NationStates Jolt Archive

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.Abortion in Canada is much more publicly supported in Canada than say, the United States. If people dislike how the government is spending their money, they should vote that government out of office.

Does the government fund other "elective" procedures like cosmetic surgery? If so, then I think a woman wanting an abortion would have a legitimate argument for why her procedure should be paid for. Otherwise, no.

Olara']Does the government fund other "elective" procedures like cosmetic surgery? If so, then I think a woman wanting an abortion would have a legitimate argument for why her procedure should be paid for. Otherwise, no.
Thank goodness you aren't the one making a decision.

Comparing cosmetic surgery to abortion? Please.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale?

Yes, yes it is. It's not even an ethical question, really, from that regard. We fund many things through government that a lot of people disagree with, but that need to be funded nevertheless. Abortion is no different.

Thank goodness you aren't the one making a decision.

Comparing cosmetic surgery to abortion? Please.
No, no. I was just saying that if you're going to classify abortions as "elective" and then pay for other "elective" procedures, that a woman seeking an abortion would conceivably be able to say something to the effect of "Why should that elective procedure be publicly funded and not this elective procedure?" I realize that abortion and cosmetic surgery are not the same thing. I was just asking about what procedures are funded by the government.

either you fund medical care or you dont.

if its medically acceptable that is the deciding factor, not the moral judgement of an outsider.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.
Yes, it is ethical. The government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens. Unborn people are not citizens.

If they're going to offer a national healthcare system, then sure, they'd have to use public funds to pay for it.. abortions would have to be covered. We don't have a national system, so it really doesn't apply here..

Olara']No, no. I was just saying that if you're going to classify abortions as "elective" and then pay for other "elective" procedures, that a woman seeking an abortion would conceivably be able to say something to the effect of "Why should that elective procedure be publicly funded and not this elective procedure?" I realize that abortion and cosmetic surgery are not the same thing. I was just asking about what procedures are funded by the government.
Ah...okay then. That makes more sense. Nevermind my previous rant:)

Yes, it is ethical. The government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens. Unborn people are not citizens.
*winces*

If they're going to offer a national healthcare system, then sure, they'd have to use public funds to pay for it.. abortions would have to be covered. We don't have a national system, so it really doesn't apply here..
Well, Health Care is currently a provincial responsibility, so it is already paid for with public funds.

*winces*
Well, they're not.

Not until they get a SIN.

EDIT: Okay, bad one.

Olara']No, no. I was just saying that if you're going to classify abortions as "elective" and then pay for other "elective" procedures, that a woman seeking an abortion would conceivably be able to say something to the effect of "Why should that elective procedure be publicly funded and not this elective procedure?" I realize that abortion and cosmetic surgery are not the same thing. I was just asking about what procedures are funded by the government.

This is pretty much what I would say. And I would not support government funding of elective procedures. I wouldn't say it is unethical for them to do so - if a democratically elected government decides to fund elective procedures, so be it. But I wouldn't vote in favor of such an idea.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.

Depends. Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund militaries when many taxpayers consider war to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale?

Well, Health Care is currently a provincial responsibility, so it is already paid for with public funds.

I'm not sure how it works up there right now.. the way I was figuring was, if they're going to take 20% of your income off the top for "free" healthcare, it'd be a bit unusual for a common (if unfortunate) procedure to be left off the coverage list..

All healthcare should be covered equally. Period.
Even elective but not purely cosmetic procedures.

Or we could have everybody use the US that covers Viagra but not BC pills on most insurance.

Neither cosmetic surgery nor abortion should be funded. Healthcare should be funded, but not a] something that's useless and does not save lives nor save health or b] something which is not really healthcare. If you want an abortion, why can't you pay for it? It's not like it's something you (should) do more than once.

What exactly is elective care?

*winces*
The way I understand it, though it was many years ago when I looked into it, is an unborn child has no rights under the law; the mother has rights, and the child is protected under the mother's rights, as a part of her. This is because a child legally is not a citizen.

Neither cosmetic surgery nor abortion should be funded. Healthcare should be funded, but not a] something that's useless and does not save lives nor save health or b] something which is not really healthcare. If you want an abortion, why can't you pay for it? It's not like it's something you (should) do more than once.

What exactly is elective care?
Statistics are not officially kept in Canada on the reasons for abortion. There is no evidence that abortions here are not done for health reasons. I am unfamiliar with what screening process an applicant would have to go through, but I can't imagine that abortions paid for by the government could take place on a whim.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.Depends. Would the public rather pay for the medical bills associated with complications from the pregnancy, the psychiatrist's bills for a mother who is forced to bring an unwanted child into the world, the unwanted child's psychiatrist bills, the courts from any lawsuit that might arise if the family of the mother sought to sue for inadequate medical care, and last but not limited to the cost of raising the child for its life in an orphanage (or in the home of an individual who opposes abortion)?

Thank goodness you aren't the one making a decision.

Comparing cosmetic surgery to abortion? Please.


sure. in the way that - in most cases - the surgery is not life-preserving but rather the opposite.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.


btw that translation of the oath is by pbs http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html

Yes, it is ethical. The government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens. Unborn people are not citizens.

well its one thing to say that a government is not responsible for the well-being of non-citizens, but it is another altogether to suggest that public funds should be used for the purpose of harming them.

I find it ironic that many of the people who oppose spending on defense and wars support public funds for abortion. They seem to me to be willing to kill for convenience, but unwilling to do the same for national security.

well its one thing to say that a government is not responsible for the well-being of non-citizens, but it is another altogether to suggest that public funds should be used for the purpose of harming them.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is that the citizen involved is being cared for, and that's where government responsibility ends.

Here's another thought - how can many democrats favor abortion but oppose the death penalty?

How can you say that it's better to kill an innocent fetus who would become a baby (i'll skirt the "when does life beign" question for now. See below) than a hardened murderer or rapist?

Democrats and liberals always attack conservatives about lacking sicence - for example evolution. In most cases, i agree. I am very interested in science and think that these insane doubts about proven priinciples are ludricious.

However, in this case i feel that it is the democrats who are avoiding the truth.

When does life begin? a liberal might say it's birth - but how is that baby different from the day before. or that day from the day beofre that.

No, time has no impact on whether something is human. We must turn to science, and science tells us that a living thing is defined by it's genetic code - which is constant from the moment of fertilization onwards.

Therefore, a one day old embryo is just as human as anyone reading this post.

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is that the citizen involved is being cared for, and that's where government responsibility ends.

hey, it ma ynot turn out all happy for "the citizen involved" either.
abortion can have severe physical and mental consequences

Physical
------------------------------
Most Probable Side Effects
Intense Bleeding
Placental, Uteral, or Cervical Infenction or Rupture
Reduced Fertility
Breast cCncer

Common Abortion Side Effects
Infertility, Cervical Laceration, Uncontrollable blood clotting, Severe hemorrhage, Seizures, Coma, Cancer, Death

mental
------------------------------
# A survey was conducted of 1900 women who had had abortions. The survey asked "Were there any negative psychological effects... [caused] by your abortion?" 94% answered "Yes." 2% answered "No."
# Another study was conducted by Dr. Anne Speckhard at the University of Minnesota. She concluded, "After 5-10 years 54% of mothers choosing abortion had nightmares, 81% had preoccupation with their aborted child, 35% had perceived visitations with their child, and 96% felt they had taken a human life."
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/affect2.shtml


and i think that's all i'll say for now

When does life begin? a liberal might say it's birth - but how is that baby different from the day before. or that day from the day beofre that.The day before birth the fetus is getting 100% of what it needs to survive from the woman carrying it. After birth, it is breathing, and thus at least partially self-sufficient. This is how it's different.

