You're making this about Morgentaller's profitable philanthropy instead of the governments misogynistic missteps.
Mark
Yes, I am discussing the economics of the situation, as that is the easiest knot to untangle here.
This clinic is a private business and, just like the restaurant on the corner, should survive or fail on it's own profit/loss statements.
I did not want my tax dollars going to GM and Chrysler, and I do not want them going to this private business, either. It is not a moral issue for me but an economic one, so that is how I am approaching this.
The need for money there does not, and CAN NOT, be considered as justification for forming second class citizens of women.
Mark
That is not what is happening here. What is happening is that a failing business is trying to put it's hand into our pockets to prop up it's operations. No thanks.
As for the women of NB who wish to have an abortion, there remains a process in place for them to have one. Do you really think that the "medically necessary" threshold is that high a hurdle to cross, these days? Hell, I am willing to bet that a good portion of physicians would accept the economic argument I am making for denying tax dollars to this clinic as justification for allowing one of these "impoverished" women the procedure. To say nothing of the notion that it would quickly become widely known which physicians were an easier "sell" than others for getting the forms rubber stamped. But keep holding that coat hanger up high, Mark.
Wasn't me who brought $$$ into the discussion but I am definitely against providing tax dollars to provide profit for a private enterprise. That has nothing to do with it being to pay for abortions or make cars or buggy whips.... I am for abortions for certain approved reasons but not unlimited... Man, where does responsibility fit in all this? How about people who cause cost pay that cost, or at least the majority... Down with socialism..!
Well
Truth told, I just said that it's an embarrassment that the government in NB has allowed this to happen. Would I much prefer non-profit abortions accessible without this unreasonable bullshit of 2 medical opinions? For sure... I'd say it's preferable to sponsoring a private clinic by far.
However, this is where the moralistic and people enforcing their own beliefs on others comes in and causes headaches. Leaving women in an entire province without an option is an embarrassment, actively or passively complying with it is straight up treating women as second class citizens. Denying it is laughable.
Yes, I am discussing the economics of the situation, as that is the easiest knot to untangle here.
This clinic is a private business and, just like the restaurant on the corner, should survive or fail on it's own profit/loss statements.
I did not want my tax dollars going to GM and Chrysler, and I do not want them going to this private business, either. It is not a moral issue for me but an economic one, so that is how I am approaching this.
And again
I have explained, and to borrow a phrase from another forumer, I am typing as slowly as I can... Unwanted children, born to ill prepared family units (which is a result of lacking options such as abortion) costs the government much, much more. If a fucking burger joint closes, it affects one family and some part time workers, who may or may not seek social assistance. If an abortion clinic closes, it affects 10,000 women over 20 years.. lets see.. a fuckton more than your callous comparisons.
That is not what is happening here. What is happening is that a failing business is trying to put it's hand into our pockets to prop up it's operations. No thanks.
As for the women of NB who wish to have an abortion, there remains a process in place for them to have one. Do you really think that the "medically necessary" threshold is that high a hurdle to cross, these days? Hell, I am willing to bet that a good portion of physicians would accept the economic argument I am making for denying tax dollars to this clinic as justification for allowing one of these "impoverished" women the procedure. To say nothing of the notion that it would quickly become widely known which physicians were an easier "sell" than others for getting the forms rubber stamped. But keep holding that coat hanger up high, Mark.
YES!
Holy fuck yes. You stick one pro-life doctor in the equation, and suddenly abortion is straight up off the table in most cases... There is a doctor in Cambridge that is one of these unprofessional fucks that do this kinda shit. I have two co-workers that went to him to discuss birth control, and first he sat them down - in his clearly determined position of power - and lectured them about the importance of reproduction as their duty to god.
THIS is someone that should have his medical license revoked.
Truth told, I just said that it's an embarrassment that the government in NB has allowed this to happen.
Except that the Government of NB didn't allow this to happen, the marketplace did. The NB Government does not own this clinic.
Would I much prefer non-profit abortions accessible without this unreasonable bullshit of 2 medical opinions? For sure... I'd say it's preferable to sponsoring a private clinic by far.
So, you agree with my economic position, then? So why are you arguing?
However, this is where the moralistic and people enforcing their own beliefs on others comes in and causes headaches. Leaving women in an entire province without an option is an embarrassment, actively or passively complying with it is straight up treating women as second class citizens. Denying it is laughable.
Mark
Once again . . .
I am espousing no morality or beliefs other than economic ones in this thread.
And again . . .
They still have the provincial process. The fact you disagree with that process does not negate it's existence.
