too bad more right wing ideologues didn't believe in evolution.

Because if they did, they'd allow all abortion rights people all the abortions they want.

Because really, they are only limiting their contribution to the gene pool. Factored in over a few millenia, greatly removes people with a genetic disposition to abort. I like this train of thought because... it's simple and doesn't need exceptions for incest, rape, etc and does justice over the long term to people who are predisposed to choose it for convenience/vanity/lifestyle.

I look at it two ways:

From a financial standpoint, as pointed out by smallc, the cost of an abortion is peanuts when contrasted with society paying for a child……….I’ve no problem having “a” social safety net (The degree of which is open to debate) for those that truly need it, but by the same token, it begrudges me that some use said net as “a hammock to have a nap in”……….IOW, if someone is between jobs and on social assistance justifiably, is adding raising a child going to help improve their station in life………If the said welfare recipient still wants the child, that’s fine, but their assistance cheque will only have to be divided further……

From a moral point of view, what’s better for a child; being raised in a stable household or living off social assistance with their parent(s)?

Edited September 28, 2012 by Derek L

[Topaz]

IF a person has a job, they are paying taxes and those taxes help pay for health care so any woman, getting an abortion, is already paying for the operation, just like if you went and had a vasectomy! Mr. Canada.

[Mr.Canada]

IF a person has a job, they are paying taxes and those taxes help pay for health care so any woman, getting an abortion, is already paying for the operation, just like if you went and had a vasectomy! Mr. Canada.

Any women could still have an abortion but they would be responsible for paying or finding some group to pay for it.

Vasectomies should be not covered either. No elective cosmetic procedures should be covered.

[Bonam]

100,000 abortions are performed a year. I doubt they were all medically necessary.

Think about the good that all those tax dollars could do. $1000 an abortion. That's $100,000,000 spent on abortions per year in Canada.

Care to guess how much delivering a baby and all the associated care costs? Let me give you a hint: it's a heck of a lot more than $1,000. The system wouldn't be saving any money this way.

Now, there's obviously a lot more things to consider in regards to abortion than the associated health care costs, but if you want to just look at costs in isolation, then providing abortions freely is certainly the lowest direct monetary cost.

[Mr.Canada]

Care to guess how much delivering a baby and all the associated care costs? Let me give you a hint: it's a heck of a lot more than $1,000. The system wouldn't be saving any money this way.

Now, there's obviously a lot more things to consider in regards to abortion than the associated health care costs, but if you want to just look at costs in isolation, then providing abortions freely is certainly the lowest direct monetary cost.

People who want an abortion are free to have them. Just they have to pay for it. Just like groceries.

[Bonam]

People who want an abortion are free to have them. Just they have to pay for it. Just like groceries.

Right, but if even a tiny fraction of people who want an abortion choose not to have it because they can't afford it, then society will pay the cost for the delivery and care of their babies instead, and that will cost much more money.

[Bonam]

If you're looking at this from a cost perspective, why should society pay the tens of thousands it takes for someone to have a child? After all, having children is not medically necessary. To save maximum costs, perhaps every pregnancy should be forcefully aborted unless the parents put up the money needed to pay for prenatal care and delivery?

Like I said, when it comes to abortion and pregnancy, costs are not and should not be the primary consideration. There are moral and ethical issues which supersede the consideration of costs.

[Mr.Canada]

If you're looking at this from a cost perspective, why should society pay the tens of thousands it takes for someone to have a child? After all, having children is not medically necessary. To save maximum costs, perhaps every pregnancy should be forcefully aborted unless the parents put up the money needed to pay for prenatal care and delivery?

Like I said, when it comes to abortion and pregnancy, costs are not and should not be the primary consideration. There are moral and ethical issues which supersede the consideration of costs.

This was just a hypotetical situation. I don't think it would ever happen I just threw it out there to see what would come back.

Tens of thousands to have a baby? Give me a break. I have children and was present each time. I don't think it costed tens of thousands of dollars for a delivery. If it does then I should've went to medical school.

Whenever people bring up morals and ethics people start shouting about choice blah blah blah. I was sick of hearing that so I tried the cost idea.

One hundered million dollars a year is a lot of money and if we can eve have the pro choice woman pay for half that would be substantial savings. If people cannot afford to have an abortion then maybe they shouldn't be having risky sex at all. Just like if people cannot raise their own children they shouldn't be having them. Some poor women have children so they can get a bigger assistance cheque. This is the same thing. Some women using abortion as birth control.

[Black Dog]

Tens of thousands to have a baby? Give me a break. I have children and was present each time. I don't think it costed tens of thousands of dollars for a delivery. If it does then I should've went to medical school.

In 2002-03, the average cost for non-C section delivery per patient in Canada was $2,800. C-sections are obviously more expensive. So not tens of thousands, but significantly more than what you say abortions cost.

If people cannot afford to have an abortion then maybe they shouldn't be having risky sex at all. Just like if people cannot raise their own children they shouldn't be having them.

Except that's not how these things work in the real world. data from around the world shows little correlation between abortion rates and the legality of it: I can't imagine the cost would have any impact whatsoever.

Some women using abortion as birth control.

It is birth control.