The day before birth the fetus is getting 100% of what it needs to survive from the woman carrying it. After birth, it is breathing, and thus at least partially self-sufficient. This is how it's different.

but had the baby been born the day before, it would have been equally prepared for life.

birth occurs at an almost arbitrary time - not totally related to the exact time when the baby is "ready"

When does life begin? a liberal might say it's birth - but how is that baby different from the day before. or that day from the day beofre that.

No, time has no impact on whether something is human. We must turn to science, and science tells us that a living thing is defined by it's genetic code - which is constant from the moment of fertilization onwards.

Therefore, a one day old embryo is just as human as anyone reading this post.

Uh... living things aren't defined by their genetic code. Living things can be categorized by their genetic code, but having human DNA does not a human make. An embryo is not a human being. It contains human cells and is human tissue, but it is no more a human being than a person's severed finger is a human being.

And technically, genetic code isn't constant throughout life either. Mutation sees to that.

but had the baby been born the day before, it would have been equally prepared for life.
And it would be born.

but had the baby been born the day before, it would have been equally prepared for life.And had it been born the day before, it would be a human.

birth occurs at an almost arbitrary time - not totally related to the exact time when the baby is "ready"True, but until then it feeds from the energy of the woman carrying it.

but had the baby been born the day before, it would have been equally prepared for life.

birth occurs at an almost arbitrary time - not totally related to the exact time when the baby is "ready"

I wonder if maybe that could be why elective abortions are illegal during the third trimester?

Now, have a woman give birth to a three month old fetus, and see how well it can survive.

And it would be born.
:rolleyes: didn't think of that interpretation.

what i meant was simply that within a certain window, the baby is essentailly the same - trying to get the point across that birth does not determine life. and that goes for you too up there /\
i just cannot agree that a human is not human until birth.

as for the mutations, most mutation of any bearing take place during miosis, where gametes are created, then the gametes could pass the mutation to offspring where it would be "constant"

other mutations are essentailly negligible in effect

as for the mutations, most mutation of any bearing take place during miosis, where gametes are created, then the gametes could pass the mutation to offspring where it would be "constant"

other mutations are essentailly negligible in effect

Just because the majority of mutations are benign does not change the fact that your DNA isn't necessarily identical in all your body's cells.

And what, haven't you heard of cancer?

:rolleyes: didn't think of that interpretation.

what i meant was simply that within a certain window, the baby is essentailly the same - trying to get the point across that birth does not determine life.
You are correct that birth does not determine life, but it does determine "a life". Birth is the point at which we begin our lives as separate, independent, individual human beings. This is why the day is celebrated.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.


Is it ethical to use the public purse to cure ANY disease as long as we have some fundi groups (Plymouth Bretheren etc.) who feel that almost any medical care is interfering with God's will?

If abortions are against your morals, don't have one. If you hold that view for religious reasons, take comfort that the guilty shall be punished in eternal damnation. "Vengance is mine" and all that.


And in the meantime, bear in mind that NOBODY get their tax dollars allocated exactly as they want, but that the government is not strictly in the business of enforcing your personal moral code on the populace.

When does life begin? a liberal might say it's birth - but how is that baby different from the day before. or that day from the day beofre that.

No, time has no impact on whether something is human. We must turn to science, and science tells us that a living thing is defined by it's genetic code - which is constant from the moment of fertilization onwards.

Therefore, a one day old embryo is just as human as anyone reading this post.
Unfortunately, the one day old embryo, while being of human material, is still not alive by definition.

Science tells us, despite what you claim, that to be classified life you have to present a few characteristics:

Ability to grow - check
Ability to reproduce - while not capable at this early stage, there is an organ specified for this, so check
Ability to feed - that's a muddy one to look, since it's the mother that feed the embryo.
Ability to respond to stimuli - That's a no. Unfortunately, the embryo cannot respond to stimuli before around the third semestre. That is when pro-abortion people generally view as the start of life.

Before that, abortion is merely removing a parasite (biology speaking) from the mother.

Alright is my last word on the subject

I cannot condone the use of tax dollars in the practice of killing human lives and if you can- good for you.

However, i am not entirely against abortions in general - i don't really care what women do with their bodies. I'm not some nutcase who wants to ban vaccination, far from it.

But when the question of tax dollars is brought into it, the discussion changes entirely. Should the government support this practice wit hmoney that could go to education or anything else?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Alright is my last word on the subject

I cannot condone the use of tax dollars in the practice of killing human lives and if you can- good for you.

However, i am not entirely against abortions in general - i don't really care what women do with their bodies. I'm not some nutcase who wants to ban vaccination, far from it.

But when the question of tax dollars is brought into it, the discussion changes entirely. Should the government support this practice wit hmoney that could go to education or anything else?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Technically, the money wouldn't go anywhere else unless you changed how much money is being put toward Healthcare in general. There's no special 'abortion fund', it's just part of the 'free healthcare' deal.

Alright is my last word on the subject

I cannot condone the use of tax dollars in the practice of killing human lives and if you can- good for you.

However, i am not entirely against abortions in general - i don't really care what women do with their bodies. I'm not some nutcase who wants to ban vaccination, far from it.

But when the question of tax dollars is brought into it, the discussion changes entirely. Should the government support this practice wit hmoney that could go to education or anything else?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

So no military for you then, either?

But when the question of tax dollars is brought into it, the discussion changes entirely. Should the government support this practice wit hmoney that could go to education or anything else?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Well, thousands of government programs are funded. It's not like putting money to health care is taking money away from other programs.

Depends. Would the public rather pay for the medical bills associated with complications from the pregnancy, the psychiatrist's bills for a mother who is forced to bring an unwanted child into the world, the unwanted child's psychiatrist bills, the courts from any lawsuit that might arise if the family of the mother sought to sue for inadequate medical care, and last but not limited to the cost of raising the child for its life in an orphanage (or in the home of an individual who opposes abortion)?

You're completely missing the point of the question. I was not questioning the availability of abortions. They can be provided privately just as easily as publicly. There doesn't need to be a pregnancy at all if the woman chooses to have an abortion in a private clinic. The question asked whether it was ethical to use pro-life taxpayers' dollars to fund a non-therapeutic procedure they consider to be seriously immoral?

The day before birth the fetus is getting 100% of what it needs to survive from the woman carrying it. After birth, it is breathing, and thus at least partially self-sufficient. This is how it's different. So, your ability to survive unaided is a measure of how alive you are?

After birth, I wouldn't drink milk for some reason. I had to have a drip thing for four days. It is entirely possible that without that I would have died. So, was I alive for those four days or not?

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions.

YES!

The question asked whether it was ethical to use pro-life taxpayers' dollars to fund a non-therapeutic procedure they consider to be seriously immoral?And I said that it wasn't ethical if those taxpayers would rather spend more money on other things related to the woman not having the abortion.

If abortions are against your morals, don't have one. If you hold that view for religious reasons, take comfort that the guilty shall be punished in eternal damnation. "Vengance is mine" and all that.

Why would that be comforting? That kind of sarcasm is exactly the type of callousness that many pro-lifers find so offensive when for them the issue is about the protection of life itself.

The way I understand it, though it was many years ago when I looked into it, is an unborn child has no rights under the law; the mother has rights, and the child is protected under the mother's rights, as a part of her. This is because a child legally is not a citizen.
No, it's true. It's even in the criminal code...the legal definition of personhood begins when a child is removed from it's mother, whether the umbilical cord has been cut or no. It just sounded...bad, you know?

But then again, you need to have a clear line when dealing with this. And I'm happy where the Canadian line is drawn.

The question asked whether it was ethical to use pro-life taxpayers' dollars to fund a non-therapeutic procedure they consider to be seriously immoral?
The nature of the person contributing funds to the public coffers is irrelevant. They could be pro-life, pro-choice, pro-beef or pro-tennis; it could be taxed or donated dollars; but, once the money gets into public coffers it has no such identity associated with it anymore. It loses any identity with its contributor when it goes into the general revenue fund.

And it's not like contributors have any say about where their money goes or what happens to it, as they might when they contribute to charity. They have to pay taxes, period.

No, it's true. It's even in the criminal code...the legal definition of personhood begins when a child is removed from it's mother, whether the umbilical cord has been cut or no. It just sounded...bad, you know?

But then again, you need to have a clear line when dealing with this. And I'm happy where the Canadian line is drawn.
Just call me cold-hearted, today. *stab* *stab*

Better than being over-emotional, I guess.

I am blessed with the good fortune of knowing pretty much how our country runs. The government takes firmly middle of the road positions. pro-choice is the only logical government position, because it allows the woman to choose wether she wants to or not. the government funds what it considers necessary health care costs. to a degree. since abortion prevents unwanted children which become a drag on the welfare system, it has been validated. simple.

Just call me cold-hearted, today. *stab* *stab*

Better than being over-emotional, I guess.
It does kind of read that way, but like I said, it's important to have the line clear. It's not like a woman is allowed to have an abortion in her 7th month anyway.

And I said that it wasn't ethical if those taxpayers would rather spend more money on other things related to the woman not having the abortion.

You're assuming that the only option for the provision of elective abortions is through the public system. There are also private clinics. In your response, the only reason the woman opts for an abortion is because it's free. If it wasn't free, you contend that she would continue with the pregnancy and then there would be all kinds of other costs that you enumerated, assumptions themselves.

I say that if the only reason a woman opts for an abortion is because it's free then that is all the more reason for the government to get out of the abortion business. Abortions are not desirable outcomes, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. They are at best second-best.

You're assuming that the only option for the provision of elective abortions is through the public system. There are also private clinics. In your response, the only reason the woman opts for an abortion is because it's free. If it wasn't free, you contend that she would continue with the pregnancy and then there would be all kinds of other costs that you enumerated, assumptions themselves.

I say that if the only reason a woman opts for an abortion is because it's free then that is all the more reason for the government to get out of the abortion business. Abortions are not desirable outcomes, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. They are at best second-best.

For some women, the only way they can afford an abortion is if it's free. You could argue that it's these women that are most in need of abortions, because otherwise they are forced to live and raise their unwanted child in poverty, possibly living solely off money provided by the government.

Or something like that...

The problem with the topic question is that it leaves very little wiggle room. The question already states that abortion has been legalized, so the time for abortion opponents to effect change has already passed. The only thing here to discuss really is whether elective surgeries should be funded by the government. If elective surgeries are funded by the government, then how would you justify not funding abortions when they are legalized? If elective surgeries are not funded by the government, then there is no reason why abortions should be funded. By the way, this guy is cool! :mp5:

The only thing here to discuss really is whether elective surgeries should be funded by the government. If elective surgeries are funded by the government, then how would you justify not funding abortions when they are legalized? If elective surgeries are not funded by the government, then there is no reason why abortions should be funded.

Not all elective surgeries are funded by government, e.g. cosmetic surgery, dental surgery, etc... It isn't at all obvious that if abortions have been decriminalized then they should necessarily be provided free of charge within a public health care system.

For some women, the only way they can afford an abortion is if it's free. You could argue that it's these women that are most in need of abortions, because otherwise they are forced to live and raise their unwanted child in poverty, possibly living solely off money provided by the government.

two options: a) private NGOs that provide money to low-income women wanting abortions b) adoption.

two options: a) private NGOs that provide money to low-income women wanting abortions b) adoption.
Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, unless it can take place sometime in the woman's first two trimesters.

:rolleyes:

Not all elective surgeries are funded by government, e.g. cosmetic surgery, dental surgery, etc... It isn't at all obvious that if abortions have been decriminalized then they should necessarily be provided free of charge within a public health care system.

What is your argument then that elective abortion should not be one of the elective surgeries funded by the government? And do you think that the government should fund some elective surgeries and not others?

I believe that all elective surgery should not be funded by the government.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.
Most taxpayers in Canada don't consider abortion the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale. Something like 80% of canadians consider it a matter between a woman and her doctor.

You're assuming that the only option for the provision of elective abortions is through the public system. There are also private clinics. In your response, the only reason the woman opts for an abortion is because it's free. If it wasn't free, you contend that she would continue with the pregnancy and then there would be all kinds of other costs that you enumerated, assumptions themselves.

I say that if the only reason a woman opts for an abortion is because it's free then that is all the more reason for the government to get out of the abortion business. Abortions are not desirable outcomes, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. They are at best second-best.
So you know, OHIP still covers abortions preformed at private clinics. I've heard of one or two places charging for anastetic, but that was only like $40.
I know that New Brunswick does not finance abortions at all, and they pay a fine to the federal government accordingly.

It does kind of read that way, but like I said, it's important to have the line clear. It's not like a woman is allowed to have an abortion in her 7th month anyway.
Technically, a woman could have an elective abortion in her 7th month in Canada as there is no law against it. However, one would be SOL finding a doctor who would provide such a procedure.

[QUOTE=Willamena]Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, unless it can take place sometime in the woman's first two trimesters.[QUOTE]

That's true but not what I was responding to at all. I proposed adoption as an alternative to Kiwi-kiwi's claim that if abortions were not provided publicly then women would be "forced to live and raise their unwanted child in poverty, possibly living solely off money provided by the government." In the case so described, a woman could also give up her child for adoption and avoid living in poverty. Before responding please take my comment in their proper context. :rolleyes:

Note: A poll in New Brunswick showed that just 31% support the use of public funds for the provision of abortions. Statistics are devious things, but as long as other people are throwing in their own unrelated stats, I might as well point that out. Remember, the question isn't about whether abortion ought to be legal or not (most Canadians believe it should be); it's about whether abortions should be available through the public system or only in the private sector.

I will add here that the Canada Health Act doesn't stipulate that elective procedures be funded. Hospital Services that must be covered are defined as "medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease, or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disease."

To my mind, pregnancy is not an injury, illness or diseased. On the contrary, it is a completely natural physiological condition. Moreover, the rhetoric of "choice" which states that the decision to abort should be the personal choice of the woman (that is, she is equally right to abort or not abort) implies that abortion is not at all medically necessary.

So if pregnancy is not an injury, illness or disease, and if abortions are not medically necessary (except possibly in the special case where the mother's health is endangered but keep in mind that we're talking about elective abortions) why are public funds used to provide abortions?

Olara']Does the government fund other "elective" procedures like cosmetic surgery? If so, then I think a woman wanting an abortion would have a legitimate argument for why her procedure should be paid for. Otherwise, no.

Often, yes. If the cosmetic surgeries are deemed psychologically necessary, they are covered by universal healthcare (for example, creating breasts for women who have had them removed because of breast cancer). If the cosmetic surgery is deemed physically necessary, it is also covered by universal healthcare (for example, reconstruction after burns).

If you just want your cheekbones higher, than no, its not.

Often, yes. If the cosmetic surgeries are deemed psychologically necessary, they are covered by universal healthcare (for example, creating breasts for women who have had them removed because of breast cancer). If the cosmetic surgery is deemed physically necessary, it is also covered by universal healthcare (for example, reconstruction after burns).

If you just want your cheekbones higher, than no, its not.

Breat cancer is an illness. Severe burns are injuries. Pregnancy is neither. So it would seem abortions ought to fall into the face-lift category, no?

Breat cancer is an illness. Severe burns are injuries. Pregnancy is neither. So it would seem abortions ought to fall into the face-lift category, no?
One could argue that it's a psychological necessity to abort an unwanted pregnancy. It has been shown that women who go through unwanted pregnancies suffer psychological damage while those who have abortions end up happier in the long and short term.

