posted
I have no idea what that was in reply to, but I've decided to announce that I now support the life from conception camp.
I have previously said it is too great a burden on the woman to have life begin before she can know she's pregnant, but that apparently kinder path leads to the punishing gradient of euthanasia (selective abortion of the handicapped) and cannibalism (embryonic tissue donation).
I don't know, is it less or more cannibalism if the tissue had to come from a close relative? I never know what people are going to think. In another thread it was argued that the fetus' sole dependence on the mother gave her discretion over its fate. To me it gives her a greater burden of responsibility. So these things mean the exact opposite to different people.
Then there's the miscarriage straw man. "Don't like half of all first term pregnancies end in a spontaneous abortion?" Whales beach themselves in nature. But I hope we'd all condemn someone in a motorboat driving whales onto the beach deliberately, even in the name of science.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I wasn't aware that people ATE human embryoes. Um.. could you please explain that cannibalism part?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You sacrifice an embryo and turn it into somthing that is ingested by an adult. Sure it's not for pleasure, but I think a lot of cannibals assign ritualistic import to their feasts that goes beyond sustenance.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, basically, it comes down to 'human-or-not' again, doesn't it? If you do not believe a lump of tissue is human - and I don't, any more than I believe my sperm cells are human - then it's not cannibalism and not murder.
As for selective abortion, why would you force anyone to raise a handicapped child?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just think giving the state the legal right to rule on the contents of women's wombs is an even worse evil.
People talk about the state as if it were a seperate entity from us. It isn't. The state is the representation of our society. We are part of our society. What our society does and stands for affects individuals. To accept certain things as a society, is going to make many individuals consider those things acceptable. There are many people who don't contemplate their actions, but choose them according to societal standards. So if we, as a group, say abortion is okay, (which is what we are saying when we make it legal) then the number of abortions will, and did rise. By supporting the legality of abortion, we are in part responsible for those abortions that would not have occured had they not been legal.
Am I being arrogant? Am I saying people can't make decisions on their own? They CAN. That just so often don't.
You called it patriarchal for the state to decide what was going on in someones uterus. We once took a girl into our home. She had just converted to the LDS church, but before that she had gotten pregnant. Both her parents and her boyfriend were pushing her to abort. She literally had to flee her family to escape the pressure. How many abortions occur because the boyfriend doesn't want the child and the girl doesn't want to lose the boy? How many occur because a young girl, scared and unsure, walked into an abortion clinic masquerading as 'family planning'? In how many states is disclosure of the procedure required? I remember the fight we had in Oregon to require just that. Why don't abortionists (many pro-choice do want this) want such a thing? Because such education would empower the girls to make better decisions, and take away power from those who want to profit. Abortion rarely benefits the woman having it. That is far more patriarchal.
I've seen the regret of a woman and the extreme feeling of guilt and helplessness, the shame that she could not admit to her husband because one time, years and years ago, she went to get some counselling for her accidental pregnancy. She was young, scared, and alone. In that situation she was told that abortion was the best option for her. She yearns to know that out there is a child being raised in a good family, but all she has are the memories of the day she killed her baby.
We, as a society, allow that to happen.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am glad that the second page has turned into more of a discussion. I don't think that reading any of this is going to turn me into a pro-lifer, but I definately like to know the other side of the issue.
I guess I support choice because right now our society doesn't do a lot to help women with unplanned pregnancies. Often, you find women raising their child alone without the benefit of child support because our laws are so lax on that issue (and our courts so overcrowded due to the huge numbers of deadbeat dads). Then these women have to turn to welfare, and are ridiculed for doing so. Again, this is just my personal take.
So, what is the solution? Is it abstinence? Is it more information about birth control? Is it a different and better laws so that women can afford to support a child alone? I'm just looking for thoughts here, so please don't pick apart my outlook statement by statement. The hate I read on the first page earlier today still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'd love a world where abortion didn't have to exist.
posted
Space Opera, you rule. I think you made the best course of action in the abortion debate that is so rarely hit upon. Instead of there being two sides to this issue, both camps can probably find some common ground and work from there. I doubt you will find many reasonable pro-choice people that are pro-abortion (meaning, they think that abortions are a cool and viable method of birth control...if you believe that, you have obviously had an appointment with one too many spin doctors).
