Do you support federal funding of abortion?

I support federal funding of abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimesters. A fetus is not autonomous from the mother nor capable of independent thought. Under this premise, there is no logical reasoning to exclude an abortion from a universal healthcare system. I support a universal healthcare system (preferably the Beveridge model) to treat healthcare as a basic right. Abortions (to a point) would be covered under that program.

 

I have no problem with abortions up to the 12th week.

 

The procedure for surgical abortion is the same for removal of retained products of conception following a miscarriage - so yes it should be funded because it is a NEEDED intervention for many women

As for 3rd trimester abortions - the vast and overwhelming majority are for abnormality incompatible with life - so yes to that too

 

I support funding for abortion regardless of the time frame, to restrict it at any time to me violates the woman's right to body autonomy and I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that a woman would elect to have an abortion in the third trimester.

 

I support not sending thugs with guns to cage women for having an abortion, but at the same time I fundamentally disagree with all taxation, so I don't support it being federally funded.

But yeah, abortions should be legal and entirely unregulated.

 

I support abortion in the first two trimesters, but oppose any taxpayer funding. I have moral qualms about abortion, though any fool can see the necessity for its legality.

 

No moral qualms about war?

 

Yep, that too. But again any fool can see why a nation can go to war as well.

 

I respect you position but 100% disagree that morals have anything to do with abortion, morals are subjective, always have been and always will be.

 

To clarify from my original post, I still support legality of abortion throughout all three trimesters. The problem with third trimester abortions is that the fetus is technically autonomous, so we should tread very carefully before we allow the state to fund it. I would only support funding if the health of the mother was in danger.

 

I can go along with your statement about morals being subjective. That would mean that different people could see morality different ways, yes? So if I have qualms about abortion that does not mean that you must. I am unwilling to make a futile attempt to force my morality on others.

 

Abortion is a woman's private business, right? Then she should pay for it herself. Why is it the government's buisness?

How does restricting government funding of abortion violate body autonomy? The woman can just pay for it herself. If she's too poor to pay for it, then it's a good thing (because if she's poor, she wouldn't have enough money for an abortion.

 

You don't know what Universal Healthcare is.

Everyone's medical needs are their private business so you think no one should be covered under UHC?

What a strange thing to think....

But it does follow your "reasoning" that it's a good thing if a poor woman is made poorer by having a baby she can't afford and you think it's a good thing for a child to be born poor....(obviously YOU weren't so are commenting , again, on something you know nothing about)

 

Abortion is very controversial, so the woman should pay for it herself.

 

The idea that abortions are private business is not violated by funding abortion. The idea of choice is still existent. Just because a woman is able to have an abortion for free does not mean the government has a say in whether or not a woman can have an abortion.

And if abortion is a right, why should it be restricted to those who can afford it?

Also directed at your second post in this thread: Public opinion is not relevant to the debate. You're not running for public office.

 

The idea that women should pay for their own abortions, doesn't violate the idea that abortion is a woman's right. People have the legal right to buy fancy cars and smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol and other stupid crap like that, but the government doesn't pay for it. They pay for their vices with their own money.

 

And abortion is a "vice" how exactly? Abortions can be recommended and necessary to protect the health of the mother.

 

Since when does UHC cover fancy cars and cigarettes??????????????


?????????????

- - - Updated - - -

I included the post of mine you quoted but did NOT address.

You gave some silly answer about everyone should pay for anything controversial themselves....

 

It's a legal medical procedure so would be covered under UHC.

Whether or not something is controversial has nothing to do with legality or being covered.

 

A vice is an immoral thing. it's legal, but it's still morally wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why I'm against universal healthcare now.

Also, UHCs don't cover plastic surgery. They shouldn't cover plastic surgery. stuff like abortions and plastic surgery should be paid for, with the woman's OWN money.

 

I understand what a vice is. I'm questioning as to why an abortion is a vice, in your views.

 

Abortion is a vice because it's evil and disgusting, but it's done for convenience.

 

Exactly the pro-choice position, each person should be free to decide for themselves if an abortion is a moral choice for them.

 

So are all other medical conditions, so can one assume that you don't support any funding for any medical condition?

It doesn't, but you are trying to cobble together two very different things.

unwanted pregnancy is what violates body autonomy .. funding for abortion is no different to funding for any other medical condition.

 

This is essentially repeating what you just said. Why is it evil and disgusting?