Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I wonder if the abortion and abuse ratios are so high in the US because of the costs and attitudes towards birth control. Here in the UK the pill, condoms, coil and cap are all free, and available to even minors (even though legally they are not allowed to have sex until 16). It's not perfect, obviously, and we do have an issue with rising teenage pregnancies (again, less than the US). But I am sorry, I do think abortion is much better than bringing an unwanted child into the world. There are plenty of things tax money is spent on that I don't agree with (Iraq anyone?), but it is about the greater good. A parent that does not want a child is more likely to drink, take drugs, not take care of the child, as well as all the on costs. I know which is the lesser evil to me, both in terms of ethics and costs.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Interesting solution, except that there are large portions of the pro-life lobby that are against birth control as well. They would complain just as loudly about this compromise.<< Sure they would, but they wouldn't be powerful enough to get Congress to stop funding birth control, and they don't have the majority of Americans on their side. Loud and obnoxious as they might be (like the birthers), they don't have the political clout to do damage to the bill.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Sure they would, but they wouldn't be powerful enough to get Congress to stop funding birth control >> It all depends on who holds the majorities and executive branch leadership. Look what they did with stem cell research for 8 years under GWB and Republican Congress.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It all depends on who holds the majorities and executive branch leadership. Look what they did with stem cell research for 8 years under GWB and Republican Congress.<< Well sure. But right now, as they debate healthcare, it wouldn't happen. And I think George W. Bush is an exception. While Reagan and Bush I paid lip service to religion and Christian conservatives, they were ultimately disappointed in them. Bush II was the real deal - the first Evangelical Christian in the White House. Let's all hope he's the last.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie Having worked for years in the insurance industry, if we stopped paying claims for stupid, insurance would cover only a fraction of what they now pay for. It was a pretty common saying at the place I used to work for; "We don't exclude stupid." Unfortunately, we are human, and stupid happens to everyone at some point in their lives. It's nice, when it happens to you, in any form, that you have some help.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Unfortunately, we are human, and stupid happens to everyone at some point in their lives. It's nice, when it happens to you, in any form, that you have some help.<< Well said!
Originally Posted By mele Excellent point, RMM! I don't have any set feelings about this issue but am deeply disturbed by morality issues coming into play when we're picking and choosing which medical issues to treat. Obviously, there are certain types of surgeries that are based only on vanity issues shouldn't be covered but, ultimately, I think medical procedures should be decided between a doctor and their patient. That is the society I want to live in and I don't care if it costs me a bit more to do it. If *I* want to be able to decide my own treatment, I have to afford someone else the same right.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The people controlling this debate have health insurance. We haven't heard much from the millions of people without insurance. I think Americans are fair, and the only thing more powerful than all the money and lobbyists and special interests fighting against health care for all would be to hear from just a few of them. I think it would shock Americans to her some of these stories, and no amount of money could overpower that. Because I think most Americans really do not want fellow Americans to suffer, or live in worry of losing everything, and especially not to be unable to provide heath insurance for their children. We're better than that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Think back to how young Ryan White altered the conversation regarding AIDS in this country. People suddenly got that what we were battling was a cruel disease, and that it wasn't just "those people's" problem. And I'm not suggesting using people to advance an agenda. I am suggesting telling the cold, hard truth: That fellow Americans this very minute are hurting, that our system is wildly inefficient and much more expensive than it need be.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Unless of course, it's rape, incest, the mother's life is in danger/// That has become one giant cliche around here and I have yet to see anyone on World Events who subscribe to that qualifier justify it/explain how it can work.
Originally Posted By mele <<That has become one giant cliche around here and I have yet to see anyone on World Events who subscribe to that qualifier justify it/explain how it can work.>> I've tried to have that debate with some around here who feel that a female is supposed to somehow prove that she has been a victim of rape or incest in the past. It's a paperwork nightmare but the people against abortion don't really want to get into the specifics of that, or what a woman is supposed to do during/after her pregnancies and the possible therapy needed to deal with being forced to carry a baby, etc. It's so much simpler to let a woman make the decision with her doctor but people who are opposed only see things in black and white.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Which part do you want explained? Rape? incest? A medical complication threatening the life of the mother?
Originally Posted By mele I think the rape/incest thing is a tough area because most of many, many cases aren't reported for a variety of reasons. They're often hard to prove, hard to prosecute, take months to deal with. What will a woman have to go through to prove her case? What if it's date rape? Does the rape have to be violent? How long will the process of proving the case take? (Nothing moves quickly in the government.) What's to stop women from lying about their rapes to get the abortion they want? Once a woman says she was raped, will the government demand to know who raped her and will they then try to prosecute? Huge nightmare.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Which part do you want explained?/// The medical angle could be implemented fairly easily---- Doc. just signs off on the procedure citing medical necessity, easy as pie. Rape and incest need some justification/clarification on implementation/application.
Originally Posted By barboy mele, you see what I'm getting at but I wonder about others who just rattle off the old "I'm against abortion except in case of rape, incest or medical necessity" and feel contented about their position.
Originally Posted By piperlynne My take on it is this: If an abortion is an elective procedure (like plastic surgery or something) it should come out of the persons pocket. If there are medical reasons for it (danger to mother's life, health etc) then it should be covered.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin << rape/incest or desth of the mother>> Under what circumstance would ANYONE give a dead woman an abortion? <<because you made a bad choice somewhere down the line>> But you would still be paying taxes perhaps for foodstamps/afdc/medicare in the support of this "bad choice". <<am in the unique position of already getting Government paid health care and I can tell you with 100% certainty that abortions are not covered under Tricare, if a soldier or spouse wants to have an abortion, they must pay for it themselves>> Actually, there are funds for incest/rape/life of the mother type abortions. It's called a Therapeutic Abortion... Also, I'd like to point out that Tricare is a government run healthcare system...and it works just fine. So the government already knows how to run healthcare. So I just wanted to put in my plug for the pres' healthcare bill.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Also, I'd like to point out that Tricare is a government run healthcare system...and it works just fine. So the government already knows how to run healthcare>> But it's just for a small percentage of Americans.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Also, I'd like to point out that Tricare is a government run healthcare system...and it works just fine. So the government already knows how to run healthcare. So I just wanted to put in my plug for the pres' healthcare bill. << Big, big difference between the care for a million or so and the care of our entire nation. Heck, I could pull up dozens of stories about the nightmares of military medical care. <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/03/eveningnews/main5209366.shtml?tag=contentBody;featuredPost-PE" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...dPost-PE</a> <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6560859.html" target="_blank">http://www.chron.com/disp/stor...859.html</a> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-07-30-careaccess_N.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/m...ss_N.htm</a> So if the needs aren't being met now, how is it supposed to carry over to the entire nation?
