Should Insurance Pay For Abortion?

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee
If parents are financially unable to care for their children beyond a limited time - - - children are to be removed from the home and placed into mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages.

That eliminates judging single mothers on welfare. Because there is no welfare.

And so society comes full circle.

The single mothers' allowance, as it was originally, was legislated only because people realised it was a lot cheaper to pay the mother a pittance to keep the child than to pay the costs of institutional care.

Do you really want the government to have to pay out even more for welfare?

Our family, three generations later, still carries the psychological scars of what can happen when certain societies decide to counteract a determined mother.

I was going through old family photos one day and found a picture of my paternal GM standing next to a woman I didn't recognize. I asked my great aunt who this woman was and she replied, "Why that's our mother, God bless her soul." I studied the photo closely and was amazed at what I saw. I turned to my great aunt and asked, "Where are her arms?" All she could manage was to give me a dirty look for having even noticed, then turned and walked away. To this day nobody in my family will answer my questions or even acknowledge that she didn't have any arms.

Here's the amazing part. She raised nine kids. And I don't have a clue as to how she did it because nobody is talking. But what I do know, is that her efforts were rewarded with all five girls being sterilized. They didn't touch the boys or obviously I wouldn't be here, but none of the girls were ever able to bear children. So needless to say, this subject is extremely SACRED to me, because I know BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE.

Originally posted by Nivcharah


WHAT?!?!?! You're kidding right? So, you think the psychological damage done to a child leaves no long-term scars when they are suddenly ripped from the safety of a home with loving parent(s) they've known all their life and placed into an orphanage with total strangers and children who have who-knows-what mental issues is better than staying in the care of parents who have done no wrong other than to lose income?

As I stated - - that is a different subject that does not belong in this thread.

Although I did mention it briefly in context - - - I end here on any full depth discussion because it is off topic.

Originally posted by Kailassa
There are many reasons why abortion should be covered.

1. It's much cheaper for the insurance company to cover an abortion than to cover childbirth.

2. It's much cheaper for the insurance company to cover an abortion than to cover hospitalisation for hemmorhage or toxic shock after a backyard abortion.

3. Women who can't afford an abortion are more likely to have late-term abortions, (as it takes them time to save up,) which are much more likely to cause complications than early abortions.

Also, the government should fund abortions for those without healthcare, as abortion is cheaper than welfare.

The economy is seriously getting desperate, and there are likely to be severe cuts to welfare in the next 10 years. Anyone who wants an abortion but cannot afford it should be helped to avoid bringing another unwanted child into this over-populated world.

Those are excellent points - thank you. I completely agree.

I never considered the desperation of late-term abortion because it might take time to save up enough money.

Originally posted by Kailassa

My apologies, but as institutionalised care has aways been problematic, I can't imagine any other reason you'd want to turn the clock back that far.

I have two daughters. The clock does not turn back that far. But one does not need to include every applicable detail to make a point.

*shrug* You brought up the subject of removal of children from the home and placing them into "mandatory city/resident run all inclusive orphanages", so it's fair enough to ask you why you want that done.

Yes - its about changing culture which is a very complex subject and would distract from the subject of this thread.

Originally posted by Megagrogan

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter


but i doubt most people have an objection to swatting a fly, which is arguably more alive then a fetus.

This is an older fly we're talking about here?
One that is flying?
A fly, not an egg, or maggot?
Not an unhatched fly correct?
So once again, I dont see the logic.
I've tried this method before as well, it doesnt work until you get to the hydra.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Sure, you change the rules so that my signature is required to have said abortion, and I will foot half the bill.

Until then stop trying to get everybody that has no say to foot the bill for your "reporductive rights".

And insurance doesn't need to cover criminal pregnancy abortions. Those would be covered up front by the government directly, with whom pays what decided in civil procceedings later.

Abortions for medical risk are already covered under pregnancy coverage.

So, the only thing not covered is abortion for "mistakes". And, to me that is just fine.

I would say the government pays for all kinds of things individuals would be horrified by. But because they don't specifically know about them - - they don't interfere with them.

The MAIN (not all) reasons against abortion are religious based. Reasons based on religion should not be denied by the government.

reply to post by HappilyEverAfter


The point that I'm trying to make is that people either set an arbitrary time to start life (i.e. at birth), or give human life (prior to birth) an arbitrary value that is higher then anything else.

We have to understand that the thoughts of human beings being 'better' then anything else are based on biased comparisons, and are arbitrary in any case.

Personally, my thoughts are 'pro-choice', but if abortion becomes/is illegal in humans, i think animals should be treated in the same way. I concede that using eating plants as an example wasn't very good, as that is necessary for us to survive. Eating animals however, is not, and if one would argue against abortion, they should either argue against hurting animals too, or stop invoking the "it's alive" argument.

I think it should be illegal for health insurance policies to deny any form of health procedure. They make so much profit for doing absolutely nothing, and you have to take the useless bastards to court every time you want them to do what you pay them for. What a fraudulent practice insurance is. Once you do finally utilize the only service they provide, they treat you like a criminal and make you pay more.

Furthermore.. here in Ontario, transgendered people are covered by their health insurance policies for their first sex change, and women are covered for five abortions before anyone starts asking questions. Don't worry, the US will follow suit on human rights just like they have with Canada in the past. Don't expect it to change anytime soon, though. It wasn't until 2003 that The United States completely legalized homosexuality, and the military, as well as many states, still have a lot of catching up to do with these basic rights. wiki

Abortion shouldn't be covered by insurance... but CONDOMS should!!

2nd line