July 19, 2009
-
Government Run Health Care and Abortion
President Obama is moving ahead with his plan to make sure every American has medical coverage.
One issue that is being discussed is whether abortions should be covered in a government run health care system. Here is the link: Link
If we add government run health care for everyone, should we cover abortions in that plan?
Comments (138)
Nope. Sorry.
Should we cover circumcisions?
Definitely not. Even an unborn child deserves to live.
@AFS90 - tempting, but no. XD I love sarcasm. <3
i think abortion clinics should be made available to those who need them.
GOOD QUESTION – HELL WILL IT COVER VIAGAR ?
Definitely Not
They will but no@AFS90 - so long as it is not done for medically necessary reasons no.
Abortions do not treat illness.
If not for medical reasons, no.
I don’t think so. Then more women would go out getting pregnant and just get an abortion on demand. It’d dunk the economy more so.
@AFS90 - I’m with you. Male genital mutilation is unnecessary and therefore should not be covered. Same with non-medically necessary abortions. You want an abortion, pay for it out of your own pocket.
I’d bet that government run healthcare will be aborting elderly and sick people so why not? There’s no reason to keep babies alive when we’re killing everyone else.
what about enlargement of certain part of the anatomy?
I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think the government should pay for abortions. Don’t want a baby? Then either put it up for adoption, or pay for an abortion yourself.
That’d be like paying the bills for a guy who sustained injuries while murdering someone.
what’s the going rate for an abortion procedure anyhow?
I am not a supporter of abortion or of government medical, however, if it is to be paid for by all citizens then all legally allowed medical procedures have to be included. We have citizens who will be paying for this plan who are against blood transfusions, who are against birth control of all kinds, who are against many other medical procedures and drugs. If we restrict every legally approved procedure or drug that someone opposes for religious reasons or for moral reasons or even for medical reasons then we will not have medical care at all because there are a whole group of people in our country who believe all medical intervention is wrong.
if it’s not medically necessary it shouldn’t be covered. enough said.
@milubbles - “I don’t think so. Then more women would go out getting pregnant and just get an abortion on demand.”
hahaha that is rich. Of course they will! Your logic is clearly spot on
@AFS90 - I think it’s about $5,000.
I really wish people would back off the abortion is murder crap. Everyone needs to be an extremist.
@maniacsicko - What part? XD
It’s nice to know that if I get knocked up as a teen, Obama’s there to cover the bill for my abortion.
jk hell noo.
Why can’t the government mandate birth control in place of funding abortion, which is a whole lot cheaper (I mean, since we’re going to hand over the entire medical industry to big brother as it is). Oh that’s right, I forgot. the government doesn’t have to worry about cost since it’s not their money. They can just raise taxes or inflate the dollar. Silly me. They don’t have to produce.
I am not sure people even understand what is meant by government healthcare, or which plan contains what. Here are two links.
‘Government-Run’ Health Care Is a ‘Buzz Word,’
Barack Obama’s Health Care Plan
Will we add euthanasia?
No. I don’t care whether or not you believe abortion is murder. It isn’t justifiable as “healthcare” unless there’s some health problem going on that most people would agree makes it necessary. If the government provides healthcare, it should not fund abortion- that’s more of a lifestyle decision even if it’s performed medically. Pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or allergy. Choosing that you don’t want to be pregnant or have a kid is choosing your lifestyle. A medical procedure is necessary for that choice, but it sure doesn’t make you any “healthier.”
No. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t want to force anyone with different beliefs than my own to pay for something they don’t believe in. That’s like making everyone pay taxes to fund religious schools.
shouldnt,, but will,,, couple that with cutting off old people,,, the population will drop to acceptable standards……
it has nothing to do with pro choice people,,,,,,
@ProvokingThought - naw,, wont need to,,, the delay in treatment till the patient is dead will suffice… that will seem much less intentional….
I don’t think the government should have universal health care in the first place though… I could write a whole post on this. If we had government health care, then no… I don’t think they should pay for abortions that are not related to medical reasons (i.e. mother’s life at risk).
Sounds like people decided that universal health care by itself just wasn’t controversial enough.
I could see abortions being covered only if they were required for medical purposes.
BTW, I agree with the guy who called circumcision “genital mutilation”. There’s probably nothing we can do about it because it’s a religious thing, but it would be good if hospitals stopped offering it as a routine procedure for newborn boys.
Hmm, I would say no. It should probably be categorized with other elective surgeries unless it is a necessity for the mother’s life.
no i don’t think so. maybe if for medical reasons. but the cost of abortions should be lowered.
