I am in agreement there. It is something that I hope no one has to go through, but I am aware that we aren't living in a perfect world so it does happen.
My thoughts: abortion in the case of rape and the case that the mother may/will die in childbirth should be free. Abortion in other cases should cost more, as in more than it already does, to encourage some responsibility when it comes to sexual activity.
Methinks UHC only covers the things you need. A couple who have unprotected sex and get the girl pregnant don't need that abortion, unless she's going to die.
I reserve the right to rethink and rework this statement.
One arguement that I keep hearing is that instead of abortion, adoption should work. Are their any people here who are adopted? What are your thoughts.
I agree, but I don't like the idea of people treating abortion as birth control. It's an abuse really. I believe in better birth control and not getting pageant in the first place (I can understand abortion for rape victims and who's life is in danger).
I don't like abortions, and I think it should be a tool of last resort. However, the thought of the government taking the right of abortion away is more frightening than the thought of abortion itself. Also, the fact that pharmacists can now deny the right of a woman to get the "morning-after pill" does not help the situation at all.
I believe he means that it is an "evil" that should be tolerated because he'd "much rather it be done by liscensed professionals in sterile environments than in the back alley with a coat hanger."
Fair enough. I suspected that's what he meant, but wasn't entirely sure. So, it's something that should be allowed, but discouraged? I can live with that.
But still, the fact that a pharmacist can refuse to give the pill is repugnant. What if they started not giving out Valium to people who recently had surgery because, technically, Valium is unnecessary.
That is an interesting point. But I would have to say my gut response to that would be because they have already gone and recieved a perscription for the medication and considering a pharmacist is not a medical doctor and isn't the patient's doctor I would say that based on that they should not have a say in that.
RU-486 (IE Mefipristone) is a "chemical abortion" that works for up to several weeks after conception, and it is totally perscription because it has pretty significant side affects
Emergency Contraceptive Pills are hormones that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine wall. They only work within 72 hours of conception.
The FDA has never issued a certian ruling on Emergency Contraceptive Pills, and in a number of states (California, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts) laws have been passed that allow Over the Counter sales in some cases.
Both Ru-486 and the EPC pills are the subject of the debate regarding pharmacists refusing to sell them.
In my opinion the only problem with this is the conflict with federal law. Federal law requires states to have certian common regulations so that interstate corporations dont have to tailor benefits packages for every state individually. if a company insurance policy pays for a "morning after pill" and state laws allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense them, that state law may be in conflict with a federal law.
ECP is bascially just a birth control pill with a shit load more hormones in it. It is called the emergency contraceptive for a reason. All those hormones give you some unpleasant side effects.
Don't quote me on this, but I believe Canadian law says that a pharmacist is not obligated to provide the morning after pill, but the pharmacy is. Because of this, pharmacies must have a pharmacist willing to provide the morning after pill on at all times.
There is a big case in Ireland at the moment. Basically this couple when for IVF treatment and created 6 embryoes. 3 Where implanted and 1 stuck. The other 3 were frozen. The woman can no longer produce eggs. She wants to implant the last 3 eggs so she can try for another kid. However she is no longer with the father and he refused consent to use the embryoes.
They ruled the other day that she had no right to the embryoes without his consent but now they are debating the constitual rights of the Embryoes. Do embryoes have any rights? Are they protected by the rights of the unborn? If an Embryo has rights that means the Morning after pill is murder!
Personnally, the position of Pro-Choice that states life begins at birth is untenable. However the pro-life that states at conception is abit fuzzier. Technically the embryo does have a unique human DNA. However it is still far from human. I think that while it is still an embryo it need not have any rights and can be aborted, but after 2 months or so when it becomes a fetus, which is very much a human as it has internal organs etc., and should be protected. Abortion after this time is essentially Murder.
Though I would be still in favour of Abortion to protect the mother, but only as a last resort.
I think what the issue comes down to for most who are Pro-Choice is that abortion is exactly as you said, a last resort. I'm sure that even those who are pro-choice are unhappy that there is a need for abortion, but recognize that it is occasionally necessary. In many ways it's similar to the Doves' beliefs about the military. Doves are unhappy about that there is a need for the military and want to refrain from using it as much as possible but that occasionally utilizing it is necessary.
But frozen embryoes that were going to be destroyed anyway? That's a straight out tough sell.
I'd discourage abortion, but I wouldn't ban it completely. I think the 23 week time limit is fair enough unless giving birth or remaining pregnant would endanger the life of the mother.
