Abortion Debate

[jefferiah]

My question above was: areteh costs of funding abortions greater than or less than the cost of the inevitable increase in unwanted pregnancies carried to term?----Black Dog

Here you are straying from the issue. You are looking toward the "ends". The argument I am making is if health care is there to take care of health, then abortions which are based purely on self-determination do not fall under its jurisdiction, do they? It is not the medicare system's jurisdiction to even get into the costs of something that is not even necessarily a medical problem.

[jefferiah]

Now if we open the door and say that medicare must fund all abortions (the majority of which are not recommended by a doctor) then you open the floodgates for a million other people to claim subsidization under the medicare system for things that are not medically necessary.

[Charles Anthony]

My question above was: areteh costs of funding abortions greater than or less than the cost of the inevitable increase in unwanted pregnancies carried to term?

Now, are you trying to be frugal with tax-payer's money?

NO, because abortion access is ALREADY 3 months. Again slowly, IT ALREADY IS 3 MONTHS. And as I have said repeatedly, seeing as it is already 3 months, anti-choicers, would not agree they ALREADY DO NOT agree.

Why 3 months?

Why are pro-dead-fetusers comfortable with 3 months and not 2 or 4 months? Please explain the logic -- if there is any.

The answer is that there is no logic. There is only convenience and "This is what we want. End of discussion." reasoning.

Never asked about good, I asked about harm. And personally that you think eugenics is ok, surprises me. I certainly don't. So what are saying is abortion does NO harm to society. You can't mix up the other things you mentioned with freedom of Choice, separate subjects completely.

That is a ridiculous statement and it foolishly diverts the debate. Abortion does NO harm to society because society does not exist. Let me say this slowly SOCIETY DOES NOT EXIST. You may as well say abortion does NO harm to peace or joy or happiness while you are at it.

[scribblet]

Canada has to be the most liberal country around for abortion as there is no law on abortion. The debate pro and con will go on for ever. All parties know this and not even the CPC will bring a bill forward to limit abortion.

http://www.answers.com/topic/abortion-in-canada

Abortion in Canada is not limited by law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion, and access there is still among the most liberal in the world.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.o...ize.shtml#basic

There are arguments to the effect that abortion can cause breast cancer

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm

[Riverwind]

The answer is that there is no logic. There is only convenience and "This is what we want. End of discussion." reasoning.

Not true at all. There are at least three definitions of human life that have a biological basis:

1) At conception

2) When the fetus is viable outside of the mother's body (>26 weeks)

3) When the baby takes its first breath

I would say the overwhelming majority of people agree with 2).

There is no rational argument that makes any one of the definitions more correct than the other definitions. So we have to make a choice as a society. We have to make choices like this all of the time.

[Riverwind]

Abortion in Canada is not limited by law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion, and access there is still among the most liberal in the world.

Why is this a problem? Canada'a abortion rates are actually lower than countries with more restrictive laws. That suggests that no law is necessat.

There are arguments to the effect that abortion can cause breast cancer

So? There is much stronger arguments that fatty foods cause cancer. Does than mean we need a law banning fatty foods?

[Charles Anthony]

I would say the overwhelming majority of people agree with 2).

There is no rational argument that makes any one of the definitions more correct than the other definitions.

Forgive me but what is your objection to my statement? You are agreeing with me.

[scribblet]

name='scriblett' post='178510' date='Jan 24 2007, 08:39 AM']Abortion in Canada is not limited by law. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion, and access there is still among the most liberal in the world.

Why is this a problem? Canada'a abortion rates are actually lower than countries with more restrictive laws. That suggests that no law is necessat.

Where did I say there should be a law, I was just giving some info. for those who might not know.

As I've said before, I'm pro-choice with restrictions on late term.

[Riverwind]

I would say the overwhelming majority of people agree with 2).

There is no rational argument that makes any one of the definitions more correct than the other definitions.

Forgive me but what is your objection to my statement? You are agreeing with me.

You seemed to be imply that setting the line in the middle of the pregnancy is arbitrary but setting it conception is not arbitrary. I am saying that setting it at conception is just as arbitrary as any other definition.

[Black Dog]

Here you are straying from the issue. You are looking toward the "ends". The argument I am making is if health care is there to take care of health, then abortions which are based purely on self-determination do not fall under its jurisdiction, do they? It is not the medicare system's jurisdiction to even get into the costs of something that is not even necessarily a medical problem.

Well, medicare also pays the costs associated with giving birth, though that isn't what one would call a health problem either. It also seems to me that the same arguments against paying for abortion (it's your decision and therefore your responsibility) would apply to having babies. But I'm digressing again.

Thing is, there's a difference between abortion and, say, cosmetic surgery. Pregnancy does impact the health of the woman. Any procedure that has health implications should be funded by medicare.

[scribblet]

Thing is, there's a difference between abortion and, say, cosmetic surgery. Pregnancy does impact the health of the woman. Any procedure that has health implications should be funded by medicare.

I'm not sure if abortion when not absolutely for the health of the mother, or not 'medically' necessary should be covered by our health care, it is a choice or an option. They delist other medical procdures but not abortion when its a choice.

It is hard to fathom why liberals who are so against private clinics, but don't mind paying for abortions in - private clinic !