Hi,
I don't think that the government (taxpayer) should fund abortions but I don't think it should be illegal either. I believe if it was illegal that it won't stop abortions and there would be dangerous backstreet operations by probably unqualified people.
I think if I was a woman and I wanted to have an abortion I should have to pay for it myself with help maybe from private "help poor women pay for their abortions" charity or other voluntary contributions. I don't think the government should be robbing you at gunpoint (taxes) to pay for something you don't believe in.

Stoo

Hi,
I don't think that the government (taxpayer) should fund abortions but I don't think it should be illegal either. I believe if it was illegal that it won't stop abortions and there would be dangerous backstreet operations by probably unqualified people.
I think if I was a woman and I wanted to have an abortion I should have to pay for it myself with help maybe from private "help poor women pay for their abortions" charity or other voluntary contributions. I don't think the government should be robbing you at gunpoint (taxes) to pay for something you don't believe in.

Stoo
Ok.

So, I don't believe in military spending. Does that mean the military should be funded by voluntary donation too? Hell, I don't believe politicians do enough work for their salaries. Should they get paid on a voluntary basis too?

Ok.

So, I don't believe in military spending. Does that mean the military should be funded by voluntary donation too? Hell, I don't believe politicians do enough work for their salaries. Should they get paid on a voluntary basis too?
Personaly I kind of like the idea of pay per service (though I know it at this time would be compleatly impractical to actualy do)

Sorry, I missed this post earlier.

So, your ability to survive unaided is a measure of how alive you are?

After birth, I wouldn't drink milk for some reason. I had to have a drip thing for four days. It is entirely possible that without that I would have died. So, was I alive for those four days or not?

No, presumably you were breathing, and therefore still able to get what oxygen you needed. In any case, unless the machine decided that it didn't want someone hooked up to it, I see no reason that people shouldn't be hooked up to machines if it is medically necessary.
This is entirely different than hooking yourself up to the internal organs of a person.

Abortions are not desirable outcomes, regardless of what side of the debate you are on. They are at best second-best.I would agree that in most cases abortion is second-best. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that carrying the fetus to term is better.

Breat cancer is an illness. Severe burns are injuries. Pregnancy is neither. So it would seem abortions ought to fall into the face-lift category, no?

According to this logic then, prenatal care, childbirth, pregnancy related ob-gyn, and midwifery are all elective procedures, and therefore should not be publicly funded.

That's cool.

According to this logic then, prenatal care, childbirth, pregnancy related ob-gyn, and midwifery are all elective procedures, and therefore should not be publicly funded.

That's cool.

Heck, under that notion - ALL preventative and diagnostic measures should be non-funded until such time as a disease is found.

Cancer screening? Bah - do it yourself.Only get coverage if it comes back positive.

Check-ups? Thpppp.

Hell, why is the government in the business of trying to get kids to stop smoking? What a waste and it's a personal choice. After all, until they actually GET lung cancer then it's nothing to worry about....

Pregnancy is not an illness. True.

It's a "medical condition."

As is pretty much everything else that we treat.

Ok.

So, I don't believe in military spending. Does that mean the military should be...
Actually, no; it doesn't mean anything more than his/her opinion, which is what was stated.

Breat cancer is an illness. Severe burns are injuries. Pregnancy is neither. So it would seem abortions ought to fall into the face-lift category, no?

Okay, would you prefer another example? Universal healthcare covers women who have breast augmentation or reduction in order to make their breasts the same size (in the case of women who have extreme differences in breast size, like a D cup on one side and an A cup on the other). It also funds breast reduction for men who have larger breasts than the norm for men.

Neither of those things are physically necessary.

Abortion in Canada is much more publicly supported in Canada than say, the United States. If people dislike how the government is spending their money, they should vote that government out of office.


Exactly.

People will still have abortions regardless of whether it is legal or "proper". It is safer just to ensure that people don't die from backstreet surgery, and easier to fund it with taxes than, say charity.

Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, unless it can take place sometime in the woman's first two trimesters.
That's true but not what I was responding to at all. I proposed adoption as an alternative to Kiwi-kiwi's claim that if abortions were not provided publicly then women would be "forced to live and raise their unwanted child in poverty, possibly living solely off money provided by the government." In the case so described, a woman could also give up her child for adoption and avoid living in poverty. Before responding please take my comment in their proper context. :rolleyes:
My apologies. I thought you were responding to her main point.

Note: A poll in New Brunswick showed that just 31% support the use of public funds for the provision of abortions. Statistics are devious things, but as long as other people are throwing in their own unrelated stats, I might as well point that out. Remember, the question isn't about whether abortion ought to be legal or not (most Canadians believe it should be); it's about whether abortions should be available through the public system or only in the private sector.

I will add here that the Canada Health Act doesn't stipulate that elective procedures be funded. Hospital Services that must be covered are defined as "medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease, or diagnosing or treating an injury, illness or disease."

To my mind, pregnancy is not an injury, illness or diseased. On the contrary, it is a completely natural physiological condition. Moreover, the rhetoric of "choice" which states that the decision to abort should be the personal choice of the woman (that is, she is equally right to abort or not abort) implies that abortion is not at all medically necessary. So if pregnancy is not an injury, illness or disease, and if abortions are not medically necessary (except possibly in the special case where the mother's health is endangered but keep in mind that we're talking about elective abortions) why are public funds used to provide abortions?
Pregnancy is not an injury, illness or disease, but it is a medical condition. Menopause and puberty are also "natural" medical conditions, periods in which hormones are in disorder, and they are treatable. Public funds are used to provide abortions because one purpose of government is the well-being of its citizens, and that includes the option to be free of a serious medical condition, to be 'not pregnant'.

Actually, no; it doesn't mean anything more than his/her opinion, which is what was stated.

But the opinion is based on the faulty premise that people get to individually choose what their tax dollars are spent on, beyond how they vote for their representation in government.

My apologies. I thought you were responding to her main point.

Pregnancy is not an injury, illness or disease, but it is a medical condition. Menopause and puberty are also "natural" medical conditions, periods in which hormones are in disorder, and they are treatable. Public funds are used to provide abortions because one purpose of government is the well-being of its citizens, and that includes the option to be free of a serious medical condition, to be 'not pregnant'.

In what way are you saying that menopause and puberty treatable? They are processes that cannot, generally, be reversed. Nor should they be. They are natural physiological conditions that characterize human growth and development. By comparing pregnancy to menopause and puberty you are in effect categorizing pregnancy as something that ought not to be reversed.

To my mind no one has yet responded adequately to the argument that if the decision to abort is merely a choice based on personal preferences then it cannot be considered a "medically necessary" procedure.

In what way are you saying that menopause and puberty treatable? They are processes that cannot, generally, be reversed. Nor should they be. They are natural physiological conditions that characterize human growth and development. By comparing pregnancy to menopause and puberty you are in effect categorizing pregnancy as something that ought not to be reversed.
I said that hormonal disorders are treatable, such as those that occur during menopause and puberty. They are periods in a person's life in which their body is changing and people in these stages can, are and should be treated for what distresses them. Pregnancy can be considered a similar stage, but my comparison was to it as a medical condition. There are those who go through menopause with little difficulty, and other whom it can endanger.

To my mind no one has yet responded adequately to the argument that if the decision to abort is merely a choice based on personal preferences then it cannot be considered a "medically necessary" procedure.
And I'm not going to address that, as I don't believe it actually happens here in Canada that abortions are paid for unnecessarily. As I stated earlier, I don't believe the government could justify (to the Auditor Generals) paying for abortions on a whim.

Depends. Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund militaries when many taxpayers consider war to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale?

We're discussing abortion, not war.

One could argue that it's a psychological necessity to abort an unwanted pregnancy. It has been shown that women who go through unwanted pregnancies suffer psychological damage while those who have abortions end up happier in the long and short term.

Unwanted as in rape or incest or unwanted as in he didn't feel like pulling out?

Unwanted as in rape or incest or unwanted as in he didn't feel like pulling out?
Cause you know pulling out always works:rolleyes:

Unwanted as in rape or incest or unwanted as in he didn't feel like pulling out?

Unwanted as in unplanned and unwelcome, regardless of how it occured.

Unwanted as in rape or incest or unwanted as in he didn't feel like pulling out?
Oh yes, here we go with the bullshit about women get pregnant most of the time because they don't use birth control. The majority of women seeking to abort unwanted pregnancies used birth control every time they had sex before they got pregnant.

And unwanted means unwanted for any reason. Period.

We're discussing abortion, not war.

Well spotted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)

We're discussing abortion, not war.
We're discussing tax dollars going to support things we don't believe in.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.
Yes it is. And unless somebody opposing this is willing to raise the kids themselves, they should shut up whining about it.

Abortion in Canada is much more publicly supported in Canada than say, the United States. If people dislike how the government is spending their money, they should vote that government out of office.
And that's really all there is to say about that.

Yes it is. And unless somebody opposing this is willing to raise the kids themselves, they should shut up whining about it.
Can you give a reason...

We're discussing tax dollars going to support things we don't believe in.
No, we're specifically discussing abortion. And it's not about whether tax dollars should go to support things that aren't believed in. The defining element of this issue is that many people consider abortion to be mass murder, something quite a bit more severe than most government decisions. So let's not confuse this issue with trivial ones.

Can you give a reason...


No, we're specifically discussing abortion. And it's not about whether tax dollars should go to support things that aren't believed in. The defining element of this issue is that many people consider abortion to be mass murder, something quite a bit more severe than most government decisions. So let's not confuse this issue with trivial ones.

Um. Many consider wars mass murder, but they don't get to withhold paying taxes for the military. Many consider capital punishment to be murder, but they still have to pay taxes.

You have yet to explain how abortion funding is magically a different situtation than any other decisions about how tax dollars are spent in a democratic society. Majority rules.

Oh yes, here we go with the bullshit about women get pregnant most of the time because they don't use birth control. The majority of women seeking to abort unwanted pregnancies used birth control every time they had sex before they got pregnant.

And unwanted means unwanted for any reason. Period.



Taking a life for conveinance is disgusting, and anyone who does it is deplorable.

Well spotted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)


I'm sorry.

I thought the name of the thread was "Publicly Funded Abortions in Canada".

Yes it is. And unless somebody opposing this is willing to raise the kids themselves, they should shut up whining about it.

Besides numerous social welfare programs, there are millions of people who would kill for an infant to adopt.

Cause you know pulling out always works:rolleyes:


How do you know it doesn't?



I'd be interested in any studies that show what the chances are of getting preganant in each scenario;

Pulling out.

Condom.

Spermicide.

Combinations.

Rhtyhm method. :rolleyes:

Taking a life for conveinance is disgusting, and anyone who does it is deplorable.

Very true. But I still think abortion should be legal, publicly funded, and elective to the 2nd trimester.

Without legality, you have illegality - backstreet abortion 'clinics', resulting in death, disfigurement, and/or disease.

Publicly funded because that neatly sidesteps the notion of there being one rule for the rich and another for the poor; and in an ethnically diverse country such as the USA or the UK (or most western nations), that also stops anyone claiming different treatment for different 'races' (economic power tending to be associated differently with different races at any one time in a country, in general).

And, of course, elective.

An abortion is such a dreadful thing to do, to have done to you. Can you (you = general, not just _you_, guy! :P) even begin to imagine how awful it must be, _knowing_ that, exactly as you say, "taking a life for conveinance is disgusting, and anyone who does it is deplorable", and _still_ having to do it, given how you perceive your circumstances? Unless you've done it or helped someone through it, I don't think you can.

Making a hard thing harder for people when they need help is disgusting, and the people who do it are deplorable.

How do you know it doesn't?



I'd be interested in any studies that show what the chances are of getting preganant in each scenario;

Pulling out.

Condom.

Spermicide.

Combinations.

Rhtyhm method. :rolleyes:

Nothing's 100% effective, as though that's relevant. And the first and the last are particularly chancy - pulling out because some sperm is present in uh... precum (I forget the name!), and the rhythm method due to human error and lusts and the survival rate of sperm in the womb.

We're discussing abortion, not war.

No, we're discussing tax dollars being spent on unpopular programs.

Abortion is a horrible thing imo. Publicly funding it is bad imo. It's telling women that they can have as much sex as they want without consequences. There are many couples who want a child, but can't because at least one of the partners isn't fertile enough.

If the woman really NEEDS one, fund it. Needs as in giving birth leads to horrible physical and psycological problems.
Rape/Incest and the pills didn't work, fund it. It's not the woman's fault.
If the woman's a tramp who can't control her own impulses, make her pay for it. Sex should be left to the responsible. Pregnancy is a completely natural process vital for the survival of the human race. Abortion is an unnatural thing that should only be used in special cases. It shouldn't be given to whores for free.

As for the whole military issue: The military's one and only job is to protect the nation and its citizens(and other people who are there LEGALLY). The job(at least in the US) of the President and Congress is to use it to rid ourselves of precieved threats. Bush saw Iraq as a threat. Congress agreed. Although it turned out that they were mistaken, they still did their job. The president is keeping troops there because he views it as vital for our security. He's doing his job. Last time I checked, elective abortions weren't vital. The military is because, without it, the USA would be the Nazi States of Naziland. That or Japan. If you disagree with me, do some research on WWII.

Abortions are not covered by the provincial health insurance programme in New Brunswick. People in NB who want abortions must pay out of their pockets.

Yes

Abortion is a horrible thing imo. Publicly funding it is bad imo. It's telling women that they can have as much sex as they want without consequences. There are many couples who want a child, but can't because at least one of the partners isn't fertile enough. If the woman really NEEDS one, fund it. Needs as in giving birth leads to horrible physical and psycological problems.
Rape/Incest and the pills didn't work, fund it. It's not the woman's fault.
If the woman's a tramp who can't control her own impulses, make her pay for it. Sex should be left to the responsible. Pregnancy is a completely natural process vital for the survival of the human race. Abortion is an unnatural thing that should only be used in special cases. It shouldn't be given to whores for free.

That's a lot of unattractive vitriol against women there, guy :) There was a bloke involved at some point in the preceeding proceedings you know! The man should take responsibility for what happened, neh?

I don't know where to begin a rational response to you. Oh well, least contraversial to most contraversial, I guess!

Firstly, abortion is not a new or unnatural thing; records and references to it go back to the time of the Old Kingdom of the egyptians, and there's no evidence that it was a new idea then, either. Control of our reproduction, fitting the size of our populations to the resources available, is an adaptive advantage that would help all groups of humans, right back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors - be interesting to study, actually...

If you're talking _literally_ about whores getting pregnant... well, in their line of work, pregnancy's a problem they want to avoid in the first place. Free abortions are _not_ going to make them any more laissez-faire about conceiving a child! Legalisation and regulation of sex industry workers would really help in this area though - what are your thoughts here?

If you're talking about women having sex recreationally and getting pregnant, you might want to update your vocabulary by about, oh, 4 or 5 decades. I think we need more info. here directly from the group you're talking about - ask what they think of abortion/what they would do if xyz, before we can really start debating reasonably.

I find it ironic that many of the people who oppose spending on defense and wars support public funds for abortion. They seem to me to be willing to kill for convenience, but unwilling to do the same for national security.
Undoubtedly they find it equally ironic that many of the people (although this seems to be unique to America) who call for the unleashing of ever-greater brutality upon the people of the Middle East get all weepy and emotional over abortion.

Besides numerous social welfare programs, there are millions of people who would kill for an infant to adopt.

...if that infant is the right ethncity, has no health problems, the mother had prenatal care, the mother had no addictions, etc.....