No way.
Gosh, I can’t stand what Obama is doing.
(don’t kill me…) I think that it should be, as it may save a lot of money in other areas, like welfare and other social services for unwanted children. but, a woman must not undergo several abortions. After one, (or maybe two? I don’t know) she should be forced to go on birth control — the shot or Intrauterine device. I feel crazy saying it, but it isn’t the worst idea. Investments in preventative care is much needed — birth control and sex-education.
@mrcolorful - Are you being sarcastic, or serious. I’m sorry that I can’t tell, but that is really ridiculous!
@BebstersBlog2 - … No, not really.
Abortion is an argument that will never be won; nobody will ever agree. Meh.
@weaponswired - Your words are very true.For example i am against abortion but when i was 15 i got pregnant so the only way was abortion.
@kikikourosava - I understand. I was actually scared I was prego some months ago. But the government shouldn’t pay for my ignorant mistake, or the mistake of other girls.
no. i dont think so.
Yes. @milubbles - I am sorry, how does it even make sense? They will get pregnant so they can undergo a medical procedure just because it’s covered by the insurance? It’s the same as saying someone is going to go ahead and get a hernia just for the hell of it so they can remove it since the goverment is paying for this…
Not in general but maybe in certain cases.
hmm, that’s a tough one. Not sure.
I am already vehemently against universal healthcare, and this point just absolutely enrages me. ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am pro-choice politically speaking, but I should not have to pick up the tab for what someone else considers ‘a mistake’. I can understand if it’s medically necessary (which is truly rare), but this is going to open the door for abortion really becoming a method of birth control. Pay for it yourself if you want an elective procedure like an abortion.
@ModernBunny - I totally agree on the circumcision thing. My husband and I are expecting our first baby any day now, a boy, and we’ve elected to not have him circumcised (it was a no-brainer decision for us). I can’t believe how much grief we’ve gotten over this decision – both from doctors and just people in general.
Only if it is done for medical reasons.
@DirtyAndShaken - Good for you! ^.^ It’s just an unnecessary and painful procedure for baby boys, totally needless but lasting forever.
It’s a medical procedure. If this health care would cover birth control I don’t see why it shouldn’t cover abortion.
nope
it falls more into the cosmetic and not necessary category.
They pay for birth control (or probably will) so that was the option they gave, not abortions.
sorry sluts
@DirtyAndShaken - other people should worry about their own penises and not your sons. Good for you for not wanting to change his body, he can make that decision later if he wants to.
Obama’s “science czar” is in favor of forced abortions.
It’s a tough call.
No.
As a Pro-Choicer I will have to say no. However, I do think it should be made much more accessible and a standard of most if not every hospital.
But really, pay for it yourself.
- John
Ummm…no
Absolutely not! I don’t want to pay taxes so that someone can do something I oppose. No thanks.
No not at all!! The government shouldn’t pay for murder…
Well, I can understand a woman who was raped condsidering an abortion, but even those women should be encouraged to either keep the child or give it up for adoption. It’s not the child’s fault where it came from- it might be a blessing though. Rape is the only circumstance that I personally consider abortion anywhere near acceptable, and even in that case I would strongly advise against it. I’ve never been raped (or even had consentual intercourse) but I can’t have children and wish I could. I’m sorry people out there cruel enough to rape, but don’t punish the child- punish him- put his ass in jail, but don’t kill the baby.
@onlyFORaLILwhile - it falls more into the cosmetic and not necessary category.
If you had cervical cancer, I wonder if you’d consider surgery “cosmetic.”
@milubbles - It would make the economy better because the women are paying for the abortion therefore adding more money to the economy.
If it’s a medical procedure, go for it I guess. I’m not going to let emotion get tied up in this because my morals aren’t someone elses. You call it murder, I’ll call it a medical procedure. It’s what it really is. It is a medical procedure, it is what it is called when you don’t add emotion to the word. It’s murder if you think it’s wrong.
Yes– absolutely.
Abortion is an integral part of reproductive care. In the same sense that a Universal Health Care plan funds the check-ups and delivery of a pregnancy, it should fund the spectrum of alternatives and options.
A woman deserves full medical coverage and complete reproductive care. Her choices shouldn’t have to be handicapped by the clamoring of religious nuts. Her medical options shouldn’t be snipped by the hypercritical whining of puritanical assholes.
As with any policy, rules and regulations are needed to check against abuse and to ensure fariness for the tax-paying constituency.