Instead of just trying to legislate one group's morality, both groups should be actively working together to make it so abortions aren't necessary. Space Opera ain't kidding when she points out that having a child as a single parent is no picnic and what's more, we as a nation make it that way. As a social worker, I have a mom being forced into the sub-poverty work force. What do they do if they have a child too young to take care of themselves? They sometimes get vouchers (if those programs aren't out of money) to pay for child care...usually paying the child care folks as much as what mom makes working at Wendy's. But many child care agencies don't respond to need that well and don't have care second shift, when many sub-poverty level jobs are operating...or when a parent has to work a second job to keep food on the table.
Yeah, yeah, I know life isn't fair but to say that a person (or child) MUST have a baby because the government tells them so...well, I have issues with that. And it is the folks in poverty we are talking about, too. This is a poverty issue and a class issue where the choices are tough enough to make without intrusion from the government.
I think the focus should be on education for both sexuality and how to make good decisions for oneself. I think the focus should be on making adoption easier. I think the focus should be on making it easier to be a single mother while efforts are made to make deadbeat dads more accountable. Simply saying "no!" isn't going to stop abortions any more than just saying no will make drugs magically disappear.
posted
The single-mom-poverty card cannot be played, fil-- because the state shoulders a large part of the cost of having a child, and there is a shortage of infants up for adoption.
While I recognize that a large number of women who have abortions cite financial instability (AGI puts it at 21%), programs exist that will pay almost entirely for the whole pregnancy.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
My fingers are getting all itchy to respond, but I'd like to offer you the opportunity to provide some substantive reasoning or qualifications to your rather radical statement.
posted
While there are a shortage of infants up for adoption, is there a shortage of children up for adoption?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun: There are lots of older children in the system-- my point was that a unwanted newborn is likely to be wanted by adoptive parents, relieving both the state and the biological mother of much of the financial obligation to take care of it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there millions of people who want these infants every year? Say every single person who wants an infant this year, gets one. Will there be millions of people next year?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the ideal net result of criminalizing abortion, Suneun, would be having fewer people taking the risk of bringing children into the world before they're ready to.
Hopefully, that would mean fewer children needing to be put up for adoption.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as the fetus requires the mother's resources to support itself, it's only a potential human.
I've always thought this was a poor argument. My 10-month old is still completely dependant on someone, whether it's his mother, myself or someone else. He is, in a sense, a parasite. At what age should he be considered human? Should babies that are born very premature and are dependant on an incubator be considered potential humans?
Space Opera, I agree with what you're saying. However, those are all things that need to be corrected and worked on, not reasons why abortion is acceptable.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
The figures are pretty staggering-- an estimated 1.3 million abortions per year. Are there 1.3 million people out there willing to adopt this year? And next year? And the year after?
It does not matter, in the end.
Money is never an excuse to destroy a life. It's not right in the Sudan, it's not right in Iraq, it's not right in America's abortion clinics.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, I think I misread your former post and thought you were discussing fertilized eggs that didn't implant when I skimmed through it. Are you saying no research is being done as to how to prevent miscarriage? My wife and I were spent the first few months of pregnancy worried about miscarriage because we were aware of how frequent they were.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't have time to address this fully. I'll give brief summary points and can fill it out later if you wish:
1.) In the pharmacist thread, the difference between conception and implantation was critical to the discussion. Abortion happens after implantation. Period.
2.) According to figures in the other thread, 40-60% of zygotes don't get implanted, which accounts for the vast majority of the post-conception/pre-birth deaths. Abortion accounts for the next largest chunk of those. I don't have the figures on miscarriage, but those are traumatic to many people, and science has studied ways to reduce them.
3.) Part of the reason for lack of effort to save the zygotes which fail to implant is probably based on a sense of despair - how do you even know it's happening to try to fix it? How do you test a possible treatment?
