Funding abortions


farmer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Trib had a story on this yesterday, online here.

Here's the deal:

The public option already is barred from funding elective abortions by language in the existing bill.

Senator Hatch proposed two amendments, both of which failed.

The first would have strengthened conscience protections for doctors who for ethical reasons refuse to provide abortions. I am not sufficiently familiar with the existing bill or the status quo to comment on this; though I recall a minor kerfluffle when President Obama came into office because he reversed a federal administrative policy that had provided additional protections to such doctors above and beyond whatever is codified in statute.

A little background on the second amendment: You may remember that part of the plan would be a centralized "insurance exchange", where consumers can compare insurance plans. Hatch's second amendment would have barred any private insurer that participates in that exchange from funding elective abortions.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that needs to be understood is that not at all abortions are elective. Not all women choose to abort a pregnancy. Right now, independent of whether health care reform passes or not your tax dollars already in a very tiny small amount (I mean lets face it, a few thousand a year MAYBE going to the government and divided between ALL the different needs...very little goes to health care anyway) go to funding abortions. There are many cases where a pregnant woman presents to the ER or other health care facilities and an abortion is performed because the woman will not live without it. People need to understand that at times ending a pregnancy is medically necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that needs to be understood is that not at all abortions are elective. Not all women choose to abort a pregnancy. Right now, independent of whether health care reform passes or not your tax dollars already in a very tiny small amount (I mean lets face it, a few thousand a year MAYBE going to the government and divided between ALL the different needs...very little goes to health care anyway) go to funding abortions. There are many cases where a pregnant woman presents to the ER or other health care facilities and an abortion is performed because the woman will not live without it. People need to understand that at times ending a pregnancy is medically necessary.

That's true, in many cases, abortions happen because the mother won't survive the pregnancy, or there's a serious problem with the fetus that would cause death either in the womb, or after birth. Many women suffer from miscarriages, through no fault of their own because there's something wrong with the fetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medical need for abortion is not a very good reason for its general availability. It wouldn't be difficult to make legislation that prohibits abortion except under the recommendation of competent medical care. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective. The big question is this: what does 'elective' mean?

When we talk about elective abortions, we're talking about people who have chosen to have an abortion for any reason other than a medical need. But the reasoning that leads a person to elect to an abortion can be varied. The most common reasons given by women for electing an abortion include apprehension about caring for another person, finances, interference with personal goals, or to maintain peace with their partner*.

Some quick facts

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.

The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women[3,1]

Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Reading up on statistics like these makes me wonder if this country has an abortion problem, or if it has a poverty problem. And I'm convinced that if we could take care of the poverty problems, we might find the the majority of the abortion problem goes away on its own.

Am I a fan of federal funding for abortions or abortion providers? No, it doesn't make me happy. But it isn't the fight I want to pick right now. I think it'd be a lot more effective to address some other issues first.

* Don't read into this that I think these are reasonable justifications for abortion. This is simply what people have reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medical need for abortion is not a very good reason for its general availability. It wouldn't be difficult to make legislation that prohibits abortion except under the recommendation of competent medical care. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective. The big question is this: what does 'elective' mean?

I agree completely with the substance of what you said. 100%.

The problem I've encountered when discussing this though, is that the devil is in the details. An abortion recommended by "competent medical care" could very easily become a backdoor.

"I certify this abortion is medically necessary because this young woman would be so emotionally distraught over having to live with it that she may become a suicide risk."

-some doctor.

I *do* agree that there are times when it's medically necessary. The problem is that creating laws around this is a real minefield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or if it has a poverty problem. And I'm convinced that if we could take care of the poverty problems, we might find the the majority of the abortion problem goes away on its own.

I think we have both and we have a morality or lack there of problem. As for the poverty problem......it is my opinion that the disintegration of the family plays a huge roll in the poverty problem as well as the lack of education. By education, I mean training...not necessarily university degrees. Teaching that all children need to or should go to college in order to make it is bogus and I think leads to despair for many.....it has also lessened the value of a bachelors degree. Trade school is an excellent option for many or some other vocational training program.

Example: Before my wife left the class room as a Math teacher. she earned $39,000.00 per year. She has a Masters degree in Mathematics.

Her cousin went to vocational school to be a respiratory therapist and earns nearly $80k per year, her brother is an electrician and is earning a six figure income.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have both and we have morality or lack there of problem. As for the poverty problem......it is my opinion that the disintegration of the family plays a huge roll in the poverty problem as well as the lack of education. By education, I mean training...not necessarily university degrees. Teaching that all children need to or should go to college in order to make it is bogus and I think leads to despair for many.....it has also lessened the value of a bachelors degree. Trade school is an excellent option for many or some other vocational training program.

Example: Before my wife left the class room as a Math teacher. she earned $39,000.00 per year. She has a Masters degree in Mathematics.

Her cousin went to vocational school to be a respiratory therapist and earns nearly $80k per year, her brother is an electrician and is earning a six figure income.

I was just listening to a podcast about this very thing on "This American Life." This gentleman decided to start "Baby University" for high risk neighborhoods hoping to teach parents how to be parents and to close the gap between middle class and the poor. His program focuses on child development and parenting skills and helping these young parents learn an entirely new paradigm about raising kids and what successful family life might look like. In his research, he determined that the best time to intervene in a poor child's life was literally before birth and during babyhood. Then he went out on the street and recruited pregnant mothers and young parents to join his program and they have been showing great results in terms of test scores and family relationships.

In their research, they found "basics" that were happening in middle class families but missing in high risk families in poverty. Things like... how many words a baby/toddler hears in a given day, and how they are corrected made a huge difference in how they performed in school. So the focus of this effort was to get parents to read to their kids every day and to expand the words and tone of those words that the child hears on a daily basis. I can't remember the numbers but I guess MC kids hear 2/3 more words a day than poor kids do. And then they taught how to replace corporal punishment with more effective practices and how such adjustments could literally change the development of a child's brain. By making these relatively simple changes, parents can literally make their kids smarter.

The program focuses on the baby years and has expanded to include preschools and then continued education. I think Obama got on board with this program too.

I don't think the program discussed how success in school might impact choices in sexual practices, but I would think that kids who are doing well in school and who have learned lessons of proper discipline would be less likely to experience an unwanted pregnacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the life/health of the mother more important than the unborn baby? To go in with the direct intention of killing the baby is abhorrent. If a mother and child were in a car accident, would you expect that the medical help would concentrate only on the mother? Of course not! We expect that they would do all within their power to save both. Why is this different for a babe in the womb?

My husband's first wife was diagnosed with stage 4 leukemia when she was 2 months pregnant. I know that the toughest situations are out there, but intentionally killing one to "save" the other is no moral high ground. Would you advocate killing the mother to save the unborn baby, or rather do you do your best for both and let God decide who lives and dies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that needs to be understood is that not at all abortions are elective. Not all women choose to abort a pregnancy. Right now, independent of whether health care reform passes or not your tax dollars already in a very tiny small amount (I mean lets face it, a few thousand a year MAYBE going to the government and divided between ALL the different needs...very little goes to health care anyway) go to funding abortions. There are many cases where a pregnant woman presents to the ER or other health care facilities and an abortion is performed because the woman will not live without it. People need to understand that at times ending a pregnancy is medically necessary.

And they all ned to understand that we need "specialists" whom are experts at the procedure in cases of complication; so when we see a doctor or clinic bearing the name "abortion" clinic; it automatically does not mean something evil immoral and wrong.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they all ned to understand that we need "specialists" whom are experts at the procedure in cases of complication; so when we see a doctor or clinic bearing the name "abortion" clinic; it automatically does not mean something evil immoral and wrong.:)

Right. We need Abortion Clinics just in case things go wrong......like not wanting to have a baby because it's inconvenient....good one, Jadams. Nothing immoral about that....no sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have "Flu Clinics" or "Broken Arm" clinics. I'm assuming performing abortions doesn't require much (or any) specialized training by doctors (maybe a seminar or two...). Clinics devoted entirely to abortions are guaranteed to increase elective abortions- if women didn't have elective abortions, there wouldn't be enough business to keep an abortion clinic operating.

I'm tired of the argument that goes like this:

"A" is, rarely, justifiable. Therefore all access to "A" is not by nature immoral. Therefore, organizations promoting "A" are not inherently bad.

When common sense and reality is applied, the argument collapses into dust...

Edited by Maxel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the life/health of the mother more important than the unborn baby? To go in with the direct intention of killing the baby is abhorrent. If a mother and child were in a car accident, would you expect that the medical help would concentrate only on the mother? Of course not! We expect that they would do all within their power to save both. Why is this different for a babe in the womb?

My husband's first wife was diagnosed with stage 4 leukemia when she was 2 months pregnant. I know that the toughest situations are out there, but intentionally killing one to "save" the other is no moral high ground. Would you advocate killing the mother to save the unborn baby, or rather do you do your best for both and let God decide who lives and dies?

Here's what lds.org has to say about abortions when the life of the mother and/or baby is in jeopardy:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

Abortion at lds.org

Some women, in some situations (besides just this example of a life-or-death-situation) would be justified in an abortion. That's the Church's official policy on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what lds.org has to say about abortions when the life of the mother and/or baby is in jeopardy:

Abortion at lds.org

Some women, in some situations (besides just this example of a life-or-death-situation) would be justified in an abortion. That's the Church's official policy on the matter.

The position of the Catholic Church makes far more sense. There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. If anyone opposes abortion in general because they believe that the unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being, and believing in the sanctity of all human life, then saying abortion is ever morally permissible is a contradiction to a stated belief.

A baby is a baby, period. No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder.

Wrong is not right "sometimes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The position of the Catholic Church makes far more sense. There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. If anyone opposes abortion in general because they believe that the unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being, and believing in the sanctity of all human life, then saying abortion is ever morally permissible is a contradiction to a stated belief.

A baby is a baby, period. No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder.