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure if abortion when not absolutely for the health of the mother, or not 'medically' necessary should be covered by our health care, it is a choice or an option.

So is childbirth. Ar eyou in favour of de-listing that as well?

[jefferiah]

now blackdog would you say that giving birth in a barn and giving birth in a hospital are not factors in the HEALTH of a child?

[Black Dog]

now blackdog would you say that giving birth in a barn and giving birth in a hospital are not factors in the HEALTH of a child?

We're not talking about barns (I'll refrain from the obvious reference to back alleys here). We're talking about hospitals. The difference is who's paying. Why is it okay for medicare to fund some choices (such as giving birth to a child) but not others (aborting one)?

[blueblood]

now blackdog would you say that giving birth in a barn and giving birth in a hospital are not factors in the HEALTH of a child?

We're not talking about barns (I'll refrain from the obvious reference to back alleys here). We're talking about hospitals. The difference is who's paying. Why is it okay for medicare to fund some choices (such as giving birth to a child) but not others (aborting one)?

Good question

1) People who think abortion should be illegal would be outraged. (personally I think its wrong, but shouldn't be illegal) For the sake of keeping things mellow as they are now it would be best not to suggest funding it.

2) I'd be scared some people would view it as a free option to birth control, there might be an STD epidemic. Also to pay for someone else's birth control is proposterous, religious groups would be mad and I don't want my tax dollars to go to keep some whore from getting pregnant.

3) I'd say that when you make the choice to get pregnant, the baby is coming out anyways and the woman is going to need medical care in order to give birth, much like a guy breaking his leg, it happened and he needs help. IMO with an abortion you have more of a "want" choice (whether the baby comes out or dies and getting pregnant or just getting pregnant) btw this is a weak argument, but you are asking for any answer.

4) I'd say a woman going through labour needs a lot more medical attention then a woman going through an abortion during the first trimester.

A second question would be why should abortions be covered under health care when ambulance services, dental services, and vision would not be?

[Charles Anthony]

So is childbirth. Ar eyou in favour of de-listing that as well?

Yes.

Why is it okay for medicare to fund some choices (such as giving birth to a child) but not others (aborting one)?

It is not. However, it might make sense if money was not falling from the sky and enough people muscled their way around to enforce their own preferences.

[Black Dog]

CA

So is childbirth. Are you in favour of de-listing that as well?

Yes.

I'm shocked. But clearly the question was aimed at those who support government funding for some procedures.

[Charles Anthony]

But clearly the question was aimed at those who support government funding for some procedures.

I know, it was.

Now, I have a serious question for you: do you recognize that there are financial limits?

We can not pay for ALL possible health care costs. If there was a magical fountain of youth on the planet Mars, should we pay to send every sick person there to recover?

[Black Dog]

Now, I have a serious question for you: do you recognize that there are financial limits?

Yes.

[Catchme]

And the precedent is set!

Quebec to pay fees in abortion lawsuit

MONTREAL -The Quebec government is preparing to start paying women who won a class-action lawsuit last year over supplementary fees they were forced to pay for abortions between 1999 to 2006

In August, Quebec was ordered to repay more than $13 million billed to women who got abortions in women's health centres or private clinics.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Nicole Benard ruled the women should not have been charged extra for the procedures, as abortions are covered under the Quebec Health Insurance Act. The government did not to appeal the ruling

New Brunswick next up?

[Charles Anthony]

Indeed, abortion is now an indicator of good health and well-being!

living well

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

Population: 3,793,100

Ranking: 48 out of 100

+ Above-average exercise rates

+ Among 10 areas with lowest smoking rates

+ California is among the five best states for access to birth control and abortion

– Less than half the average number of ob/gyns and internists per capita

– Among the five worst scores for air quality

– Among the five worst scores for women getting annual mammograms

Self

The above is a perverted statistic. It can only be misconstrued.

Are they suggesting that abortion is NOT birth control?

Are they suggesting that contraceptive pills are difficult to access?

[White Doors]

And the precedent is set!

Quebec to pay fees in abortion lawsuit

MONTREAL -The Quebec government is preparing to start paying women who won a class-action lawsuit last year over supplementary fees they were forced to pay for abortions between 1999 to 2006

In August, Quebec was ordered to repay more than $13 million billed to women who got abortions in women's health centres or private clinics.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Nicole Benard ruled the women should not have been charged extra for the procedures, as abortions are covered under the Quebec Health Insurance Act. The government did not to appeal the ruling

New Brunswick next up?

I fail to see the precendent setting ruling here. The judge ruled that the Quebec health act says that they should be covered. They can simply pass a law to say it does not if they so wish.

She was not ruling on a Charter issue. Also, last I heard New Brunswick has a different health act that Quebec. Why? They are different provinces.

No precendent here despite your claims.

[Catchme]

Again wrong, all provinces, even PQ, come under the Canadian universal access to health care laws, and that is why they receive transfer funding for health care from the federal government.

[White Doors]

Again wrong, all provinces, even PQ, come under the Canadian universal access to health care laws, and that is why they receive transfer funding for health care from the federal government.

Come under yes. Can be different from? Most defintely.

Swing and a miss!

keep trying.

[Catchme]

Nope sorry, under universal health care user fees were rendered unacceptable, by Ottawa.

Canada wide