4.) Part of the disconnect is probably caused by the fact that your a doctor. You've dedicated enormous personal resources to saving lives. Many people have an acceptance that you can't have that some things are not meant to be cured. But that doesn't mean we don't also hold the philosophy underlying "First, do no harm."
5.) Just because we don't think we can cure or prevent these deaths doesn't mean we should accept the man-made ones. This is where pooka ended up; hopefully I've gotten here from a slightly different route to help you understand why we can believe what we do about life beginning at conception and not call for massive research to stop implantation failure.
Aside (not based on CT's post): I keep seeing "lump of tissue" used to disparage the unborn child to make abortion acceptable. At the time most abortions take place, it is not a "lump of tissue." There are differentiated body parts already. Does it look like a human? Maybe not. But it's not a "lump of tissue."
posted
So, again I ask...what can the solutions be? I really am interested in hearing ideas on this. It seems like so much of the pro-life movement that I've been exposed to consists of simply calling pro-choice people "baby killers" and showing pictures of aborted fetuses. If shock value worked, the abortion debate would be a moot point by now. I wish that all people would work together more. By the by, I don't think the reasons I previously listed makes abortion "acceptable." Abortion is a terrible thing. I guess I just try and understand the reasons why some women choose abortion and sympathize.
posted
I think that is the ever-important questions with abortion, CT. When does human life begin?
I honestly can't say and I don't think anyone else can either. Until someone comes up with something truly conclusive, I prefer to err on the side of being conservative.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm saying that if one does believe the zygote to be just as important of care and ongoing intervention as a born baby,
I think what anti-abortionist are arguing for is less intervention with the development of the fetus.
I get what you're saying, I just care about the zygote for different (read: non-religious) reasons. I believe it to be an invited guest (in 99% of cases, of course), and I think it deserves the exact same odds of being born as any other zygote. Does that make sense? (note: I wish to convey the non-snarkiness of that last question, but can't find a fitting emoticon. )
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like so much of the pro-life movement that I've been exposed to consists of simply calling pro-choice people "baby killers" and showing pictures of aborted fetuses.
Before Hatrack, my idea of pro-choice was people who believed in abortion at any point during a pregnancy and thought nothing of it. Hatrack has taught me that's not the case.
To CT and Dag, if an egg does not implant, it that considered a miscarriage? I thought the egg had to implant first.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding is that a pregnancy has not occurred until implantation, so a miscarriage can't occur without implantation.
But based on the top line of this link from CDC, and assuming 60% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, then 60% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, 24.65% are born live, 9.15% are aborted, and 6.20% are not born live for some other reason (assume miscarriage for all).
quote:Nope, it doesn't. Why are pro-life activists not concerned about doing both at the same time?
I tried to explain. It's not illogical, and it is consistent. Think of it as fate, nature's way, God's will, or whatever, the point is that harm caused by deliberate action of humans is the perfect subject for laws prohibiting conduct. The proposed solution to a man-made problem is man-made actions. The proposed solution to a fact of nature is scientific study.
Studying miscarriages is possible. Studying failed implantation is much, much, much, much more difficult. As was pointed out to me repeatedly in the pharmacist thread.
People die. We try to stop it where we can. One of the ways we can is with laws that prohibit the taking of human life. Just because we can't stop all the natural ways humans die doesn't mean we can't stop the voluntary ways.
quote:if you feel you must treat the 2-cell zygote as you treat a newborn baby, then why not be consistent about it?
While the personhood/rights of a zygote isn't central to my anti-abortion stance, I see your point. If we're going to bring it up in an abortion debate, though, I would have to say that keeping zygotes from dying on their own is much less important than keeping people from speeding up the process.
quote:But then far far far more alleged (*ouch) persons
If it hurts so much, you could just refer to them as "potential persons". At least that's one thing that nobody can really disagree with. Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I agree it's important. I fail to understand why you are being logically inconsistent -- if you feel you must treat the 2-cell zygote as you treat a newborn baby, then why not be consistent about it?
I hate being logically inconsistent, but I'm an engineer that does government work. Logic is not something I'm used to seeing.
CT, I think you raise a very good point to think about. My first inclination is the same as Dag's. Abortion is a man-made occurence and can be taken care of by man-made decisions. Miscarriages happen due to nature. Money should be spent on research though and I'm surprised it's not. Maybe people don't realize how prevalent it is. I didn't until recent years when we started trying to get pregnant. Money should be spent on it.
However, if we treat the zygote as a human regarding abortion, what about women who don't take care of themselves and cause miscarriages and physical defect because of it. I raise this question before, but I know I don't have a good answer. A woman who smokes and drinks excessively while she is knowingly pregnant is a lot different than one who doesn't take her pre-natal vitamins.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, there is something off about those figures (defintion of terms?). I'll look into it. That isn't a well-designed table for the information you'd want. I'd suggest searching the National Center for Health Statistics for something more straightforward.
Best I could find. The difference may be in the fact that it's "known" pregnancies.
quote:Again, huge population, huge number of incidents, ripe for study. Not being pushed as an issue, not being spearheaded as advocacy, not happening.
If we're talking miscarriages, I agree it needs more study, and I'm sure most people who have experienced one would agree.
If we're talking failed implantations, the study population isn't huge because there's like a 2-day window, and no way to detect fertilization pre-implantation without an intrusive test. Unless I'm totally missing something, the study is almost impossible.
posted
I just can't cotton to the idea of abortion on demand. That a person can have an abortion simply because they feel like having one.
Let's take out the extreme cases of rape and incest. Special circumstances sometimes warrant special actions.
But to simply allow someone to have an abortion because a birth would be inconvenient, or that they don't want to have a child from the person they chose to have sex with, that's a horse of a very dark and evil color.
This isn't about legislating morality, but about legislating responsibility.
Of course, I also believe that as we remove this scourge, we HAVE to develop a guaranteed support system for ALL mothers. And yes, this may mean building in more money for orphanages, nationalized pediatric care and stronger laws enforcing paternity requirements. Easy access to contraceptives should be continued.
Let's face it, we have made access to contraceptives as easy as possible in this society. Not only are condoms available in any drug or convenience store, with no stigma attatched, but literally ANY person can walk into a local Health Department and walk away with a bag full of condoms. And, correct me if I am wrong, but Medicaid does fully cover the cost of birth control pills.
Contraceptives, of course, aren't 100% effective all the time. But at least with their use, someone is making the effort at responsibility.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why, if it is preventing the death (and not the engaging in punishment) that is the point of it?
See, my thing is not so much preventing death itself as it is wishing people would take responsibility for their actions without having to inflict death on a potential person. But I realize that it's not me you're referring to as contradictory.
(look at me--the only way I could be more PC is if I replaced "death" with "life-deficiency". )
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I have a question I'd like to raise. It has nothing to do with the 'to abort or not to abort' question...I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.
My question is simple: If we make abortions illegal, then what? Does anyone seriously think that just because it's against the law that people will stop having sex, or at least unprotected sex? That people will stop wanting to have abortions?
People travel for hours, across state lines, to reach a doctor who will perform one...what you'll get is more unlicensed, badly trained back-alley doctors. Or worse, a resurgence of the popularity of the knitting needle. And even if all abortions did magically stop, are we ready to handle the new need for adoptions and care for the moms? What about all the thousands of unwanted children?
So while everyone's off discussing how wrong it is to have an abortion...will someone tell me what we're going to do when the government inevitably bans them?
[ July 15, 2004, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Human ]
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:While there are a shortage of infants up for adoption, is there a shortage of children up for adoption?
Of course not, because while certain groups would have you worrying about the welfare of little unborn babies, imagined in full newborn infant cuteness, once the babies become toddlers they fall off the radar of public consideration. After that, they are "the government's" problem.
Yeah, I know--broad brush and all. The incredible failure of we as a society to treat these children as just as important as a newborn is, in my opinion, a huge miscarriage of human rights.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the people I know who are most active in the pro-life movement are also the ones who adopt older children, participate in foster care, and help other charities involved with taking care of kids.
A: Development of better, more reliable birth control.
B: People taking sex more seriously. Or, if they're unable to do that, at least look into getting themselves fixed.
C: More people, instead of looking to abortion and adoption, raising their children.
Mind you, this is the long-term goal. And I don't think it should be a sudden change, either.
I think encouraging accountability will reap benefits in all aspects of life, not merely concerning sex.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people on this board probably remember when abortion was illigal. It wasn't that long ago. So in the short term, yes, we'd probably be back to the "Back Alley" abortion and all the associated risks and trauma. Hopefully, with time, we'd progress to the state Frisco outlined.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the people I know who are most active in the pro-life movement are also the ones who adopt older children, participate in foster care, and help other charities involved with taking care of kids.
That is an anecdote. Do you have any data to support that? I ask because the majority of people I see worrying about "unborn babies" are also the ones I see encouraging couples looking to adopt to get the cute little babies. I know two active pro-choicers personally who foster and help take care of older children. So, where's the statistical truth between us?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a lot of pro-lifers. This is not just a trend - it's near universal among the hundreds of deidcated activists I've met.
You're the one who started painting with a broad brush from anecdotes, here.
And we can both be right - "worrying about unborn children" isn't the same as being a dedicated activist, and my statement said nothing about the activities of pro-choice activists.
posted
Not anecdotes. Once a child reaches above the age of three, their statistical chances of being adopted nearly drops like a cliff.
I asked about you giving proof because I pointed out that it is a failure of us as a society, both pro life and choice, that this is so. You responded by saying the equivalent of, "well, this side is more right because look the the morally superior things they do." You didn't actually put it that way, but bringing up fostering and charity care as being something one side does more without showing any proof of it is highly suspicious. I could almost call it intentionally misleading. I know a lot of pro-choicers, but I didn't say they did more good for unadopted children than pro-lifers.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in the short term, yes, we'd probably be back to the "Back Alley" abortion and all the associated risks and trauma. Hopefully, with time, we'd progress to the state Frisco outlined.
I think there's as good a chance now as ever, seeing as we're past the era of the automatic out-of-wedlock stigma and well out of the pre-AIDS "make love not war" decades.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's look at the societal changes since the times of the Back Alley Abortions.
How more prevalent and accepted are single moms today? How more developed is the medical support available to them? How about things like WIC and food stamps compared to them? Not to mention equal access to vaccinations and health insurance for children is much more guaranteed.
Add to that the rising availability of some kind of pre-school environment and day cares to allow parents to work (this isn't the perfect answer yet, but it is much, much better than it was before). Child support laws are also much stronger now and paternity testing is commonplace, with the results admissable in court.
The children themselves, only having one parent or unmarried parents, are no longer stigmatized by their peers. Heck, in some areas they aren't even in the minority. They are also not institutionally marginalized by school systems.
Adoptions are also more prevalent now than they were then and there does seem to be an adopting public out there. Perhaps the group preference is for infants, but the need still exists.
Add to that growth in the foster care programs (it is still only a fraction of what is needed) and you'll see that we've made huge strides into making the overall support system better.
In short, we are much more prepared to care for the rush of children that outlawing abortion might cause than we have ever been before.
And folks, don't kid yourself that just because it is legal that back alley abortions don't happen anymore. Or that some women don't take the act of abortion into their own hands. It does still happen and with the same tragic results.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love a) Hatrack b) my Hatrack friends, including Dag, Frisco, ScottR, pooka, zgator, [Sopwith, of course!] and the whole lot of you who go out of your way to dice down through the nitty-gritty without resorting to name-calling and silly soundbites. I love the whole lot of you.
Driving in to work (yes, I am at work now, and still thinking about Hatrack stuff, of course ) I realized what one of the things making me so uncomfortable was that I haven't stated a positive position, having only taken potshots from the outskirts. What a miserly way to debate a topic.
I'll work on some sort of summary of what I believe, then post it up for fair critique. As foreshadowing, the parts that make me most uneasy about errors in logic and/or understanding are what I'm learning from sndrake about errors of diagnosis for persons with brain changes of the persistant vegetative state / "twilight" sort. I now have even more reason to be skeptical about claims in this area than before, and that's an issue that may impact many other areas of my thinking, including on volitional abortion.
quote:Not anecdotes. Once a child reaches above the age of three, their statistical chances of being adopted nearly drops like a cliff.