Wrong is not right "sometimes".

I take it the Catholic Church's position on war is similarly absolute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The position of the Catholic Church makes far more sense. There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. If anyone opposes abortion in general because they believe that the unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being, and believing in the sanctity of all human life, then saying abortion is ever morally permissible is a contradiction to a stated belief.

A baby is a baby, period. No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder.

Wrong is not right "sometimes".

My mistake. I thought you were LDS- hence my quoting of lds.org.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The position of the Catholic Church makes far more sense. There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. If anyone opposes abortion in general because they believe that the unborn baby is a separate and distinct human being, and believing in the sanctity of all human life, then saying abortion is ever morally permissible is a contradiction to a stated belief.

A baby is a baby, period. No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder.

Wrong is not right "sometimes".

I take it the Catholic Church's position on war is similarly absolute?

Or if somebody breaks into your home and is threatening to kill you? You are not allowed to defend yourself?

I think you may have misunderstood Fatima. Here is the official Catholic stance:

... if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

That the immediate effect be good in itself;That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life.

In cases where the mother's life is on the balance, then, of course, if the mother should die, her fetus who cannot survive outside of the mother would also be forfeit. Therefore, the unavoidable consequence of removing the child to save the mother would be of a greater good.

It is the same as when a murderer has his axe over a Catholic's head. Of course, the Catholic has the option of defending himself and if it is unavoidable that the murderer's life becomes forfeit, then it is morally acceptable. Capital punishment is only acceptable as a last resort after all means and methods to incarcerate the criminal has been tried and failed.

War is another matter. God has allowed war to be waged if it is a just war to protect the children of God. The Catholics and LDS faiths agree on this.

The key here is INTENT. You do not intend for the fetus to die. It is an unavoidable consequence.

But, that's the only time for an abortion to ever be morally acceptable to the Catholic. Rape, incest, any of that stuff, where the mother's life is not hanging by a thread, that is not reason enough to abort the fetus. Yes, I am LDS. But this is something I agree with the Catholics on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad the Catholic position is not so extreme, Anatess; and naturally Fatima is free to qualify her earlier post if she so desires. But until or unless she does so, I take her words at face value at least as a representation of her own position--and she did not say "the unavoidable consequence of removing the child to save the mother would be of a greater good." Her exact words were:

There is never, ever a situation in which the intentional killing of the unborn baby is morally acceptable. . . No situation that the mother could be in changes that fact. We all have crosses to bear, tragedies in life, and these circumstances do not give any of us permission to commit murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fatima...its clear that you have no understanding of medicine. FYI...the health/life of the mother is paramount because if she dies obviously neither live. Generally speaking a medically necessary means that there is no chance the mother will survive...stage 4 cancer (especially a cancer such as Leukemia) would not qualify. An example could be uterine hemorrhaging... Would it make sense to you to allow a woman to bleed to death right in front of you which would also kill the fetus when surgically repairing the tear in the uterus would save the womans life, though it would terminate the pregnancy? We are talking about doing absolutely nothing and allowing two to die when you can save one.

If you were to truly say "absolutely no abortion regardless of the circumstance" then doctors and nurses would literally just have to stand there and watch the woman in front of them die...im sorry, but that is against the hippocratic oath AND ethical medicine. As a nurse its not my job to say..."oh, im sorry dear, i can't help you, your going to have to die because there is a 5 week embryo in your stomach that is going to die anyway"...no ma'am.

Edited by lost87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad the Catholic position is not so extreme, Anatess; and naturally Fatima is free to qualify her earlier post if she so desires. But until or unless she does so, I take her words at face value at least as a representation of her own position--and she did not say "the unavoidable consequence of removing the child to save the mother would be of a greater good." Her exact words were:

Just, I know what you're saying, but I used to be Catholic - I've only been LDS 8 years - so Fatima's language is very clear to me. And that's what I'm trying to tell you, Fatima specified INTENTIONAL killing. The consequence of removing the child to save the mother after all efforts have been exhausted to save both mother and child, is not considered INTENTIONALLY killing the fetus as I have outlined in my response. Removing the child for no other reason but that it was conceived through rape or incest, though, is intentional killing.

But, of course, I shouldn't be speaking for Fatima. I am speaking for Catholics, though.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the life/health of the mother more important than the unborn baby? To go in with the direct intention of killing the baby is abhorrent. If a mother and child were in a car accident, would you expect that the medical help would concentrate only on the mother? Of course not! We expect that they would do all within their power to save both. Why is this different for a babe in the womb?

My husband's first wife was diagnosed with stage 4 leukemia when she was 2 months pregnant. I know that the toughest situations are out there, but intentionally killing one to "save" the other is no moral high ground. Would you advocate killing the mother to save the unborn baby, or rather do you do your best for both and let God decide who lives and dies?

anatess....This whole post kinda suggests that Fatima is saying that even when medically necessary, abortion is wrong....infact it strait out says it... the actual catholic position is different as you explained (thanks btw), but what fatima has said about it doesn't follow that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share