Universal Health Care To Cover Abortions?

And once you have to pay for it, I don't think there can be a reason to deny somebody an approved and legal procedure.

There are plenty of legal and approved medical procedures that are entirely elective (in other words, unnecessary but desired for whatever personal reason the person might want it done.).

Fishin' your stance will cost money for taxpayers or subscribers by raising the cost of healthcare.

All I can say is it's too bad ebp's mother didn't have access to a free abortion.

cjhsa wrote:

All I can say is it's too bad ebp's mother didn't have access to a free abortion.

My mother did have access to an abortion. You see my mother didn't want one.

Quote:

There are plenty of legal and approved medical procedures that are entirely elective (in other words, unnecessary but desired for whatever personal reason the person might want it done.).

Having a baby is one of these medical procedures that is both legal, approved and entirely elective.

Having a baby is very expensive. This is why pressuring people to have a baby they don't want when the alternative is much cheaper is economically foolish.

Fishin' your stance will cost money for taxpayers or subscribers by raising the cost of healthcare.

Asking me to pay more for someone elses moral beliefs doesn't make sense.

congratulations, m-man, you've joined the liberals. good to have you aboard. galling, isn't it?

So,would you favor universal health insurance being used to pay for abstinence education?

should universal health insurance be allowed to pay for my GF and I to be able to have a child through artificial means?

Mysteryman...

Abstinence education is absurd. It simply doesn't work because the vast majority of people over the age of about 17 have sex no matter what you tell them. Studies back this up but any idiot knows that people-- even people who don't want to have babies, have sex.

Thats a copout!!
Thats like saying that since people rob banks,we shouldnt make it illegal because people are going to do it anyway.
You seriously think that abstinence doesnt work?
I have only heard of one person that never had sex that had a baby anyway,and that was in the bible.
Abstinence works EVERYTIME its tried.
If you dont want to have a baby,dont have sex.
Otherwise,you run the risk of getting pregnant every time you have sex.


There is research that sex education that talks honestly about human sexuality and includes the proper use of different types of birth control is effective at lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence only education is pure hokum.

I didnt say abstinence only.
I said it should be taught.

Mysteryman I would ask, are you having sex? (Assuming you don't want to have a baby that is).

mysteryman wrote:

So,would you favor universal health insurance being used to pay for abstinence education?

No. A health insurance company (public or private) is in the health care business, not in the education business. It might be in their interest, and they might therefore choose to finance some programmes, but I don't think they should be required to do so.

mysteryman wrote:

should universal health insurance be allowed to pay for my GF and I to be able to have a child through artificial means?

Yes. You would have to meet some requirements (like, for example, if you're both 70, I don't think that an insurance should have to pay for such a procedure), but generally I think that it should be pay for.

To say that a health insurer cannot or should not be involved in education of their customer - their consumer, is beyond ridiculous. Of course they need to educate their clientele.

I feel strongly that money to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is money very well spent.

This doesn't sound like a very moral response.

I am sorry about my inappropriate question. I didn't know your situation and wish that I could retract my comment. I didn't intend to push on a personal issue.

Thats ok,no harm intended and I dont mind talking about it.

The way to lower the number of abortions is to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies. You are right that abstinence will do this. You are wrong that abstinence education will do this since abstinence for adults is unrealistic.

For adults it might be,but for those in their teens it isnt unrealistic.
When you have 14 year old girls getting pregnant because they are getting no education or their parents just dont care,then teaching abstinence is a viable alternative,ALONG with a proper sex ed class.
I am not saying to teach abstinence only,and I never have.
BUT,I do think that it should be part of a decent sex-ed class.

I feel strongly that money to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is money very well spent.

As do I.

We know, from studies and from experience, what type of sex education is effective at lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies. We should go with this.

Agreed,but many schools and parents dont even bother to teach that.
Abstinence education,ALONG with proper sex-ed classes,will work.

I stand by my point that once there is an unfortunately unwanted pregnancy, an abortion is far more cost effective than bringing it to term.

Thats true,if you are only worrying about dollars.
What about the human cost?
Every woman that I know that has had an abortion still suffers some physcological effects years later.

I feel strongly that it should be the choice of the woman (and man, but that is a separate issue) involved.

I agree.

But saying that paying for an abortion, when the choice is paying for an far more expensive unwanted pregancy, costs taxpayers money is simply untrue.

I dont believe that I have ever said that.