Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Flaky rehab

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                   

Limited Government backed Abortions

Two or three per life time mb?
  (+2, -15)(+2, -15)(+2, -15)
(+2, -15)
  [vote for,
against]

Basically, in addition to the new Healthcare bill, to ease the feminists, and to be fair to women who can't afford abortions, a set limit on how many abortions you can have in a life time (or given amount of time, lets be flexible). Say two or three abortions, funded by government healthcare, per 50 years, or a lifetime.

There's a big debate over whether the government should pay for abortions for women. I say we compromise, a limited amount of abortions for a given woman in her lifetime, or within a given amount of years. Hell, if a woman needs another abortion, there could be a license or something granted to her based on whether she really needs it, appointed by a judge.

EvilPickels, Nov 29 2009

[link]






       If this is a trolling, it is the first of this type from EvilPickels. I guarantee this is a compromise that will leave both sides outraged, perhaps equally. That sort of compromise worked well for King Solomon as regards solving the problem, so maybe EP is on to something.
bungston, Nov 30 2009
  

       Pickels is no troll. A differing point of view is not grounds to call someone a troll. You trollop...
blissmiss, Nov 30 2009
  

       Do people actually get more than 3 abortions? Wait, I don't want to know. I'm pro-choice, but saying you get the first three free, seems, well, vile.
MisterQED, Nov 30 2009
  

       //I'm pro-choice, but saying you get the first three free, seems, well, vile//   

       Therein lies the weakness of the pro-choice position - it's pretty easy to portray it as vile - even without a special offer.
wagster, Nov 30 2009
  

       //it's pretty easy to portray it as vile - even without a special offer.// As is the other side. I have never met the third option, the "Pro-abortion" advocate, but have seen too much to change my choice of "quality of life" vs. "quantity of life".   

       What I dislike in this is it seems it encourages bad behavior. As a man I feel I have little or no right to tell women what to do with their bodies, but to make more than one free sends the wrong message.   

       PS Did anyone else read the title and expect a different poster?
MisterQED, Nov 30 2009
  

       If one is a sin, then is six, six times worse? And vice versa, I would think. If I thought about sin, which I don't.
blissmiss, Nov 30 2009
  

       //No-one wants to be pro-abortion. It's merely a question of it sometimes being a necessity to deal with an unwanted / unplanned pregnancy. //   

       Exactly.   

       No this was not a troll post.   

       If, like you said 2 or 3 might be too much, how would that aggravate both sides?
EvilPickels, Dec 01 2009
  

       I don't like the arbitrary limit. It's almost worse than prohibiting it outright. You either think it's wrong or you don't. In either case, the number doesn't matter.
tatterdemalion, Dec 01 2009
  

       I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that a Planned Parenthood clinic would ever refuse anyone.
theircompetitor, Dec 01 2009
  

       //the number doesn't matter.// I have a friend who had three kids and one day he told me that his wife was pregnant again. It was a "surprise" pregnancy. I informed him that surprise was not an option. Surprises are first pregnancies when you can claim to not understand the mechanism involved or there was some other gap in knowledge. I reminded him that he had three children and MUST know how this works, so he had two choices, the first being that this was planned or two that he was an idiot. He grudgingly admitted both applied.   

       I think the difference between 1 and 3 is knowledge. If you are innocent, uninformed, misinformed or whatever, you can make mistakes. An abortion, at the very least, is a serious surgery that can have life long effects. I'm against it being illegal, but if you want my tax dollars, I want people to learn from their actions.   

       PS Rape does not count toward this number.
MisterQED, Dec 01 2009
  

       21 quest, if you are firmly opposed to most abortions why give the rape exemption? Is the offspring to be punished for the sins of the father? How can we hold this against the baby? I have always found this a weird contradictory way to look at life. For instance if the children of rapists can die then can the wife of the rapist also get abortions for non-rape children? How are these babies different and more deserving of our care?
WcW, Dec 01 2009
  

       But aren't there many instances of rape that lack sufficient evidence to become proven cases of rape?   

       As a side note, yes, people do get more than three abortions. Most get three or less, but there is also a large percent that gets five or more.   

       Most individuals who get five or more abortions are living at or below the poverty line, and felt they could not afford to include birth control in their budget.   

       I suggest that perhaps making birth control free would drastically reduce the number of individuals who get multiple abortions.   

       Conservatives who produce the shocking statistics about how often a child is aborted generally inflate their numbers somewhat by including women who have recieved fertility treatments involving in-vitro fertilization. For every in-vitro fertilization process that takes place, five to thirty embryos are made, but only three are implanted. The others, according to the shocking statistics would be abortions.   

       This means that technically, wealthy women with reproductive difficulties are also very likely to have had five or more abortions.   