@CelestialTeapot - that’s not cosmetic, are you slow?
I’m sorry you like to kill babies
@the_evil_tamica - No. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t want to force anyone with different beliefs than my own to pay for something they don’t believe in. That’s like making everyone pay taxes to fund religious schools.
By this silly position, then faith-healing Christian nuts can get out of paying for Health Care all together. Or, by the religious beliefs of Jehovah Witnesses, we should all pay for our own blood transfusions.
I found the quote interesting, in the article, where the person says that, no matter what anybody thinks of abortion, taxpayers should not have their money go to fund it if they believe it is taking a life.
So … if I believe the war in Iraq is taking lives … and really few can dispute that … I can argue my tax dollars can’t go towards that? Since when do we have that kind of selective control over the use of tax dollars? I’m glad to hear it, I have lots of government initiatives I’d like to stop funding …
I’m curious too, in restricting health care to some based on the religious beliefs of others, will birth control be banned too, since some people don’t agree with that?
I think a health plan should cover fundamental and necessary health care. Whether abortion fits into that scenario is between a woman and her doctor.
maybe. only if its some sort of medical threat to the mother’s health or the baby’s health.
@wolvenchic - i agree.
xo
@onlyFORaLILwhile - that’s not cosmetic, are you slow?
Then abortions are not “cosmetic” as you’ve previously stated.
I’m sorry you like to kill babies
It’s okay. You don’t have to feel bad for me.
I don’t want government healthcare anyway, let alone them paying for abortions.
@DirtyAndShaken - …I should not have to pick up the tab for what someone else considers ‘a mistake’. I can understand if it’s medically necessary (which is truly rare), but this is going to open the door for abortion really becoming a method of birth control. Pay for it yourself if you want an elective procedure like an abortion..
I guess you’d rather pay for the check-ups and the delivery of an unwanted pregnancy.
@AlterEgo909 - Hmm, I would say no. It should probably be categorized with other elective surgeries unless it is a necessity for the mother’s life.
Because a pregnancy and its accompanying check-ups and delivery aren’t “elective,” an abortion isn’t “elective” either.
Yep.
Yes.
I am more than an incubator.
The government already funds abortion – what would be changing?
no. yes if it IS for medical purposes, not some fuck up. If you fuck up, you pay for it yourself.
Abortions are part of the body, and that should be covered.
@CelestialTeapot - I’d rather just pay for MY healthcare and MY family’s medical issues. I’d rather not be financially responsible for other people’s choices and decisions period.
@DirtyAndShaken - I’d rather just pay for MY healthcare and MY family’s medical issues. I’d rather not be financially responsible for other people’s choices and decisions period.
With medical insurance, you’re not paying for your own health care (at least, not directly). Your payments go into a general pool that funds the health coverage of others.
If you want true financial independence, you’d drop all of your insurance policies.
@JosephParsons - Brilliantly put.
Babies are bad, m’kay.
yes for those special cases in which the mother and/or the baby would die if she didn’t get an abortion. otherwise, no.
@NumberYourself12 - Really?
I thought I was ranting cynically
@JosephParsons - What can I say, cynicism is contagious. :}
Damn, people are morons. Pregnancy is a medical condition by definition. If a woman wants to be rid of this medical condition for any reason, then yes, her health insurance should damn well cover it. That means government health insurance should cover it.
Jehovah’s Witnesses will have to pick up the tab on blood transfusions, and those batshit retarded folks who believe ALL medical intervention is wrong have to pick up the tab on everybody’s medical care.
Also, those of you whining “but it’s not necessary,” you should probably note this: having an abortion is ELEVEN TIMES safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. If a woman has the slightest doubt about whether she wants this baby, or exactly where it will go when she pops it out, she should ABSOLUTELY terminate. It’s safer and healthier for her, and it’s many millions of dollars cheaper for taxpayers.
Because, see, the right’s “welfare queens” are the ones who can’t afford health insurance, can’t afford doctor visits, can’t afford a birth control prescription, and are told by rightwing psychos that condoms are useless and abortion is murder. Puts things into perspective, doesn’t it?
no.
Yes.
I think so… But there should be limits… I mean..you shouldn’t be able to be a whore and get like…20 fucking abortions.
@milubbles - Women do not go out and get pregnant so that they can have abortions. It is hard on your body to have an abortion. To think that just because an abortion would be covered financially that women would get pregnant more often is a dumb idea. What is might actually do, is help women get access to them who are trying to take matters into their own hands to try to miscarry/abort on their own, because they can’t afford an abortion.
