mcewan (02/19/83)
#R:utcsrgv:-103100:uiucdcs:31600005:000:2668
uiucdcs!mcewan Feb 18 18:30:00 1983
***** uiucdcs:net.women / utcsrgv!bobr / 7:48 pm Feb 14, 1983
...
Equating "abortion on demand" with "money on demand" shows, in my
opinion, an extremely simplistic approach to a complicated problem
which DOES involve (dare I say it) moral VALUES even if Mr cbostrum
does not want to realize this.
...
----------
<FLAME ON>
I am getting sick of seeing articles from illiterates that flame about
something they completely misread. The article you are responding to
was clearly talking about FUNDING abortions, not about the legality of
abortion. Although the two subjects are related, they are very different.
<FLAME OFF>
***** uiucdcs:net.women / yale-com!mwolf / 10:22 am Feb 17, 1983
If a person is poor enough that the government is paying for the rest of
her health care, then she is very unlikely to have money to spare to pay
for an abortion. Since very few doctors will perform and abortion without
getting paid, this means that, by refusing to pay for the abortion, the
govenment is preventing the person from having one. If those who can
afford it are allowed to have abortions and those who cannot afford it
are prevented, we have two moralities. Since all people should be equal
in the eyes of the law, I think that this is a bad thing.
I am not necessarily arguing that women should or should not be allowed to
have abortions. I just think that the rules should be the same for all
women, instead of having one rule for people who pay for their own health-
care and a different rule for those who cannot.
-Mary-Anne Wolf
----------
Lets see; very few car salesmen will give someone a Rolls Royce without
being paid, this means that, by refusing to pay for the Rolls Royce, the
government is preventing a poor person from having one. If those who can
afford it are allowed to have Rolls Royces and those who cannot afford it
are prevented, we have two moralities. Since all people should be equal
in the eyes of the law, I think that this is a bad thing. The government
should therefore buy everyone who cannot afford one a Rolls Royce.
Seriously, since the government has already made the decision to fund medical
treatment for the poor, I think they should fund abortion as well.
>From a purely economic stand point, it makes much more sense to pay for
the abortion then for the much more costly childbirth, and that's not
even counting the tremendous expense of raising the resulting child.
However, it's a totally different matter to say the poor should get money
for abortions *because the rich can afford it.* Rich people can do a lot
of things that poor people (or middle class people) can't. That's the point
of being rich.bernie (02/22/83)
I think people may be confused by the "abortion on demand" phrase. To me, "abortion on demand" simply means that a woman has the right to have an abortion; it does not imply that anyone else has to pay for it. Personally, I believe that a woman should have the right to decide whether or not to bear a child; I do *not* believe that I should have to shell out any money to pay for her abortion, if she chooses to have one. (Unless of course I'm the father). --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie