[Psudo]

Abortion has been a radically partisan stalemate for decades. The conflict has it's basis in whether civil society should be empowered to restrict medically induced abortion on moral grounds or whether the choice of medically induced abortion is rightly a protected personal freedom. Almost no one supports more occurrences of abortion, but at most oppose forcible restrictions.

Thus, I offer a third possible position: opposition to abortion for profit specifically. In the ideal outcome for this position, insurance providers would be banned from paying any more than cost of service to any abortion clinic, and abortion clinics would be banned from accepting any more than cost of service from their customers and their insurance companies. Advocates of the pro-choice position argue that a fetus is roughly equivalent to an organ; this reform will bring abortion policy closer to current policy on human organs, where they cannot be bought and sold on the open market but are instead controlled by informed medical personnel. Abortion clinics would necessarily have to diversify into general women's health centers, providing less controversial services for profit, or take charitable donations to cover operating costs. This would make the targeting of abortion clinics by pro-life radicals more difficult, since the distinction between a regular ob/gyn and an abortion clinic would fade.

This is a pro-life position in that the goal is to prevent the cheapening of human life that occurs when it is made into a market commodity, and will probably reduce the number of abortions. This is also a pro-choice position in that it protects the woman's right to make her own uncoerced choice both from profit-motivated manipulation and from radical pro-life protesters.

My hope is that a majority of both sides of the abortion issue will see this as an incomplete improvement to existing abortion policy. After it is passed, they can return to their perpetual stalemate in an improved status quo.

Do you think it'll catch on?

[sandorski]

The Planned Parenthood Abortionplex needs to be paid somehow.

[DanSC]

sandorski wrote:

The Planned Parenthood Abortionplex needs to be paid somehow.

There is a very large difference between being a non-profit and providing services for free.

[Psudo]

Planned Parenthood already gets revenue in ways other than abortion for profit. They would continue to exist after an anti-abortion-for-profit law, too.

[Brenda]

sandorski wrote:

The Planned Parenthood Abortionplex needs to be paid somehow.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the company "Planned Parenthood" should make profit.

I am totally for paying not more than the actual cost. Which includes personnel. You don't want to have abortions done by volunteers.

[Pseudonym]

This kinda takes the "take profit out of healthcare" argument and turns it on its originators.

[Lemmy]

Sounds like a new pro-life scheme to try to creep abortion slowly back into in criminal law in more subtle, baby-step ways. Sinister, actually.

[Gunnair]

I think anti-abortion groups should offer to cover all the costs of the pregnancy including a stipend for the mother, then take responsibility for the newborn afterwards.

[Brenda]

Pseudonym wrote:

This kinda takes the "take profit out of healthcare" argument and turns it on its originators.

I have no problem with taking profit out of healthcare.

[DanSC]

Gunnair wrote:

I think anti-abortion groups should offer to cover all the costs of the pregnancy including a stipend for the mother, then take responsibility for the newborn afterwards.

So basically adoption?

[Gunnair]

DanSC wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

I think anti-abortion groups should offer to cover all the costs of the pregnancy including a stipend for the mother, then take responsibility for the newborn afterwards.

So basically adoption?

Yep. Though with a very generous stipend to the mother and her bills payed for.

[Psudo]

Lemmy wrote:

Sounds like a new pro-life scheme to try to creep abortion slowly back into in criminal law in more subtle, baby-step ways. Sinister, actually.

In what way is it opposed to pro-choice reasoning? If it's not opposed to pro-choice reasoning, what's sinister about it?

[DanSC]

Psudo wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Sounds like a new pro-life scheme to try to creep abortion slowly back into in criminal law in more subtle, baby-step ways. Sinister, actually.

In what way is it opposed to pro-choice reasoning? If it's not opposed to pro-choice reasoning, what's sinister about it?

Please forgive those who seem to think discussing an issue has to be a competition.

[Gunnair]

DanSC wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Sounds like a new pro-life scheme to try to creep abortion slowly back into in criminal law in more subtle, baby-step ways. Sinister, actually.

In what way is it opposed to pro-choice reasoning? If it's not opposed to pro-choice reasoning, what's sinister about it?

Please forgive those who seem to think discussing an issue has to be a competition.

You're sudden desire to dumb down the discussion to the realm of the sandbox is telling of bringing an empty lunchbox to the dinner party.

Thanks for coming out though.

[Praxius]

"Abortion has been a radically partisan stalemate for decades."

It's not in a Stalemate, the laws have already been decided years ago, the deal is done, how it currently stands is how it should remain.... nothing more, nothing less.

The only people who think the topic is at a stalemate are those who can't accept that this topic has already been dealt with & they don't like the outcome.

In regards to health care coverage on Abortions or being tied to our current health care system, I hear the argument often about pro-life supporters not wanting their tax dollars going towards abortion in anyway..... but the other way to look at it, is that any Canadian citizen seeking an abortion have paid their tax money into the same system, just as they would have if it was a private system. You're not paying taxes into the health care system to cover others, you pay to cover yourself when you need coverage.

I put unknown amounts of money into the health care system through my lifetime as a worker and I can count on one hand how many times I went to the hospital or seen a doctor for something.... if hypothetically I was a woman and I wanted to have an abortion for whatever reason, not only is it my right to determine what happens to my body & well being, but I paid more then enough into the system to cover the procedure..... and I'll continue to pay into it afterwards too.

So the argument over money, costs & taxes is moot.

The debate on abortion is over..... it was over long before I was even born. Move on with your own life and leave other people to their's.

If someone paid for public or private insurance coverage, and abortions are legal and the woman in question has the right to choose what happens, then attempting this little scheme to restrict those who perform the procedure to a point where they'll most likely be swayed to not perform the procedure is an attack on those rights and the medical coverage that they already paid for.

^ And that's the bottom line of your plan, otherwise, why bother proposing the idea in the first place if it didn't change anything towards your personal view?