Meanwhile, the selfish bastards ignore the millions of children who are no longer infants but need loving homes to grow up in. For way too many people looking to adopt, it isn't about giving a child a home, it's about playing with a doll.

It's telling women that they can have as much sex as they want without consequences.

You don't think pregnancy is a consequence? You don't think having to make the choice of whether to continue a pregnancy or abort - a very difficult decision - is a consequence? You don't think going through the abortion itself, and any associated feelings you have about it, is a consequence?

Abortion is a horrible thing imo. Publicly funding it is bad imo. It's telling women that they can have as much sex as they want without consequences. There are many couples who want a child, but can't because at least one of the partners isn't fertile enough.

If the woman really NEEDS one, fund it. Needs as in giving birth leads to horrible physical and psycological problems.
Rape/Incest and the pills didn't work, fund it. It's not the woman's fault.
If the woman's a tramp who can't control her own impulses, make her pay for it. Sex should be left to the responsible. Pregnancy is a completely natural process vital for the survival of the human race. Abortion is an unnatural thing that should only be used in special cases. It shouldn't be given to whores for free.

As for the whole military issue: The military's one and only job is to protect the nation and its citizens(and other people who are there LEGALLY). The job(at least in the US) of the President and Congress is to use it to rid ourselves of precieved threats. Bush saw Iraq as a threat. Congress agreed. Although it turned out that they were mistaken, they still did their job. The president is keeping troops there because he views it as vital for our security. He's doing his job. Last time I checked, elective abortions weren't vital. The military is because, without it, the USA would be the Nazi States of Naziland. That or Japan. If you disagree with me, do some research on WWII.

OMG, your misogyny is showing. I'm not addresssing your tantrum, but here is some food for thought:

About half of all US Women will have an abortion during their lifetime. They are not tramps. They are not whores. Show a little respect.

About 60% of those who have abortions in the US were using birth control when they got pregnant. (Many of those who weren't using birth control were raised with a religious objection to it.)

About 60% of women who have abortions already have one or more children.

Taking a life for conveinance is disgusting, and anyone who does it is deplorable.

What do you eat?

I bet you take lives for convenience all the time.

How do you know it doesn't?



I'd be interested in any studies that show what the chances are of getting preganant in each scenario;

Pulling out.

Condom.

Spermicide.

Combinations.

Rhtyhm method. :rolleyes:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

What do you eat?

I bet you take lives for convenience all the time.
You're not one of those people, are you?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html
Wow I am going to have to bookmark that ... well layed out

Thanks

You're not one of those people, are you?
Care to define who "thoes" people are?

Besides numerous social welfare programs, there are millions of people who would kill for an infant to adopt.
But only the 'right kind' of kids.

Too many children end up raised by the state because no one adopts them. The children that are most wanted are infants, with no medical problems...and in Canada at least, more girls than boys are adopted. But once you get past about three years old, your odds of being adopted decrease drastically...and if you have any sort of medical condition, even as an infant you will likely be passed over.

If the woman's a tramp who can't control her own impulses, make her pay for it. Sex should be left to the responsible. Pregnancy is a completely natural process vital for the survival of the human race. Abortion is an unnatural thing that should only be used in special cases. It shouldn't be given to whores for free. So women are whores if they get abortions? How fucking typical to place the blame entirely on the woman, and letting the man off completely. I'd like to see the man forced to pay as well...or have the option of raising the child himself.

You're not one of those people, are you?

What kind of people?

I'm merely pointing out that we kill "life" all the time. Some life is protected and some isn't. It is silly to say it is always wrong to take a life.

I believe that persons have a right to life.

Embryos and early fetuses are definitely not persons. They have less characteristics of personhood than a pig, a chimp, or a dolphin.

No, we're discussing tax dollars being spent on unpopular programs.


The name of the thread is "Publicly Funded Abortions in Canada".

What do you eat?

I bet you take lives for convenience all the time.

I eat all kinds of stuff.

What of it?

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html

WOW!

Now that's service.

Thanks!

I was surprised to see pulling out was nearly as effective as wearing a rubber!

The name of the thread is "Publicly Funded Abortions in Canada".

Congratulations, you can read the thread title. Now, if your literacy extended to the first post IN the thread, you'd notice that the original poster made the claim that public funding shouldn't be used for things that people don't support. If a person doesn't support the military, do they have to pay taxes for it? If a person doesn't support affirmative action, do they have to pay taxes that help it? We don't get to pick and choose what our tax dollars are used for. We pay for the greater good of society; everyone's greater good, not just those we want.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.

aborting is killing: that´s no more than my humble point of view.
But opinions are not compulsory; they are made by each person.
what people ahould have in common are rights.Like the right to choose to(or not to) have an abortion.And every governement duty is to defend those rights above anyone´s personal opinion...So, yes,I FIND IT ETHICAL

The name of the thread is "Publicly Funded Abortions in Canada".

Dude. You are being horribly, horribly dense at the moment. Please stop and think about this for a moment. Yes, the thread is about publicly funded abortions in Canada. Now, people are saying:
"We should be able to choose whether or not we want our tax dollars to go towards this!"

At which point it is perfectly reasonable for another person to respond with:
"Well, what if we don't want our tax dollars to go towards this other thing?"

They are basically saying that people don't get to choose where their tax dollars are directed by any other method than voting during elections. There's no reason for abortion to be any different.

Please, it can't be that hard to understand the use of analogies.

I eat all kinds of stuff.

What of it?
then you are killing for convinance

Man, now there's a debate that's pretty absurd. I'm gonna talk about myself. I'm a Canadian, and very pacifist. If the government invests 1,3 billions dollars in the army for the next years, do I have a right to oppose myself? No!

The question you are asking is ethical. In ethics, there is a purpose saying that if we want to agree on something, we have to agree in the same cases. Therefore, since there's a large group of pacifists in Canada, the country shouldn't invest in weapons manufacturing as much as they do now. That would sound pretty stupid for the people who think that Canada should have a stronger army, right?

The thing is, you can disagree with abortion. The problem about abortion is that the women who get it DO NOT wish to be avorted. Everybody would like to keep their child, but for a reason or another (most of the time, money is the problem, because mostly young girls get abortion). The people who have to get an abortion are poor. What are they gonna do if they get pregnant? They don't have enough money to raise a child, and get to pay a bill if they want to be avorted. The only issue left is adoption. It's not everybody who want to know their child is being raised by an unknown person.

The thing is, you can disagree with abortion. The problem about abortion is that the women who get it DO NOT wish to be avorted. Everybody would like to keep their child, but for a reason or another (most of the time, money is the problem, because mostly young girls get abortion). The people who have to get an abortion are poor. What are they gonna do if they get pregnant? They don't have enough money to raise a child, and get to pay a bill if they want to be avorted. The only issue left is adoption. It's not everybody who want to know their child is being raised by an unknown person.

Er, I'm sorry to say this, but that is most definitely not ture. Some women just don't want babies. Ever.

then you are killing for convinance

Killing what?

Killing what?
Life


Same if you have cancer and get it removed

Also killing life

(I am not saying it is right or wrong rather it is what you are doing ... more making the arguement on the origional posters behalf as you seem to want us to connect the dots for you)

Is it ethical? Hell yes, especially if you're against abortion. By the time the mother manages to see a doctor in Canada, there won't be anything to abort anymore.

Dude. You are being horribly, horribly dense at the moment. Please stop and think about this for a moment. Yes, the thread is about publicly funded abortions in Canada. Now, people are saying:
"We should be able to choose whether or not we want our tax dollars to go towards this!"

At which point it is perfectly reasonable for another person to respond with:
"Well, what if we don't want our tax dollars to go towards this other thing?"

Please, it can't be that hard to understand the use of analogies.

I don't care for analogies.

A military is completly different from an abortion.

They're two totally different things and once you start comparing them you start to get way off track.

Personally I would think that if only needed medical procedures are covered in Canada, than abortion for convenience shouldn't be, as it's not an emergency.

I would imagine the progressive mecca has all sorts of welfare and support programs for poor families so no one should be able to cry poverty.

I would also imagine that some leftist activists wold be diying to donate money to "free abortion" charities.

How much does an abortion run anyway?

Life


Same if you have cancer and get it removed

Also killing life

(I am not saying it is right or wrong rather it is what you are doing ... more making the arguement on the origional posters behalf as you seem to want us to connect the dots for you)

So you place the same value on an animal or a lump of cancer as you do a human life?

So you place the same value on an animal or a lump of cancer as you do a human life?
How do you define human life?

Embryos and early fetuses are definitely not persons. They have less characteristics of personhood than a pig, a chimp, or a dolphin.

At the moment of conception, a unique genetic code is created that will never be duplicated again.

As far as not having "characteristics of personhood" what is that supposed to mean?

How do you define human life?


Conception.

At the moment of conception, a unique genetic code is created that will never be duplicated again.

As far as not having "characteristics of personhood" what is that supposed to mean?
1) BS the possible genetic code sequences are FINITE so saying that they will never be duplicated again is just conjecture as it is compleatly possible for it to happen
2)
Cancer can also have unique genetic code seperate but based on it's host

What makes an embryo special?

Conception.
I did not say the start to human life I said what human life

how do you define human life itself

Wow, if i ever wanted a reason not to live in Canada it would be because I don't believe in using my money to pay for a babies brain to be sucked out of it's head through a tube cuz some dumb teen got knocked up.

1) BS the possible genetic code sequences are FINITE so saying that they will never be duplicated again is just conjecture as it is compleatly possible for it to happen
2)
Cancer can also have unique genetic code seperate but based on it's host

What makes an embryo special?

What makes an embryo special is that it's the start of human life.


When I see a fully functioning human grow from a wad of cancer I'll view an embryo and cancer as the same thing.

Wow, if i ever wanted a reason not to live in Canada it would be because I don't believe in using my money to pay for a babies brain to be sucked out of it's head through a tube cuz some dumb teen got knocked up.
Ususaly not the brain in first trimester they vacume the entire embryo

Second timesters usualy dialation and extraction

I did not say the start to human life I said what human life

how do you define human life itself

That's a good question.

This make take a couple of bowls!

BBS :D

What makes an embryo special is that it's the start of human life.


When I see a fully functioning human grow from a wad of cancer I'll view an embryo and cancer as the same thing.
So you put value on potential ... not nessisarily the existance

That's a good question.

This make take a couple of bowls!

BBS :D
Lol fair enough it is a hard question

One that a lot more , and smarter people then us constantly try to define

Add to that what is a "person" to the list to ponder ... another big idea

Until they find a way to abort that seems more, I dunno, humane, I'll be against it.

As for the issue of human life vs. non-human life, I value seeing eye dogs more than serial killers, child molesters, and rapists. Seeing eye dogs help a person somewhat recover a completely natural ability that they no longer have.

As for the funding thing: Why should tax payers fund something so unimportant? Fund the pill more. Fund for better pills. Abortians just seem barbaric imo. Late term abortians are basicly murder because, at that point, there is a chance that the baby could survive outside the womb, on its own somewhat, all the way into adulthood. What seperates that from early pregnancy is: in one, the baby dies. In the other, the thing lives. If you hate the death penalty for the darkest or the evil, then why support something that seems a bit cruel? I dunno. I guess they need to dress it up better for me to support it.

Until they find a way to abort that seems more, I dunno, humane, I'll be against it.

As for the issue of human life vs. non-human life, I value seeing eye dogs more than serial killers, child molesters, and rapists. Seeing eye dogs help a person somewhat recover a completely natural ability that they no longer have.

As for the funding thing: Why should tax payers fund something so unimportant? Fund the pill more. Fund for better pills. Abortians just seem barbaric imo. Late term abortians are basicly murder because, at that point, there is a chance that the baby could survive outside the womb, on its own somewhat, all the way into adulthood. What seperates that from early pregnancy is: in one, the baby dies. In the other, the thing lives. If you hate the death penalty for the darkest or the evil, then why support something that seems a bit cruel? I dunno. I guess they need to dress it up better for me to support it.
Note while i am absolutly for funding for birth controll
along with education

Probably why i am against the spreading "abstinance ONLY" education thats spreading down here

Ususaly not the brain in first trimester they vacume the entire embryo

Second timesters usualy dialation and extraction
Yah, sucking out the brain is usually really late in when the baby is almost ready to be delivered, and they turn it around so the feet come out first, then once the back of the head is revealed they'll cut a hole in it and suck the brain out. The brian and fetus are then thrown away as medical waste.

Yah, sucking out the brain is usually really late in when the baby is almost ready to be delivered, and they turn it around so the feet come out first, then once the back of the head is revealed they'll cut a hole in it and suck the brain out. The brian and fetus are then thrown away as medical waste.
From what I can tell canada does not allow that late of an abortion

Until they find a way to abort that seems more, I dunno, humane, I'll be against it.

As for the issue of human life vs. non-human life, I value seeing eye dogs more than serial killers, child molesters, and rapists. Seeing eye dogs help a person somewhat recover a completely natural ability that they no longer have.

As for the funding thing: Why should tax payers fund something so unimportant? Fund the pill more. Fund for better pills. Abortians just seem barbaric imo. Late term abortians are basicly murder because, at that point, there is a chance that the baby could survive outside the womb, on its own somewhat, all the way into adulthood. What seperates that from early pregnancy is: in one, the baby dies. In the other, the thing lives. If you hate the death penalty for the darkest or the evil, then why support something that seems a bit cruel? I dunno. I guess they need to dress it up better for me to support it.

Late-term abortions are only performed when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

I don't care for analogies.

A military is completly different from an abortion.

They're two totally different things and once you start comparing them you start to get way off track.

Personally I would think that if only needed medical procedures are covered in Canada, than abortion for convenience shouldn't be, as it's not an emergency.

I would imagine the progressive mecca has all sorts of welfare and support programs for poor families so no one should be able to cry poverty.

I would also imagine that some leftist activists wold be diying to donate money to "free abortion" charities.

How much does an abortion run anyway?

Man... I've seen all kinds of prejudice around here. Here are some facts:
1. Most of the people who get avorted (even among women :D) are young girls who can't afford to have a baby yet. 30-year old women getting abortion is something that happened, but not an usual case.

2. There are many welfare and support programs, for example the maternity holiday is paid. However, you can't pay an appartment, your food, take care of the baby, buy his things with a welfare salary. Even if your boyfriend gets a job, you can't work it out unless he gets a decent salary (thing you don't have when you are young)

3. Leftist activits donating to abortion charities? Yes. Thing is, try to get a million dollars with leftist donnations. The abortion program probably costs around 2$ to each person in Canada! Wow! So who pays? Everyone gets to put two dollars in the pot, or a young 17 year-old girl pays 1000, scrapping her budget for her studies?

I've seen alot of prejudice on this forum, but let me tell you this. Human nature is something that makes us sometimes see ourselves as white. The people against us are always black, covered with evil. Good vs evil. That's an erroneous way of thinking. There ARE women who get abortion because they never want children. But that's a minority. The majority of these girls who get abortion are sad, because they want a baby, but can barely make a living themselves. They can't afford to have a child yet.

Now I tell you, abortion is EXACTLY like the army's system. Analogies are important, because it puts something you hold on to closer to you. You don't care about abortion, but you care about the army. I care about abortion, but not about the army. We just got different values. If abortion was not to be funded, because some people are opposed to abortion, the army shouldn't be overfunded and limited, since some people are opposed to armed fighting. What's the difference? War causes death. Abortion causes death, according to anti-abortion communities (thing that can be questionned, however). If you can't make links to be able to make yourself a clear judgement, you can't be able to understand the world around you.

