Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_mullen
i'm fully aware that i am quite late in entering the fray, but here it goes. first, for disclosure, i am anti-abortion in my belief, but have come to accept that legally this is not a topic that will ever be changed. that being said, my main annoyance with abortions is that in the majority (i presume) of cases it is an elective medical procedure, but yet it is publicly funded. in spite of my anti-abortion stance, i can see how abortion where the mother is at risk, is a victim of incest or rape, can be argued to be a medically required procedure. however, for other circumstances, abortion is a purely elective procedure for which public funds should not be diverted. thoughts?
|
Why public funding? Because the health of the mother is at stake. If you don't provide access to medical abortions, many women will resort to back alley coat hanger abortions / ingestion of motor oil / boyfriend's fist to uterus....etc. which leads to serious morbidity/mortality.
Not to mention that public funding supporting the basic pillar of democracy - choice - is what makes us a 1st world nation.