Abortion

[Scott DeWar]

Then you clearly missed your calling and should be either a politician, or talk show host.

I will not be duped.




I will not be dragged in!




I am now walking away.

 

[nightwind1]

Yeah, that really turned me off to the whole pro-life movement, even though some of them don't actually take it to that level.

One of the reasons I never refer to it as "pro-life"- because most of them aren't. It's more properly anti-choice.

 

[cmad1977]

I'm.....disheartened, saddened, I suppose, that in all this conversation, nothing has been said to effect that regardless of when you accept "personhood" in term of pregnancy, that every pregnancy represents the potential for human life.

Whether you believe "life" begins at conception, 18 weeks, 24 weeks, 30 weeks, a pregnancy represents an opportunity to bring another sentient being into the world. To enjoy life experiences. To explore their creative potential. To enjoy the privilege of living.

How many works of fiction have we lost to abortion? How many world-renowned paintings? How many symphonies and arias, how many songs? Can loss of potential be quantified this way? I don't know.

I personally believe that life begins at conception, but recognize that the world I live in has determined that until 24 weeks post-conception, an unborn child does not have a fundamental right to life.

This will likely not change, and any attempts to do so are likely futile at this point.

As a result, I can only offer the observation that under many circumstances, an abortion is tragedy, in the truest literal and metaphysical senses.

Obviously when the mother's life and health are at risk, or the child is the product of rape or incest, certainly a safe, legal abortion should be an available recourse. But in so many cases, an abortion is a tragic failure---and perhaps I am not fully without blame in the tragedy.

It's a failure on the part of the man and woman who initiated the pregnancy to evaluate the risks and take even the easiest of steps to prevent it if the pregnancy is unwanted.

It's a failure on the part of government and yes, concerned citizens unwilling to pay increased taxes to support health choices, increased opportunities for medical care, and general financial support for a woman who might choose to carry a pregnancy to full term. I would gladly double my current tax burden if it meant an immediate 50% reduction in the number of abortions performed annually in the United States.

In many cases it's a failure born of broken socioeconomics, of endemic poverty, lack of education and opportunity.

I also recognize that in some cases it is not a failure of any of these, but is a function of a lifestyle choice consciously made. Perhaps it would be these I would most hope to change.

If abortions will be deemed legal, so be it. My charge must then be to work to gently persuade those to choose a different course.

What you should do is spend your time improving the state of adoption/child protective services. If those systems weren't the clusterbleep that they are, and if people who purported to be 'pro-life' actually cared about children after birth then the alternatives to abortion would be much more appealing. But 'pro-life' really means pro-birth. After that you are on your own and no church cares about you like they do the unborn.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What you should do is spend your time improving the state of adoption/child protective services. If those systems weren't the clusterbleep that they are, and if people who purported to be 'pro-life' actually cared about children after birth then the alternatives to abortion would be much more appealing. But 'pro-life' really means pro-birth. After that you are on your own and no church cares about you like they do the unborn.

You're on the right lines but don't go far enough.

If you actually give a damn about abortion, tackling the supply just increases the sales of wire coathangers. You need to tackle the demand.

First, you make access to contraception trivial. You hand it out for free. And as reliable methods as possible. If you oppose contraception you are responsible for the abortions that this leads to. (And yes, I'm looking especially at the Roman Catholic Church here - and other religiously motivated people).

Second you make it economic to keep the child. This starts with paid maternity leave. You don't have paid maternity leave then for many it simply isn't economic for many women to take the time off pregnancy would require. (Paternity leave also helps but is nowhere near as necessary of course).

Third you make it economic to have the child. Single payer healthcare, free at point of delivery. So affording the hospital stay isn't a problem.

Fourth you make it economic to raise the child. Welfare/Child Benefit at a pretty high level. So the mother isn't forced to give the kid up for adoption.

Fifth you support the adoption system.

And most so-called pro-life campaigners oppose1-4 on this list. All of which do more to lower the abortion rate than any amount of talking online, protesting, or shooting doctors ever will.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll bite: I'm pro-life, and I do not oppose 1-4 in their entireties.

I'm not a fan of birth control, but since not everyone is a Catholic like me, believe the safest ones should at least be available OTC.

I favor paid family- not maternity- leave. Some families, it makes more sense for Dad to be the caregiver because Mom is Breadwinner #1. What I am unsure of is the amount of said leave and what percentage of base pay it should be.

I don't think maternity care (prenatal and postnatal) should be universally free. That is probably NOT economically feasible. Instead, I'd add a simple means test: the less maternity care you can afford, the more said care gets subsidized.