At the moment of conception, a unique genetic code is created that will never be duplicated again.

As far as not having "characteristics of personhood" what is that supposed to mean?

This is a characteristics of life. Each plant that is born, each animal that is born, has those same characteristics. Each time you killed an ant or a mosquitoe, you destroyed a unique genetic code. This is a characteristics of life, not a characteristics of HUMAN life. Human life comes from something else. I'm personnally a little existentialist on this part, and I think that existence precedes the essence.

Many religious people say that every human life is important. However, what makes a human life different from an animal's? It's his conscience. An embryo has no conscience. I think that, like in existentialism: Existence precedes the essence. This means one thing: you are not born with a meaning. You decide with your own mind. You are not destined to do something, you CHOOSE to do it. Since the embryo cannot yet make any choice, thus, he can't be considered a human being.

I don't care for analogies.

A military is completly different from an abortion.


What you care for is irrelevant. If the argument is brought up that abortions should not be publicly funded because some people oppose it, then it is an entirely valid argument to say that people who are against war should not have to fund the military, people who are against evolution should not have to fund education, et cetera.

What makes an embryo special is that it's the start of human life.

I thought you said the start was conception? There is an embryo before conception occurs. Why does the embryo for the first (approximately) two weeks of its existence not count?

True, but until then it feeds from the energy of the woman carrying it.But it is not necessarily dependent on it's mother to live.
A woman has every right to cease to be pregnant if she wants to; to terminate the pregnancy. She does not have the right to kill her child if it could live on its own.

Congratulations, you can read the thread title. Now, if your literacy extended to the first post IN the thread, you'd notice that the original poster made the claim that public funding shouldn't be used for things that people don't support. If a person doesn't support the military, do they have to pay taxes for it? If a person doesn't support affirmative action, do they have to pay taxes that help it? We don't get to pick and choose what our tax dollars are used for. We pay for the greater good of society; everyone's greater good, not just those we want.
Well said.

A military is completly different from an abortion.

They're two totally different things and once you start comparing them you start to get way off track.
They both kill life. Is that not enough of a similarity?

From what I can tell canada does not allow that late of an abortion
It's technically allowed, but none are done. There aren't any doctors that do them here.

I thought you said the start was conception? There is an embryo before conception occurs. Why does the embryo for the first (approximately) two weeks of its existence not count?

In humans, the embryo is the developing child from conception to the end of the second month of pregnancy.

They both kill life. Is that not enough of a similarity?

Not for me.

Well said.

Maybe he can buy you a pair of pom-poms?


:p

how do you define human life itself

I'm still working on this.

The more I think about it, the more complicated it becomes.

*this could also be the mary-jane


So you put value on potential ... not nessisarily the existance

To me they're almost one in the same.

You can't have life without the potential for life first.

What you may call potential, I already think of as life.

We already have free abortions for all here in England. People are going to want abortions whether or not they have to pay for them, and making people pay simply discriminates against the poor. Rich people can afford to buy abortions, or rasie children. many people in poverty can afford neither and would be forced to have dangerous backstreet abortions.

To me they're almost one in the same.

You can't have life without the potential for life first.

What you may call potential, I already think of as life.

So a pan of batter in the oven is a fully baked and decorated cake?

So a pan of batter in the oven is a fully baked and decorated cake?

A cake ain't no baby, baby. :D

But when would you consider it a cake?

When it is totally firm and golden brown?

When it is somewhat edible?

After the icing is put on it?

The candles?

I see it more as a meatloaf.

Conception is the molding of the meaty loaf, you mix in the egg, breadcrums, peppers, onions, celery and ground beef.

Gestation would be the baking of the meatloaf.

It's a meatloaf the whole time.

Unique genetic codes and full course meals aside, do you believe in a human soul, or spirit?

In humans, the embryo is the developing child from conception to the end of the second month of pregnancy.

Really? So what is it during the ~two weeks between fertilization and conception?

And if that is the case, then why do we refer to the ~8-10 day blastocyst used in embryonic stem cell research as an embryo?

A cake ain't no baby, baby. :D

But when would you consider it a cake?

When it is totally firm and golden brown?

When it is somewhat edible?

After the icing is put on it?

The candles?

I see it more as a meatloaf.

Conception is the molding of the meaty loaf, you mix in the egg, breadcrums, peppers, onions, celery and ground beef.

Gestation would be the baking of the meatloaf.

It's a meatloaf the whole time.

Unique genetic codes and full course meals aside, do you believe in a human soul, or spirit?

If there is such thing, I go for the 'suck it in with your first breath' school of soul-gathering.

Question: Is it ethical to use the public purse to fund elective abortions when many taxpayers consider abortion to be the killing of innocent human life on a mass scale? Discuss.

I would consider it to be very ethical indeed! If you are a taxpayer, would you want $800-$1200 (best guess from price quotes I've seen) to go towards funding an abortion, or would you want ~$130,000 ($600/month X 18 years) to go towards paying for a dysfunctional mother to raise a dysfunctional child?

As far as the money goes, abortion is definitely more bang for your buck.

What you care for is irrelevant. If the argument is brought up that abortions should not be publicly funded because some people oppose it, then it is an entirely valid argument to say that people who are against war should not have to fund the military, people who are against evolution should not have to fund education, et cetera.

I disagree. I think it is important here that people oppose abortion because they consider it mass killing of innocent life. Evolution is not an anologue because it's not considered mass killing. Now, you may not believe that about abortion but many people do (and can support their position with reasonable arguments though you may not be convinced of them). Make sure you understand exactly what the ethical question is here.

The military is the closest analogue. Even then it is not exactly the same because the military is a pure public good whereas abortion can be provided through private markets. Also, no one person's death (however innocent) in war is certain whereas in abortion the whole point is to end a specific life.

Also, to those people who are bringing the cost to poor people, I think that argument is irrelevant. Either something is ethical or it's not. It shouldn't matter if the person concerned is rich or poor to decide whether or not abortions should be provided with public finds. If we object to paying for abortions fir rich people but not poor people on the grounds that doing so is unethical, there is a lack of consistency in our moral judgment.

The military is the closest analogue. Even then it is not exactly the same because the military is a pure public good whereas abortion can be provided through private markets. Also, no one person's death (however innocent) in war is certain whereas in abortion the whole point is to end a specific life.


Actually, they're quite similar, as you don't specifically tax people for abortions. You tax people to provide free Healthcare, which may or may not go towards an abortion, and may or may not go toward saving someone's life. Now, taxing people to fund the military make do 'good' and may do 'bad'.

The military is the closest analogue. Even then it is not exactly the same because the military is a pure public good whereas abortion can be provided through private markets. Also, no one person's death (however innocent) in war is certain whereas in abortion the whole point is to end a specific life.

It would be quite easy for people who wanted to fund a military to privately hire a militia group to perform as their own private military. It doesn't need to be public.

I disagree. I think it is important here that people oppose abortion because they consider it mass killing of innocent life. Evolution is not an anologue because it's not considered mass killing. Now, you may not believe that about abortion but many people do (and can support their position with reasonable arguments though you may not be convinced of them). Make sure you understand exactly what the ethical question is here.

Why they oppose it is irrelevant. If we're to say that certain people can refuse to pay taxes that go towards one thing they find offensive, then everyone ought to be able to decide not to pay taxes that go to things that they find offensive. Like I said previously, we do not get to pick and choose what we do and don't pay taxes for. When we pay our taxes, all that money loses our individuallty on it and goes into one public fund, from which money is then withdrawn to pay for various services that we have all agreed upon, such as the military or education or healthcare. If you're unhappy about what your tax dollars go towards, then you express it by whom you vote for. But everyone does not get to decide what they want to pay taxes for.