cbostrum (02/15/83)
From utzoo!utcsrgv!bobr Mon Feb 14 19:48:12 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. Whoa! Abortion on demand means that the state should pay for your abortion just for you asking, doesnt it? This, I believe is what LK had in mind. Given this, I was merely pointing out that not having on abortion on demand does not mean that the state does not approve of abortion, far from it. It, again (sigh), only means that they wont do it for you, you have to get it done with your own money. If by abortion on demand LK meant just that the state wont make it illegal for you to get an abortion, then obviously my remarks are inappropriate, but I dont believe thats what he meant. AGAIN, ALL I WAS SHOWING (and effectively i might add) IS THAT THE FACT THAT THE STATE DOESNT PAY FOR ABORTIONS DOESNT MEAN THAT IT THINKS IT IS NOT OKAY FOR POOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THEM, UNDERSTAND?
mwolf (02/17/83)
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
soreff (02/18/83)
If a person is too poor to pay for an abortion, then by not paying for it the government may be passively preventing her from obtaining one, but it is not actively preventing her from obtaining an abortion in the same way it would be if it made abortions illegal. I favor the legality of abortion (though I think other birth control methods are preferable) but I don't see anything morally wrong with a state refusing to fund abortions. Speaking as a taxpayer, I expect that most women who can't afford an abortion can't afford to raise a child without financial assistance, so I would prefer to have abortions paid for by my taxes rather than paying three orders of magnitude more to raise unwanted children. I hope I'm not too badly burned by the resulting flames. -Jeffrey Soreff (hplabsb!soreff)