       Oddly, nobody on either side is complaining about this, bombing fertility clinics, or even suggesting that adoption should be required prior to in-vitro fertilization processes.   

       Somehow a poor woman, who may or may not be under the control of a pimp, "chooses" to get pregnant, but a rich couple who go to dozens of specialists, and spend large sums of money in order to have one child do not "Choose" to have the other three to twenty nine fetuses terminated. After all, the drive to bring one life into the world proves they are not murderers.
ye_river_xiv, Dec 01 2009
  

       This isn't really an invention though and if it is an invention then it is a pretty weak one.
Aristotle, Dec 01 2009
  

       I think there are probably a range of publicly subsidised things for which the public consensus would be something like "we will subsidise this in emergencies, but we don't want it taken for granted". For all those things, there is a case for some sort of taper, or time limit, or similar mechanism. I believe that US unemployment benefits work a bit like this (though I may be wrong). This idea is just the application of an intrinsically uncontroversial principle to a controversial area of public spending.   

       Of course, this assumes there is a consensus. If there are just two militant camps and a gulf between them, then it's trickier.
pertinax, Dec 01 2009
  

       //The rest of the civilised world has dealt with the issue// - Well, that's Ireland demoted again.
wagster, Dec 01 2009
  

       I think quantification is a good clean way to approach a tricky idea - it's not necessarily right, but it's a reasonable start - as stated the idea leaves the actual number unspecified, it just suggests "a limited amount".   

       That "limited amount" is yet to be decided - but presumably lies somewhere in the range of 0 to 99.   

       The idea isn't specifying any number (OK, it suggests two or three - but only as an example, not as a considered judgement) so the "limit" remains unspecified.   

       It is only the actual number ascribed to the limit that's controversial, so let's ignore that for the moment, and consider the merits of the idea sans that detail.   

       Assuming we decouple the actual number from the idea, surely everybody, no matter how polarised, can agree on the core question.:   

       Is putting a limit on governmentally funded abortions good, or bad?   

       Or, to smooth it out a little:   

       Is regulating (in that regulating is a method of imposing governmental control - read "limitation") abortion good or bad?   

       I think most people would have to say "Yes" to that. Plus, there's already a precedent in that medical practice of any kind is already regulated.   

       So "yes" to regulation - however, that isn't a new idea.   

       What is new about the idea is the notion of imposing a numeric limit on the number of procedures the government will fund - and we're back to the 0-99 thing again.   

       Personally, as a general principal, I'd prefer my medical professional to judge each case on its merits, rather than bowing to governmental quotas. So on that basis alone (remember, we still haven't decided what number is appropriate - and so avoided all controversy so far) I would have to disagree with the proposition.   

       My assertion however requires that each medical professional is trustworthy and educated and has the integrity and sense of judgement that requires long periods of schooling and a work environment that isn't "targeted" or "geared" towards "efficiency". I want a conscientious professional in whom I can place my trust to deliver quality, case-by-case, merit-by-merit care. And maybe *that* is controversial.
zen_tom, Dec 01 2009
  

       Leaving aside the "entertaining" discussion, this idea seems to be of a kind, unintentional though it may be, with which everyone would disagree for a variety of reasons, and there's an art to creating such a perfect balance of opinion which is admirable.
nineteenthly, Dec 01 2009
  

       I suppose once you dispose of the moral question (which this idea has already done), it boils down to the old money / healthcare debate. I wouldn't be an NHS manager for all the money in the NHS IT budget.
wagster, Dec 01 2009
  

       It depresses me the way everything gets boiled down to money in the end, but I suspect we'll eventually find that population control is cheaper than terraforming Mars. China may well end up being seen as pioneers.
wagster, Dec 01 2009
  

       It won't be pretty, that's for sure. Reference Larry Niven and "mother hunts".
normzone, Dec 01 2009
  

       Niven and fertility came up in a discussion today, actually, concerning the unfeasibility of the idea of a luck mutation.
nineteenthly, Dec 01 2009
  

       the ethical logic of "kill rape babies, save all others" is still lost on me.
WcW, Dec 02 2009
  

       //lost on me//
well if you had a broken leg as a result of an attack and you had the option of not having a broken leg...
FlyingToaster, Dec 02 2009
  

       // then that's just how it has to be. // It only has to be that way if you accept the premise that there needs to be some arbitrary regulation on this medical procedure. If you get rid of that, then things are fine just as they are.
tatterdemalion, Dec 02 2009
  

       I have a terrible memory right now. I think its my meds, I'm not sure so some stuff I wanted to say didn't get mentioned here.   

       I was also suggesting that the decision for a government abortion be decided by a judge, instead of a set limit.   

       Since when is "let's all" and ideas like this, not ideas? It seems a bit unfair to me. I was thinking this would get some bones, no biggie to me, I just wanted it out there. I just challenge the notion that this isn't an idea.
EvilPickels, Dec 02 2009
  

       I live in the US, which in many ways is pretty backwards. How does the rest of the world handle this? I assume the Chinese pay for abortions for all children over the allotment.
MisterQED, Dec 02 2009
  

       // So, tatter, you think it's fine that teenage girls can get knocked up as often as they like and just keep aborting pregnancies? //   

       Yes. "Fine" is not the word I'd use, necessarily - I'd prefer it happened less frequently as opposed to more frequently. And of course I'd argue that increased availability of birth control and more sex education at younger ages would all be helpful.   

       But it is absurd to impose limitations on this. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I am in favor of the choice being available, and firmly believe this is a woman's decision, and no one else's, to make.
tatterdemalion, Dec 02 2009
  

       Viewpoints such as yours, [21 Quest], go far toward explaining why you don't get a say under current regulations. In any case, the legality of the procedure is not at question in this idea, merely who picks up the bill, and how often.
tatterdemalion, Dec 02 2009
  

       Wow, [21], that's pretty creepy. To force a woman to bear children against her will sounds like slavery to me.   

       The condom breaks on a one candle night, and if the man says so then she's a brood mare?
normzone, Dec 02 2009
  

       The "ethical" positions taken up on both sides are very sloppy and unpredictable. Way I see it a zygote has a substantial chance of not coming to term even without intervention. Humans are nothing special, and the "animal kingdom" has many examples of reproduction where only 1 in 100000 zygotes will survive to a reproductive age. Whenever this debate comes up I always think "What would a salmon say?" or "What about women who naturally auto-abort?". In my opinion if a woman is electing to abort then it is within her biological realm. I firmly believe that a baby has no right to inhabit the body and that the opportunity to live is extended by the mother and her body. If you want to argue otherwise you must be consistent in asserting that the infant has a right to occupy the body of the mother, an argument so abridging to personal liberty that it essentially grants to others the use of your organs, should they need them to survive.
WcW, Dec 02 2009
  

       wow, that's the most (only) coherent thing I've heard for pro-choice... not saying I agree or not with it, mind...
FlyingToaster, Dec 02 2009
  

       I never understand these absolute positions.   

       Reproduction is a biological function carried out mainly by the woman, starting with a small number of unusual but unremarkable cells, and eventually leading to the production of an independent human.   

       On this basis, it seems very obvious that the start of the process is clearly the woman's to choose and control; the end of the process - an independent human - is clearly not.   

       The only question is at what point you consider the small and unremarkable group of cells to have become a human being.   

       ---   

       As for how many abortions the state should pay for, this is no different from asking how many times the state should pay to treat any other avoidable condition. Should the state treat unlimited numbers of sports injuries?
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 02 2009
  

       Some people do need more than one abortion (teenage mothers for example, who aren't willing to change their lifestyle or get educated, not saying they deserve it). I have a friend of a friend who is still a teenager, and is pregnant with her second child.   

       The first miscarried, to which I suspect the mother to be possibly abused the fetus and didn't take care of it or herself during the pregnancy. This is my opinion, or suspicion, it seems like the logical (free, and completely legal and controversial) thing to do for a desperate teenage mother. No stereotypes here (none intended).   

       There's that movie called "Precious" to which came out or something, looks terrible to say the least.   

       Being an atheist, I think that abstinence is a bad thing, but I also think sex at an early age (as in: a minor) or with some random stranger, shows poor character for the persons involved. Why do I always find a way to voice my opinion whether its relevant to the subject or not? I think its because I like to. Mom says I'm self centered.
EvilPickels, Dec 04 2009
  

       the baby isn't leasing the mother's body.
WcW, Dec 04 2009
  

       You have to be pretty inhuman to confuse one half of humanity with buildings.
Aristotle, Dec 04 2009
  

       Phew. I do look forward to these discussions on the HB, where we pick up an important topic and manage to come to a decision.
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 04 2009
  

       //...on the HB, where we pick up an important topic and manage to...//
sp. 'mangle'.
FlyingToaster, Dec 04 2009
  

       just dropped in to fishbone anything that says "Abortion" in the title, have a nice day. Pretty good idea, though.
Sparkyplugclean, Dec 04 2009
  

       // You have to be even more inhuman to completely discount the other half.   

       If you look at existing human civilisation you'll find that people have found perfectly agreeable ways for men and women to reproduce.   

       The key words are planning, consent, love and understanding.
Aristotle, Dec 05 2009
  

       Zzzzzzz................. Is this thread off the top of the list yet?
RayfordSteele, Dec 05 2009
  

       Nope!   

       (I'm sorry, everyone, really I am... kind of. I'm just fascinated with so much that I've missed... would you call it churn-trolling?)
absterge, Oct 25 2015
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle