Abortion and Rights under the Law

[Digital]

So, this is generally a touchy topic on many levels, but one that has been polarized around the world. What are your thoughts on the right to receive medical services that may end early or even late-term pregnancy? Do you feel that such programs should be supported by governments, employer paid through employee benefits, or even privately paid? 

Note, this topic isn't about the reason why the services in question are being asked for or even if they should be allowed to be done (this isn't about the whole pro-life versus pro-choice debate), just whether or not the services should be paid for socially, or if they should fall on the person asking for the services directly.

 

[Syntax]

I don't believe any medical services should be supported by governments or required to be supported by employers especially if those medical services are a result of lifestyle choices.

Regardless of whether or not abortion is right or wrong the fact is that abortion does go against religious laws/conviction for a lot of people and religions. Thus mandated support of abortion and freedom of religion/expression are mutually exclusive. If your 'right' to a free medical service hinders another individuals rights, then freedom is lost.

 

[Zrcalo]

If a person does not want a child, that child not only becomes a burden to society, but actively costs people thousands upon thousands of dollars and oftentimes that child becomes a danger to society. 

abortion is not about a fetus, its about a child and a life. If you cannot and are unwilling to raise a child, you should not have a child period. a child does not consent to being born and broken. 

I believe in free abortions to all! and population control as well. an abortion costs taxpayers so much less than social services to feed, clothe, educate, and raise a child until they're 18. 

I also believe parents have the right to surrender their child to the state if they cannot provide that child with a safe environment and provide for the basic needs of the child. my state has a law that anyone who has a child can abandon their child legally and safely at any church, firestation, police station, or hospital for the first 72 hours they are born. I think the 72 hours should be extended imo. because sometimes a person tries but fails miserably. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit: also to reply to syntax...
the reason why the government stepped into the healthcare nightmare was because people just werent paying their medical bills. If a person racks up $10,000 and skips out, then thats $10,000 the hospital has to pay for lost revenue. they pay for this by charging other customers more. so in a sense, healthcare is a gamble. as such, to pay for losses, they sell the debt to debt collection agencies at 1/4 the cost or less. lets say, the 10k that the person skipped out on, the hospital sells that debt for $2,500 to a company that then uses that debt to call and collect money from an individual. Which is still a gamble. basically I'm paying a company $2,500 for the opportunity to harass someone for money. 

what this creates is an endless cycle of rising healthcare costs. The only way to solve this would be to minimize the people skipping out on bills, create a payment ceiling for healthcare workers/businesses/supply companies (which is against the constitution because we have free trade), or mandate insurance to curb the issue. each has their own issue.

now, how does this affect the taxpayer? Well, we all get old, we all get sick, and sometime in our lives we will get into an accident. the amount of money we owe to a hospital comes right out of our pockets. the same pockets we pay our taxes with. Not only that, but waiting for a condition to worsen actually takes a person away from a job which cuts away how much money the government makes. If you keep people working and healthy enough to work, then you can get revenue from them.. otherwise its the law of diminishing returns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also the same with the food stamp program that happened in the 1930's and why we still have it today. If you're starving, you cant work... but you can fight and steal. It's about energy conservation. If you're limited to a certain amount of daily rations, you probably dont have enough energy to be on your feet all day working, or mental capacity to sit at a desk and work. But you do have the strength and energy to steal someone else's food. ie; breaking into their house or just simply stealing it from them. 
If you're already in someone's house, then why not grab some other things?

also starvation is a bitch, and its very hard to recover from. also during all this period of being unable to work, the government isnt getting tax revenue either, and in fact it's dumping thousands of dollars into solving crimes you've committed.. then when they apprehend you its tens of thousands of more dollars to put you to trial and house you in jail/prison.

not to mention, its the same effect as above with healthcare.. the more food that gets stolen from grocery stores, the more they have to charge to compensate for it. then the food prices go up and then more people cannot feed themselves and crime goes up as well. 

 

[N_E_Wunn]

Abortion, for many, is morally wrong. To be asked to fund those procedures through taxes so that others can receive those services for free should not be an option. For 90% of these cases, contraception would have prevented the unwanted pregnancy; monies should be directed to greater education and compliance. 

In the case of criminal rape, I would guess that most do not result in pregnancy. The "morning after pill" is another option that could receive public funding. Other issues, such as where the life of the mother is in jeopardy are as much medical necessity and should be funded in the same way as treatment for breast cancer.

This is not about unwanted children being abandoned. There are more people who want to adopt than there are children. I should add that many prenatal children are "abused" by their mothers through drug use and other unhealthy activities which makes those children less adoptable. Again, education and counseling is important. Privately funded services can support abortions for people who would go to extraordinary ends to terminate a pregnancy. 

The biggest problem with government-funded programs is fraud. Fraud is rampant throughout the private sector as well, but they are better equipped to police such abuse. Single-payer systems may work in some countries, but in one with the size and diversity of the United States it would be impossible to eliminate high levels of fraud. @Zrcalo mentioned food stamps, and I don't know anyone who has SNAP, WIC or any EBT that does not "cheat a little." There is a vicious cycle at work here, and I know I went a bit off topic, but government funding for many things, including abortion, is not a solution, merely a bandage.

 

[Zrcalo]

" There are more people who want to adopt than there are children."

actually false. only healthy white infants are the ones that qualify for this sentence. 

" I don't know anyone who has SNAP, WIC or any EBT that does not "cheat a little."

in my state and in others, its entirely automated in a database, so if you have a job they just look up your finances through your employer and your tax records, etc. It's based on rent cost, utilities, property value, income, number of children living at the home, and other individuals living in your home. 
If you're going to college, you're automatically disqualified for everything (at least here), as if you can pay college, you can afford food. 
rent cost is based on notarized papers from your landlord/rental company, and if you own a house, the value is calculated through the state, as are the utilities. if you havent paid taxes, you dont qualify. Also all children need to have their birth certificates, and if they find that you are housing someone not included on your list of people in your home, they revoke your food stamps. you need to also not be a felon, not have a criminal record, be a resident of the state, work over 20 hours a week, if you're unemployed you are disqualified.. as they cannot look up your finances. I'm also pretty certain that if your children arent registered in a school and they're under 18, you dont qualify. Also they check your bank to see if you have any savings, etc or assets invested in.. so they check your credit score, and contact financial institutions. 
most people are awarded $20-$90 a month, and the maximum is $190 if you make less than 8k a year and work over 30 hours a week, which is rare but it does happen.

tbh my state also doesnt offer disability at all. You have to get it on the federal level.

a lot of times people in my state dont have the constitution/knowledge to go through all the levels of processing for food stamps, and a lot of offices take about 6 hours to process you. I go to a mislabeled office thats not on google, but my wait time is still about 3 hours if I'm one of the first ones in line. the computers batch every 30min so sometimes its just a factor of waiting for the next batching to be entered in.

I'm not really certain how WIC works, but I know the foodstamp form has information about WIC and healthcare, so I assume its the same form etc. I'm just glad I qualify for healthcare tbh. 

 

[Nova]

There are more people who want to adopt than there are children.

While I'm staying out of this topic for several reasons, I would like to see some statistics for this statement. 

 

[N_E_Wunn]

While I'm staying out of this topic for several reasons, I would like to see some statistics for this statement. 

PBS reported these numbers from a variety of sources:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/offandrunning/fact-sheet/

One of those sources stated that there are "2 million infertile couples actively trying to adopt." This does not include other individuals and couples who also want to adopt. 

Some other interesting statistics from Good Housekeeping:

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/

If you want to pore through mounds of data on your own, the US government provides a variety of fact sheets:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/adoption/

At least in the United States, there are many people looking to adopt children and because Russia has eliminated adoptions and China cut back, there are fewer  out-of-country options.

 

[Bingo]

For 90% of these cases, contraception would have prevented the unwanted pregnancy; monies should be directed to greater education and compliance. 

This. The arguments goes around and around about how people shouldn't be "forced" to bring an unwanted child into the world but this wouldn't be happening if people weren't being so careless about it to begin with. You know the risks that come with the activity so if you really cannot afford/want a child then the kindest thing you can do for everyone involved is to practice abstinence; an undesirable and perhaps impracticable option, yes, but an effective one. There are exceptions of course, but these are really in the minority and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

What would anyone think of say, abortion and the like be its own type of insurance you pay?  Or would that bring you back to people not being able to afford it?

 

[Zrcalo]

PBS reported these numbers from a variety of sources:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/offandrunning/fact-sheet/

One of those sources stated that there are "2 million infertile couples actively trying to adopt." This does not include other individuals and couples who also want to adopt. 

Some other interesting statistics from Good Housekeeping:

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/

If you want to pore through mounds of data on your own, the US government provides a variety of fact sheets:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/adoption/

At least in the United States, there are many people looking to adopt children and because Russia has eliminated adoptions and China cut back, there are fewer  out-of-country options.

people who want to adopt dont necessarily mean people who want to adopt a child at random at any age. Like I said, most of these families want to adopt white babies. Not black babies, toddlers, children, or teenagers. Which make up the majority of orphans. 

also "wanting to adopt" doesnt mean "can afford to adopt" or "qualifies to adopt"

"When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91834&page=1

"Both straight and gay adoptive parents are likely to exhibit racial and sex-based biases when applying to adopt a child"
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/black-babies-boys-less-likely-to-be-adopted/

"There are 107,918 foster children eligible for and waiting to be adopted. In 2014, 50,644 foster kidswere adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and 29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care."
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/

I mean, I might want a puppy because it may be nice to have a puppy, but that doesnt mean I'd go out and actually get a puppy.

also to reply to @Bingo a lot of times the people who end up getting an abortion are people who lack the ability to think ahead or knowledge about contraception etc. Growing up we were never taught anything about contraceptives and we were only taught that all sex (even if you use birth control. they didnt even mention condoms) led to pregnancy, and that teenagers shouldnt have sex.  they didnt go further than that. It was basically "dont have sex until you're an adult".

religion also played a role, where it was insanely frowned upon to use contraceptives (because that meant you were having sex) and if you werent married, you were condemned, ostracized, and even excommunicated by your family. which would also happen if you got an abortion too, but! an abortion you can hide.. a baby you cant.

not to mention, a lot of these people lack access to the internet, lack the ability to understand how to use the internet, and just dont understand things. I'd beg to say a lot of them have learning disabilities or mental issues as well. They're usually extremely impulsive and a lot /do/ intend on getting pregnant in the beginning but change their minds or their situation changes. Imagine just turning off your entire thinking area of your brain and just reacting on animalistic urges impulsively. 

 

[Patrick]

As a libertarian (small L) and as someone who has a deep interest in logic, philosophy and politics, this issue might perhaps be the most difficult issue I've ever encountered to develop a consistent view on.

My overall guiding framework with all issues is simple. I don't believe in the initiation of force except in cases of self-defense. I believe everyone should be left alone to do as they wish, so long as they are not infringing upon anyone else's natural rights. I'm a firm believer in the non-aggression principle.

Abortion is tricky and I've given it an immense amount of thought...

At this point in my life I am prepared to make the unequivocal statement that abortion is an immoral act. With that being said, it doesn't make those who have had abortions bad people and it doesn't make them immoral. Life isn't black and white. Good people make bad choices all the time. 

I've also found no way around drawing the inevitable conclusion: Abortion is murder. At least without sacrificing logic and consistency.

Supporters of abortion will argue that it's the woman's body and it should be her choice. To that I say, you're right. It is your choice. The choice is made when you choose to have sex. Actions have consequences and pregnancy is an obvious consequence of having sexual relations. To which the next argument will be something like, "well not everyone knows about the risks associated with sex." Frankly, I think that argument is quite absurd in and of itself and even so, it doesn't matter. I'll reiterate. Actions have consequences. If you throw a rock over a bridge and that rock hits someone below you on the head, you are still responsible for the harm you've done to that person. You may not have intended for the rock to hit anyone but that does not matter. It's of no consequence. Ignorance has never been considered a valid argument in context of the law. That standard does not hold anywhere else in society, nor does it hold here.

This is typically when the red herring rape scenarios come into play. I don't take this argument very seriously as it accounts for less than 1% of all abortion cases. Even so, morally speaking the baby had nothing to do with the decision of the father to rape the mother so why it should suffer the consequences is beyond me. Two wrongs don't make a right.

As a society we've already established that the fetus has rights. If a pregnant woman were to be murdered, her assailant would be charged with the murder of both the mother and the child. It's not consistent to then say the mother can end the life of that fetus.

Then you've got the entirely separate issue of Planned Parenthood and it's racist origins... Margaret Sanger and her support of eugenics. It's disgusting.

So where do I go with all this? Who knows. Should be have laws restricting abortion? I don't know to what extent. But I do believe that we should be doing our best to encourage people to bring their children to term. Just on a moral basis, we should not be encouraging abortion or presenting it as the easiest way out. We should be making adoption an easier option for parents on both sides of the equation. 

Back to the original question. Given my moral argument, I can absolutely tell you that the government and the tax payer should not be footing the bill for abortions in any way, shape, or form. That's an easy answer though because this holds true for any product or service. Governments have no right to force citizens to pay for something they do not want to pay for. This includes abortion, yes, but it also includes all health services in general. If you understood what "rights" are, you would know that health care is not one. Therefor a government has no moral authority to provide such services.