Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
Well, should it? What about elective abortion specifically?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should Healthcare cover the cost of Abortions?
- Thread starter Many Sages One Truth
- Start date
I am a pro-choice dude but I am not sure I support the -1 Abortion deal where a woman who has tried to have children for years and is undergoing procedures and implantation to have children discovers she is pregnant but with twins and chooses to abort one of the twins. Reductive Abortion? There was an article on CNN recently.
Also that is a loaded question. Sure it should cover it... but if its happening twice a year? Then what? Three times in two years? Should it cover Reductive abortions? (What about if octomom wanted to be a single mom or the mother of twins?)
Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
Yeah there's lots of issues with abortion, it's not a single issue, that's another thing. That's why I'm not pro-life, is because pro-lifers make the issue way too black and white.
I am not a supporter of elective abortion without a cause, but as said, I am pro-choice, so ultimately I support the right of the mother. She technically is the one carrying the baby, and sustaining it. It isn't independent, it depends on her to live.
I am not a supporter of elective abortion without a cause, but as said, I am pro-choice, so ultimately I support the right of the mother. She technically is the one carrying the baby, and sustaining it. It isn't independent, it depends on her to live.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Yes. Society benefits with each abortion.
Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
Isn't pro-life kind of too narrow when it comes to a complex issue like abortion? I mean what if the mother was going to die or something like that?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Yes.
See below for (some of) the reasoning for this.
Here are some facts that may be relevant to the issue:
- In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S.
- In 2007, 84% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women.
- 50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17%.
- On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
- 88-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation.
- In 2009, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anaesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $451.
So, what can we conclude from this?
1. The women who have abortions are overwhelmingly unmarried or in an unstable relationship.
2. The majority are young and unlikely to have finished their education or have none.
3. The wast majority of abortions take place very early in the pregnancy which means that they are not exactly killing babies here.
4. An abortion is a relatively cheap procedure.
End conclusion: This means that not allowing for these abortions would likely lead to many more children brought up on welfare and in unstable relationships or by single parents.
It seems logical then that for both the women having the abortions and for society as a whole that these freely chosen abortions would be beneficial.
Sources:
The 2011 Statistical Abstract: Family Planning, Abortions
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics
Abortion Statistics for the United States
Many Sages One Truth
Active Member
As for the welfare thing, I kinda support sterilization for that.
Okay I guess I will take my stab and get the hate of the conservatives and liberals on this.
Hell yes pay for them. Hell give a bonus to come in and get one. Population control. Keep those unwanted ******** from growing up and committing crimes and keep their sorry *** parent from sucking the system dry.
Hell yes pay for them. Hell give a bonus to come in and get one. Population control. Keep those unwanted ******** from growing up and committing crimes and keep their sorry *** parent from sucking the system dry.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
As I'm sure you know, this isn't just an economic issue.
pwfaith
Active Member
Thank you I am completely aware of all the abortion statistics. Morally, I cannot justify killing an innocent human being simply b/c their parents didn't have enough sense to wait to have sex until they were more established to have and care for a child. As for early abortions not "not exactly killing babies" that's a whole nother debate
Cheap or not, I don't want 1 penny of my money supporting one. The Case Against Abortion | Abort73.com
Have you ever looked at abortion pictures? I highly suggest everyone should at least once before debating the issue. The link above provides some. As heartbreaking as they are to me, they were also incredibly amazing. To see the form of a tiny baby (eye sockets, body structure, etc) as early as 8 weeks, simply amazes me. I have lost 2 children via miscarriage at 6 wks and 8 wks. After seeing the pictures myself on this site, I don't buy the "they're not babies yet" bit.
I don't want to sound callous or cold. I have friends who have had abortions in their past. My heart goes out to them and the situation they were in that led them to that decision. I wish they'd had more support and had chosen a different option though, life for their child.
Why does it seem like in these discussions people often see only 2 alternatives - abort or keep the child and they grow up in a crappy home situation? Where is the option of adoption? What is wrong with our legal system that it makes it so difficult for people to adopt domestically? We have many friends who adopt but they always go overseas b/c they say domestically it's a legal nightmare. That is so sad
pwfaith
Active Member
It is actually extremely rare in this day and age to need to have an abortion to save the mothers life. That being said, IF all elective abortions were made illegal I would have an easier time with my tax $$ going to abortions only to save the mothers life. It would be a step in the right direction.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, "partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother" (1). Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: "In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother's life." Even Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.
We can say with certainty that if the mother dies, the child will die, but we can never say with certainty that if the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. There is a huge difference between "will" and "might", and this is where it gets sticky. Does the morality of aborting a life-threatening pregnancy depend on the severity of the threat to the mother? Is it a matter of percentages and probability? In the United States, the overall, pregnancy-related mortality rate is .0118%, this according to the most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control. In other words, for every pregnancy-related death, there are 8,475 successful live births. Pregnancy, by its very nature, carries the risk of death. It is generally an infinitesimally small risk, but a risk nonetheless. Is a .0118% risk to the life of the mother severe enough to morally justify abortion? What if the risk to her life were 1%, or 10%, or 50%? What if there was a 90% chance the mother would die? Is that enough of a threat to justify abortion? (link)
The ONLY life-threatening situations I have found in all my research are cancer and ectopic pregnancies, and even those are very much case-by-case. I had a friend who had breast cancer. She beat it the first time and it returned when she was pg with her 2nd daughter. The Drs wanted her to abort, but she refused. She essentially gave up her life for her DD. Her daughter was taken early, and is now 3 yrs old. My friend passed away 3 months ago from the cancer. She would have been the first to tell you she had no regrets about her decision. She only wished she had more time with her girls. Some ectopic pregnancies can still be carried to term, while others cannot. Personally, from a moral perspective, I do not consider these who cannot to be abortions. I consider them more like a miscarriage. While the scientific term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion", it is not an abortion at all. I about threw up on the Dr who told me "You've spontaneously aborted" and walked out of the room with our first miscarriage. Abortion - carries the idea of choice with it. With a miscarriage and situation like ectopic pregnancy or cancer, there is no choice. I put them on the same level. Not the same as "having a baby right now will ruin my career" or "I need to finish college first".We can say with certainty that if the mother dies, the child will die, but we can never say with certainty that if the pregnancy continues, the mother will die. There is a huge difference between "will" and "might", and this is where it gets sticky. Does the morality of aborting a life-threatening pregnancy depend on the severity of the threat to the mother? Is it a matter of percentages and probability? In the United States, the overall, pregnancy-related mortality rate is .0118%, this according to the most recent report from the Centers for Disease Control. In other words, for every pregnancy-related death, there are 8,475 successful live births. Pregnancy, by its very nature, carries the risk of death. It is generally an infinitesimally small risk, but a risk nonetheless. Is a .0118% risk to the life of the mother severe enough to morally justify abortion? What if the risk to her life were 1%, or 10%, or 50%? What if there was a 90% chance the mother would die? Is that enough of a threat to justify abortion? (link)
Thank you I am completely aware of all the abortion statistics. Morally, I cannot justify killing an innocent human being simply b/c their parents didn't have enough sense to wait to have sex until they were more established to have and care for a child. As for early abortions not "not exactly killing babies" that's a whole nother debate
The Case Against Abortion | Abort73.com
Have you ever looked at abortion pictures? I highly suggest everyone should at least once before debating the issue. The link above provides some. As heartbreaking as they are to me, they were also incredibly amazing. To see the form of a tiny baby (eye sockets, body structure, etc) as early as 8 weeks, simply amazes me. I have lost 2 children via miscarriage at 6 wks and 8 wks. After seeing the pictures myself on this site, I don't buy the "they're not babies yet" bit.
I don't want to sound callous or cold. I have friends who have had abortions in their past. My heart goes out to them and the situation they were in that led them to that decision. I wish they'd had more support and had chosen a different option though, life for their child.
Why does it seem like in these discussions people often see only 2 alternatives - abort or keep the child and they grow up in a crappy home situation? Where is the option of adoption? What is wrong with our legal system that it makes it so difficult for people to adopt domestically? We have many friends who adopt but they always go overseas b/c they say domestically it's a legal nightmare. That is so sad
While I do not personally believe in abortion I feel that adoption is not a viable alternative in most cases.
A couple of points.
All children do not get adopted and go into the foster care system as well as many of those with no father?
Facts on Fatherless Kids
1. Monies paid to foster parents comes from somewhere
2. Monies paid to children's homes comes from somewhere
3. Monies paid for the upkeep of prisons comes from somewhere
4. Monies for law enforcement comes from somewhere
5. Monies for welfare come from somewhere
6.............
7.............
...........
............
............
...........
.............
on and on.
God himself ordered total destruction many times. Women, Children.
From a purely financial view we should promote sterilization and give a tax credit for doing it. We should force sterilization on some people as well.
Who the hell pays for their rights?
Then we come to Gods will? If it were not the will of God for some higher purpose that we do not understand would it be happening?
If we had no abortion what would you do? How much could you pay? How many could you take in and adopt?
Last edited:
pwfaith
Active Member
Do you really believe God is ok with people taking the lives of children b/c it will interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, they cannot afford a child or they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner? Seriously? Does Scripture not command us to watch out for the orphans and elderly? If my husband were to die tomorrow would God support my killing all of our children b/c I couldn't afford them or I didn't want to be a single parent or I wanted to go out and do my own thing? Statistically these are the top reasons women have abortions. From what I know of God's character in Scripture, I find it VERY hard to believe he would be ok with that.
I am not against promoting sterilization and give a tax credit for doing it. Sterilization prevents the need for an abortion b/c no baby can be conceived.
Our dream is to one day open a facility to help families and women in this situation and to take in children. At this point we are waiting for God's timing. My husband and I have each had this dream since before we met. We have many friends and family members who are foster parents and in the process of adopting. We have 5 kids already, what's a few more
My friend just created a t-shirt, that I've ordered, and has answers to top 3 questions moms with multiple kids get asked frequently, one of which is "are you done", and the shirt answers "No, I may not be done". Although I do not care to have any more biological children (although we've done nothing to permanently prevent it from happening) I would absolutely LOVE to have more children via adoption!! How many we "could" take, is yet to be determined. I know a lot of people who say "I could never afford 5 kids" yet they make almost double what my husband does. God provides! We may not have the huge house and fancy cars that they do or big screen tv, but our kids need for nothing. One day, God will fulfill our dream! ETA: let me also add that I don't think adoption is the only other alternative either. Parenting classes, support classes for parents, co-opts for single parents, etc. are also options. I believe some people want to be good parents and simply do not have the skills, they've never been taught and had poor examples growing up. I would financially support and physically help with classes like that in a heartbeat!
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Yes, actually. I'm sick of seeing people who can't properly raise or care for their children squeezing them out one right after another.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
A fetus is not a "child" because it lacks the attributes that define personhood.
Alceste
Vagabond
The question was whether ONLY who can afford to have kids should be able to choose not to. That's the sort of situation you invite when abortion and other measures to control reproduction aren't publicly funded: people end up having kids because they can't afford birth control.