I asked about you giving proof because I pointed out that it is a failure of us as a society, both pro life and choice, that this is so. You responded by saying the equivalent of, "well, this side is more right because look the the morally superior things they do." You didn't actually put it that way, but bringing up fostering and charity care as being something one side does more without showing any proof of it is highly suspicious. I could almost call it intentionally misleading. I know a lot of pro-choicers, but I didn't say they did more good for unadopted children than pro-lifers.
I haven't made any universal claims. I made a statement about people I know. It is a true statement. It was meant to respond to your clear implication of hypocrisy by saying that in my experience, those who care most about the abortion issue, as evinced by how much time they dedicate to the cause, are also the people I know who generally help out caring for neglected children in many ways.
I'll bring up anecdotes whenever I want to. I never claimed they challenged those statistics. Edit: And you're perfectly free to say those anecdotes don't say something I never said they did all you want.
posted
You have every right to bring up anecdotes whenever you want to. I'm saying that, in cases like this, bringing up such anecdotes is an easy way to divert attention away from the larger long-term implications behind the issue. This is often done in political debates, court cases, and plenty of modern "documentaries." If talking about abortion, keep attention on the little, bitty babies instead of the exponentially larger number of unadopted older children. If talking about animal rights, focus on the cute bunnies and kitties and puppies. If talking about economic issues, focus on either oil-soaked duckies or acres of uninhabited desert. If talking about pet licensing, focus on how cute puppies are instead of the responsibilities to an adult dog. If discussing the economy, focus on this country's far lower unemployment rate and higher standard of living overall instead of the hundreds of thousands who have now switched to "self-employed," a euphemism for "no longer or not eligible for unemployment."
That's the rub. Anyone can call on anecdotes to focus attention somewhere, just as I can call foul and focus attention on something that already exists as a result of certain parts of an issue. More children exist right now without homes than there are abortions, from the last time I checked, which is admittedly last year. If that has changed in the past year, feel free to correct me. Until then, I would like to spend my energy pointing out the imbalance of focus on the right to life and quality of life of these children in reply to the arguments about some potential for life that has odds I wouldn't wager on in a game. I'm not really avidly for either side, and each has its points, but I like to look at what is instead of what might be. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, if we treat the zygote as a human regarding abortion, what about women who don't take care of themselves and cause miscarriages and physical defect because of it. I raise this question before, but I know I don't have a good answer.
I don't, either. And I'm pretty sure that consistency requires more accountability be placed on the woman than the traditional liberal stance is willing to extend.
quote:Best I could find. The difference may be in the fact that it's "known" pregnancies.
You are probably right about that. Thanks for digging this up -- I'll try to play around later and see what I can come up with.
quote:And yes, this may mean building in more money for orphanages, nationalized pediatric care and stronger laws enforcing paternity requirements.
Luckily, Title XXI of the Social Security Act does provide access to healthcare for all children who are US citizens, via state programs (SCHIP: State Children's Health Insurance Program. Children of the working poor still may fall through the cracks, but it's a start. I'm very excited about this! ) It's also incidentally a way to see what universal coverage might look like, and might cost, specifically in this country.
quote:And, correct me if I am wrong, but Medicaid does fully cover the cost of birth control pills.
I don't think that the coverage of oral contraceptives is consistent from state-to-state, although Medicaid usually does cover many forms of IUD and the insertion of Norplant (but not the removal). I believe that most Medicaid programs also cover (at least partially, if not all) some contraceptive injections.
I'm still trying to piece out the players in the US healthcare system. It wasn't until recently that I realized how many national initiatives were implemented by individual (and varying) state programs.
quote:But I realize that it's not me you're referring to as contradictory.
No, it isn't. Actually, I'm trying to target a pattern of thought, rather than specific persons, anyway.
quote:I think encouraging accountability will reap benefits in all aspects of life, not merely concerning sex.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
By the by, I don't think the reasons I previously listed makes abortion "acceptable." Abortion is a terrible thing. I guess I just try and understand the reasons why some women choose abortion and sympathize.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