I don’t know yet if I believe it should be covered. However, perhaps with wider availability of birth control, covered under government healthcare, more women would have access to the pill leading to less unwanted pregnancies and thus having no need for an abortion if there isn’t anything TO abort.
@CelestialTeapot - By this silly position, then faith-healing
Christian nuts can get out of paying for Health Care all together. Or,
by the religious beliefs of Jehovah Witnesses, we should all pay for
our own blood transfusions.
I was making an analogy to show that paying for abortions in universal health care is similar to including religious schools as part of tax-funded public schools. They’re both ideas that people, due to their own personal religious or non-religious convictions, should not be forced to pay taxes for. Could you explain how NOT including abortions as part of universal health care is the same as getting out of paying for health care all together?
can’t say that I’ve ever heard of a private health insurance plan covering that. why is this an issue?
@CelestialTeapot - Ah,
yes, but I and everyone else involved in that insurance policy/plan
have a CHOICE to put money into that pool, unlike with government run
healthcare for everyone. I have a choice to put my money into the
pool and pay for services (abortion not included). And everyone in
that pool is contributing somehow (regardless of by payments they make
and/or with their employer contributions). I see the point you’re
getting at, but I’m pretty hung up on the idea of having government run
universal healthcare, so perhaps this discussion is moot.
@jeffgodofbiskuts - Because private insurance and choice is about to become a thing of the past.
NO.
I’m pro-choice, but I see no reason the government should pay for this. It pays for way too much already. The funny thing about that statement is it makes me seem so conservative. I’m really not. I just don’t think the government has any business taking care of a lot of things it does.
@CelestialTeapot - But abortions aren’t a medical necessary procedure in cases where there is no danger to the woman, while delivery is necessary.
They should poll all the people who want these babies adopted to see how many each of them have adopted or at least have financed the thousands of dollars for someone who would adopt. Usually very few.They’re just content to write about it.
@DirtyAndShaken - Sadly so because big insurance, Aetna, United Health etc. Drug manafactures, Huge hospital corporations are so greedy. If you have never been told no we will not pay for a life saving procedure by someone at the top in big insurance then you really don’t know what you are paying for in your group policy. Most not fortunate enough to have their company pay the big part of their premium cannot afford insurance as is. Oh don’t count on having this so called company benefit when you retire….. believe you me I know. I retired from a mayor company and each year I get a letter saying we will no longer pay for …. ,….. slowly chipping away at no coverage. Someone has got to help and it sure want be the greedy guys above.
Yes.
No elective surgeries should be covered. Abortions, boob jobs, liposuction, whatever.
I know who you are. And this is fearful of your untruthful statement about the health care plan. However, you have to live with those untrue statement. God see you
@jeanmarie26 - Oh, I fully agree. I believe the system is truly broke and is in desperate need of repair. But being forced down the road we’re headed down is NOT the answer. The power and control the insurance companies and big corporations have now will only be transferred to our government and that scares the living hell out of me even more. I wish we could just cut out the middle man altogether to cut costs and keep the health decisions between doctor and patient.
@OverheardInOhio - good idea.
i’m thinking that if all women had access to good medical care, including birth control when they thought it might be necessary, there might not be much of a need for abortions except perhaps in the case of rape, incest or the health of the mother…
it should be the womans choice bottom line. I think there should be some regulation to it, but if a woman really needs an abortion, and has really considered all of her options, then it should be her choice to make, and only under extreme circumstances.
@ProvokingThought - I don’t see why we should add youth in Asia to it (hehe)…. then again, the liberal extreemists trying to ram this down our throats are wanting illegals who should not be here to be covered as well. Our tax dollars at work.
Personally, I don’t think we should have Govt. health care period, let alone having people pay to allow others to kill innocents.
– “Real change doesn’t come from a mandate. Real love you cannot legislate.”
@Legendairy - ((disclaimer)) this comment is directed to Legendairy and his comment alone ((end disclaimer)) In reference to your end quote,it reminded me of a clip I posted that discussed how in the first century life had no value, infanticide reigned , euthanasia by starvation was common place and it was a world devoid of love. Children were abandoned on the streets and left to die or act like wild dogs. The first followers started to pick these children up and care for them, take the older people in and feed them. These were people they were not related to and people wanted to know what was wrong with them, why they would do this. Your comment provoked the thought you may be interested, if not, disregard the link and the comment. (end comment)
@JJ_Ames - bingo
@mrcolorful - most people don’t get that the question is not a medical one. It is a change that took place changing inalienable rights granted by our Creator (the premise of our Declaration and break from the King) to not affording protections and rights until a parent has given permission for a child to enter the world.
That changes the entire premise of rights, and makes them something that a parent or a state grants and therefore can be taken away.
This isnt a medical issue, it is a human rights and civil rights issue. The whole argument that is accepted on morality basis takes advantage of the mindless. Apply the same logic and morality argument to slavery.
@steph843 - Lol I thought the same thing. Just cause it’s covered means people want to kill babies for shits and giggles! What a numbnut =P
Maybe, like in Canada, it should not be paid for, however it should be regulated and safe – always.
It will be paid for; with Obama, you know it will be. However, I don’t think it should be. If you want to commit murder, pay for it yourself.
@ProvokingThought - woww…that’s true.
@Queen_of_You188 - Unless you’re adopting kids who are unwanted, you have no right to make that statement.
It’s less money to pay for an abortion than it is to pay for welfare. That is my counterpoint to those who think that people would get a billion abortions if the government pays for it. Too many people abuse the welfare system after having babies they treat badly in the first place. Now factor in all the money that goes to Child Protective Services to INVESTIGATE the bad treatment. Now factor in money for an orphanage. For eighteen years.
I think a set number of abortions per woman should be covered. Everyone makes mistakes, so why take it out on a child to be forced into foster care? Two abortions per woman in her lifetime. Also, the Pill should be less than five dollars a month to all females who have had their period, if they want it. Not the acne-curing kind or whatever. Just a contraceptive to keep unwanted babies at bay in today’s oversexualized America.
@Legendairy - @ProvokingThought - @rachaeltwilightgirl - see my above post. Sorry for the spam, TheologiansCafe. <3 And religion shouldn’t be brought into the argument at all. Period. There’s too many religions to cover, and arguing for just one is silly, since America doesn’t have a national religion.
@Aiyoku_Angel - I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what the heck you’re talking about. =) All I did was say that we shouldn’t support abortion because unborn children deserve to live. What’s so wrong about that, can you tell me please? =)
@Aiyoku_Angel - I didnt address you or advocate against the state paying for abortion, so I am not quite sure what you are talking about. In fact, I agreed with JJAmes that they are already paying for it.
I will restate my view that it is not a medical issue , but a human rights issue (some would argue civil rights issue) .. To break that down so you can comprehend that , I didnt come here to argue the medical issue, we already pay for it.
You made my point for advocating your support for the state to supercede inalienable rights for the purpose of population control among minority/poor populations.
@DirtyAndShaken - don’t get me wrong… the idea of having the people the same beaurcracy that makes me wait in line for 3 hours to have a picture taken in charge of my health insurance is terrifying. But as far as abortions being covered… that seems insignificant when compared to the rest of the madness that this government healthcare nonsense brings to bare.
The idea of our collective taxpayers money going towards convenience abortions is ludicrous. Half the population vehemently opposes it to begin with. Abortions performed for medical reasons are certainly reasonable. The real question here is whether our money will go towards aborting pregnancies spawned from rape or incest. I could see a rational debate over that question.
-David
If medically necessary, yes. Also maybe in circumstances such as rape/incest.
Getting abortion because it has something to with medical related then yes.
@Aiyoku_Angel - With all due respect, religion absolutely must be included in the discussion. Would it not be unethical to force someone to pay for the unjust killing of an innocent? This does not require delving into a multitude of religions but rather a divergence on one issue. There would, then, be two categories: those who have no problem with it and those who have every problem in the world with it. To leave the religious out of the discussion would be to hear only one side of the issue and not to let everyone have a fair and equal say in the matter. If it is so important for such a program to exist, then you should donate to such a cause without imposing your beliefs on others. To force your beliefs down others throats could be considered to be quite intolerant could it not?
Those considered necessary for health and well-being of the woman, obviously yes.
No. I think if the person is going to make the decision to abort they should pay for it themselves.
@Queen_of_You188 - Many people who accidentally get preggo can’t afford a kid. Which is why the abortion. Why force a child into poverty when the parents aren’t ready to take on that responsibility. That’s what is wrong with forcing people to have fetuses.
@bondageseraphim - I’m not forcing anything. Why abort the child when you can just have the child and give it up for adoption? That way, the child still gets to live and you get to stay out of poverty and bankruptcy. Everyone’s happy.
@Legendairy - you kind of understand what I’m saying, right? The child didn’t do anything to you-why abort it? And even if you can afford to have a child, you can give it up for adoption. Everyone’s happy in the end.
@Legendairy - I, religiously, do not believe in welfare. My religion teaches you to take control of your life and deal with the things life throws at you, taking proactive measures. By your reasoning, I shouldn’t have to pay any tax money into welfare. Religion should stay out of the argument, because if you are an abortionist, you obviously have no religious qualms about abortions. They’re not being FORCED to take out the fetuses. It’s a job, like any other. I wasn’t forced into going into law enforcement, I chose it as a profession.
@MissObey - What about mistakes, though? If you’re dirt-poor, is that going to stop you from having sex? No. Just because humans like to rut, doesn’t mean that the condom is magically going to get stronger if you can’t afford a child. Those babies are sometimes born into the worst conditions. Why chance something like dying of starvation, or from secondary infection of living in absolute filth because the family can’t get diapers, when they can simply correct a mistake within the first few months of conception, when there’s not even BRAIN WAVES present in the embryo? No brain waves, no pain for the embryo.
@CelestialTeapot - you know the position of us Witnesses? Excellent. You’ve done your research.
@Queen_of_You188 - Do you even know what living in halfway houses is like? People rarely adopt unwanted kids, unless they’re a homosexual couple who physically can’t have babies… and in most states, they cannot adopt because gay marriage isn’t legal. (I know in Florida, to adopt, you have to be married.)
Should the government pay the bill because stupid couples forgot to use condoms and birth control? HELL NO. When does ‘health care’ include ‘paying for other people’s fucked up mistakes’?
@bondageseraphim - but that’s still no reason to kill the child. You say that people rarely adopt. Yes, that is true, but within that small percentage, there’s a chance that the child may get adopted. Why just end the child’s life and ruin it’s chances of going to a wonderful home?
Cover whatever normal health care covers
@Queen_of_You188 - I would certainly agree that the child’s life should be spared. If we are to be consistant in the documents this nation was founded on, then a person’s “certain unalienable rights” are to be upheld at all costs. To deny one group rights based soley on their inability to defend themselves is no better than slavery or the holocaust. I am considering posting a more complete case on my stance on this issue if there is an interest for me to do so.
@bondageseraphim - I would also agree that it is not the government’s job to rob from those who pay taxes and FORCE them to pay for many who choose to simply “work the system”. I am not denying that there are those in need. I am saying that it is not the government’s job to take care of them. That job, in my opinion, belongs to the church and to private organizations who are funded by donations. Having been through hurricane disaster relief and having seen first-hand the impact of all of the above, the greatest impact was not made by the government. So in effect, yes, I do believe that I SHOULD NOT be forced to pay for Welfare. It should be done of one’s own choosing. Donations… not taxation. Again, I am not denying that there is good done by these programs but I believe the private sector and the churches could do far more… a conviction supported by experience.
That said, The issue of abotion is FAR more important in that innocent lives are held in the balance. In your choice of profession, I am sure you are familiar with the rating system used to prioritize 911 calls. The ones that are of greatest importance are those where there are lives in immediate danger and where the presence of an officer will potentially save lives. My reasoning on this issue is little different. Innocent lives hang in the balance of this decision. I’m sure you would agree that an individual who pays another to kill someone can be considered an accessory to murder. Herein lies a major problem for a great many Americans who do not want innocent blood on thier hands, especially when the vast majority of abortions are because of irresponsibility on the part of the couple who created the baby to begin with. (whether that irresponsibility is a result of immoral behavior or lack of contraceptives in another issue and is irrelevant to this discussion) I am sorry this is so long, but perhaps I have clarified my stance a little better. I do believe you will find that I agree with you on at least a couple issues addressed at the least.
@Legendairy - you’re exactly right. Our nation gives all of us certain unalienable rights, and I believe that the right to live would be the most important. Therefore, if the government covered abortion, they’re immediately taking away our most important right.
No. And I don’t think that we should be covering circumcisions or other “optional” procedures either.
Absolutely not.
hell no, just like we shouldn’t include plastic surgery, thats optional shit.
This is a tough one. I know a girl who has had at least 6 abortions – all because she’s been irresponsible. I wouldn’t want someone like that covered. But someone who is poor and was raped …that’s another story. But things happen that we would never anticipate, which is why we have med insurance to begin with, right? And pregnancy falls into the category of “things happen.” So yeah, dunno
Absolutely not.
I’m planar for your article writings and contents fortunately.this site