I've seen some wonderful ideas from all over the world about governmental postnatal programs. There is one Scandinavian country that sends every newborn's mother a box full of vitamins, a blanket, and other goods...and the box doubles as some kind of baby care device (I forget exactly what). They've been doing it for decades, and it dropped several categories of infant health/mortality issues in their country by statistically significant amounts for not a lot of money.

Our adoption/welfare/foster care system is a hot mess.

The devil is, of course, always in the details...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'll bite: I'm pro-life, and I do not oppose 1-4 in their entireties.

I'm not a fan of birth control, but since not everyone is a Catholic like me, believe the safest ones should at least be available OTC.

I could comment on the inane logic of the Minority Report on the Pontifical Commmission on Birth Control. But instead I'm going to say yay - accepting a lack of contraception as a spiritual discipline is about the best you can make of that doctrine.

I favor paid family- not maternity- leave. Some families, it makes more sense for Dad to be caregiver because Mom is Breadwinner #1. What I am unsure of is the amount of said leave and what percentage of base pay it should be.

No argument here. Paid maternity leave is a bare minimum.

I don't think maternity care (prenatal and postnatal) should be universally free. That is probably NOT economically feasible. Instead, I'd add a simple means test: the less maternity care you can afford, the more said care gets subsidized.

As a healthcare statistician (albeit a UK one) I'm going to disagree with you. Single payer is a lot cheaper than the alternatives - and maternity care is a drop in the ocean when compared to either elderly care or dialysis (both of which the US government covered even pre-Obamacare). That said, with the litigious culture (in part caused by not having single payer healthcare so if you get hurt you need to pay for the follow up medical expenses somehow) obstetricians are hideously expensive in the US as malpractice insurance for an obstetrician with no history of incidents could be as much as $150k/year.

I've seen some wonderful ideas from all over the world about governmental postnatal programs. There is one Scandinavian country that sends every newborn's mother a box full of vitamins, a blanket, and other goods...and the box doubles as some kind of baby care device (I forget exactly what). They've been doing it for decades, and it dropped several categories of infant health/mortality issues in their country by statistically significant amounts for not a lot of money.

Agreed

Our adoption/welfare/foster care system is a hot mess.

I know nothing here.

The devil is, of course, always in the details...

As ever

 

[Enkhidu]

Single payer is a lot cheaper than the alternatives - and maternity care is a drop in the ocean when compared to either elderly care or dialysis (both of which the US government covered even pre-Obamacare).

I don't think this is necessarily true. Single supplier is a far safer bet to drop per-person cost for medical care than single payer. Single payer without the ability - or even the need - to impose top-down price controls doesn't make things better.

Beyond that, single payer for medical insurance doesn't do anything to address the fact that insurance (meant to spread economic risk among large amounts of people) is a poor way to effectively deal with services that are inherently not economically risky (like, say, pre-natal care).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Single payer is a lot cheaper...

I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was I don't know that it is economical for the single payer should be on the hook for 100% of this particular bill, which isn't precisely the same thing.

Any single payer system is tax driven. As I understand them, most also have a private option: you can always pay to see a private healthcare provider entirely at your own expense.

What I'm thinking is that you have a single payer system that subsidizes treatments wherever you go, rather than pays 100% in one facility and zero in another. Patient choice of healtchcare provider is maintained. Number of outlets is kept high. Wait times are minimized. The means test prevents more expensive healthcare providers from draining the system- you want to charge more for a service than is approved, the patient is on the hook for the extra- but not entire- amount.

A means test also means that the more money you earn, the more you pay into the system, and the less you get out. Which means the people least able to pay need not fear the single payer being out of funds caring for the children of those who are not at risk of being harmed by money-based healthcare decision making.

 

[Umbran]

Single supplier is a far safer bet to drop per-person cost for medical care than single payer.

What? Single supplier = monopoly. When, in the history of economics, has a monopoly led to lower costs for the consumer?

Beyond that, single payer for medical insurance doesn't do anything to address the fact that insurance (meant to spread economic risk among large amounts of people) is a poor way to effectively deal with services that are inherently not economically risky (like, say, pre-natal care).

Agreed.

The "insurance" model is designed, and works well for, cases that are relatively low-probability, but high cost if they do happen. This is a poor model to use for health maintenance, which everyone needs, and is relatively low cost.

There are things in health that can work by the insurance model - like dealing with broken bones, or cancer when you are young. But getting your vaccinations, or antibiotics for bronchitis in the winter, or prenatal care aren't among them.

 

[billd91]

There are things in health that can work by the insurance model - like dealing with broken bones, or cancer when you are young. But getting your vaccinations, or antibiotics for bronchitis in the winter, or prenatal care aren't among them.

That may be, but single payer health programs aren't just about protecting people from catastrophic medical costs. They're also about making sure that medical care, including preventive care, is available to anybody who needs it regardless of their ability to pay for it.