Hmm...

[sathor]

Not sure what I think of this Stupak amendment business.

The idea that abortions were ever covered by health insurance is somewhat sickening - because it's not just the money -you- pay in that is used to fund various types of medical interventions...it is the money that -all- of the insured pay in.

I don't think that's really fair to insured pro-lifers.

I won't be petitioning to stop an amendment unless it tries to take away abortion rights entirely. If you have to foot the bill yourself, that seems entirely acceptable to me, considering it is you and your partner's burden to carry...not society's.

Comments

[freefall127.livejournal.com]

you know children are more expensive than abortions right? just the hospital delivery room is more expensive than an abortion and that's not even starting with pediatric health insurance.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Sure, but if they are insured, all of that is covered. If they aren't insured, they have to foot the bill either way - so there's really nothing wrong with taking away communally paid for abortion.

I don't care about the -money- so much as the fact pro-life money would be used to fund abortions, and that's not morally acceptable - if I had known it was prior to this, I would have been advocating against it, and in fact, supporting any future Stupak amendment (in so far as that aspect is concerned.) I haven't looked at the entire bill.

To be honest, I don't think there's anything wrong with the pro-life stance. But if an individual is willing to make such a decision as to end a thing with the potential to become an individual, free-thinking human being, then I am merely obliged to say it's none of my business and try not to feel like I may be living in a morally bankrupt society.

I used to be pro-choice.

[freefall127.livejournal.com]

why exactly are you against abortion?

[sathor.livejournal.com]

Well, my ex fiancee aborted the only child I may ever have without telling me. That might have something to do with it.

[noximist.livejournal.com]

I'm deeply conflicted about this issue, so please don't take this as criticism - it isn't. I'm not opposed to abortion in any capacity, but it does make me uncomfortable to foist the expense on others. But here's the thing:

Any communally-funded service - be it private insurance, Medicare, taxpayer-funded government grants, etc. - is going to force people to pay for procedures they don't agree with, unless they're in favour of absolutely everything. As one example, Jehovah's Witnesses are as opposed to blood transfusions as pro-lifers are to abortion, but no one is likely to advocate that transfusions not be covered. Many people are also morally and/or pragmatically opposed to funding palliative measures that are intended to extend the lives of patients without curing them. There are cancer treatments that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and offer perhaps another few months of life, and if it's not your own parent/child/spouse/self, it's easy to be against shelling out that money. The return on investment just isn't there, unless it's your life.

Extending this idea further, consider the other places federal money goes: stem cell research, space exploration, public roads, education, and - most notably, at least for me - the military. For every person in favour of each of those expenditures, there's someone who vehemently opposes them. Public systems have never had the full support of the country, but they remain because they serve the greater good.

What it comes down to, I think, is the fact that if you want to benefit from other people's money via insurance or other public options, you have to accept what goes with that, up to and including occasionally helping to pay for things you don't like. The alternative is an every-man-for-himself approach, which is fine so long as you're completely independent. Unfortunately, it only takes one catastrophic illness to destroy that independence.

[sathor.livejournal.com]

I think that's a fine way of looking at it, but everything you've listed other than the military involves the extension of life, whereas abortion is the end of it. Not exactly something that should be disagreeable, especially considering there are alternatives to raising the child yourself.

Yes I am aware the woman has to carry the child for nine months. But it seems a reasonable burden for the greater good.

It's a complicated issue. The problem of rape takes it even further.

[noximist.livejournal.com]

It's definitely complicated, and I do agree with your definition, except that the military is a pretty huge exception to the life-extension rule. After all, it's a huge part of the budget of all but the most podunk governments, so any discussion of cash pools supported by citizens has to involve it in a significant way.

Personally, no, I don't think that forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want is a reasonable burden for the greater good. To go back to my earlier example, if you were ever to need a blood transfusion to save your life, would you be willing to forego it and die because a Jehovah's Witness believes your soul would be doomed by the procedure? If they were the dominant religious group in America, that amendment could be removing coverage of transfusions, rather than abortions, and for almost the same underlying reason: the application of one person's spiritual belief on another's body. (I'm ignoring the obvious punishing-the-woman undertone that goes along with many pro-life arguments for the moment.)

What I'm trying to get at is this: people's beliefs are their own, and for many people, a fetus is just a clump of differentiated cells that is completely dependent on its mother's resources for survival. It's a wrenching, terrible decision for anyone to have to make, and it's only the rare, emotionally-damaged exception who makes it without a lot of thought and pain. I just don't believe that anyone has the right to force someone else to be an incubator, not in a free society. :/