I have explained, and to borrow a phrase from another forumer, I am typing as slowly as I can... Unwanted children, born to ill prepared family units (which is a result of lacking options such as abortion) costs the government much, much more. If a fucking burger joint closes, it affects one family and some part time workers, who may or may not seek social assistance. If an abortion clinic closes, it affects 10,000 women over 20 years.. lets see.. a fuckton more than your callous comparisons.
Mark
See the adoption comments for rebuttal, as a start, and the only "option" that is lacking by this clinic closing is a more streamlined process than the provincial option.
Holy fuck yes. You stick one pro-life doctor in the equation, and suddenly abortion is straight up off the table in most cases... There is a doctor in Cambridge that is one of these unprofessional fucks that do this kinda shit. I have two co-workers that went to him to discuss birth control, and first he sat them down - in his clearly determined position of power - and lectured them about the importance of reproduction as their duty to god.
THIS is someone that should have his medical license revoked.
Mark
sort of proves my point about knowing who the "easy approval" doctors would be, doesn't it?
At no point do I say that this for profit clinic should be sponsored. I even at one point told Milo he was making it about the clinic's "profitable philanthropy" instead of the government's "misogynistic misstep". I don't think that the government should be giving money to private business, but they are doing a grievous disservice by requiring women to jump through hoops for something legally a right.
There should be a government clinic whose process is :
"Hello! I would like an abortion"
"Okay, here's some forms to get the process started".
Not "Oh, do you have the proper clearance from people completely unrelated and unaware of your situation, but decide based on their educated opinion as to whether you will die?"
The economic and tax-based moaning is moot. Average cost of raising a kid until 18 in Canada is now $243,660... let's say our government kicks in only 10% of that.... for the families on assistance, and coupled with the fact that some % of these kids will end up crown ward, this leads to a cost of 2436.60 per kid. I'm sure 10% is a very generous calculation.
So one unwanted kid would cost roughly 3.5 times the cost of an abortion. Do you think at LEAST 1 out of three unwanted pregnancies will now come to term because of a lack of options? (Hint, the math is DEFINITELY inaccurate, but not in the "side of the angels" way).
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against having a requirement free abortion clinic. We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others. Therefore, any argument against the fact that NB needs to immediately create a government run abortion clinic is laughable.
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against having a requirement free abortion clinic. We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others. Therefore, any argument against the fact that NB needs to immediately create a government run abortion clinic is laughable.
Mark
Anything the government does is imposing morals on others.
Creating a government run abortion clinic forces people who find abortion morally abhorrent to pay for it. So either we should be allowed to impose our morals on others, or there is a clearly non-laughable argument against a government run clinic. Which is it?
If I turned magically into a pro-choicer right now but the rest of my opinions and knowledge remained the same I would say this:
What is needed is NOT a government run clinic. What is needed is for a better businessman to take over this failing clinic. Either that, or people who support abortions should be making donations to keep this one in business. Is it a charity? No. But I guarantee they'll cash a cheque if you mail one.
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against having a requirement free abortion clinic. We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others. Therefore, any argument against the fact that NB needs to immediately create a government run abortion clinic is laughable.
Mark
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against funding all cancer treatments to all patients. We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others. Therefore, any argument against the fact that ONTARIO needs to immediately fund ALL cancer treatments is laughable.
And yet, that is not how it is . . . see how that works. Government, like people, make choices every day. Don't like the choices? change the Government.
Until the NB electorate do that, then folks who are upset about this clinic going under can, much like men do with their PSA tests, fund it themselves.
And the reason I keep going back to the PSA, is that I suffer from a genetic disorder that makes my shot at colorectal cancer about 50% higher than the average for most folks. Just like your economic argument with respect to unwanted kids, men in my situation who cannot afford, or choose not to pay for the test, end up costing "the system" an astronomically higher cost, than if the test were funded and their cancers caught sooner. but, to use your term, that is the passive misandry that I/we find ourselves having to deal with.
Also laughable is your comment that, "We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others", after which you go right on insisting that government should do just that.
Please make up your mind.
If you want government to avoid the imposition of morality on citizens, then a whole host of current government services are going to go away. and yes, Mother's Allowance will be one of them.
But that is not what you are arguing for . . . you are arguing for the imposition of your morality, in some misguided belief that your morality is somehow better than others.
Anything the government does is imposing morals on others.
Creating a government run abortion clinic forces people who find abortion morally abhorrent to pay for it. So either we should be allowed to impose our morals on others, or there is a clearly non-laughable argument against a government run clinic. Which is it?
If I turned magically into a pro-choicer right now but the rest of my opinions and knowledge remained the same I would say this:
What is needed is NOT a government run clinic. What is needed is for a better businessman to take over this failing clinic. Either that, or people who support abortions should be making donations to keep this one in business. Is it a charity? No. But I guarantee they'll cash a cheque if you mail one.
If you're morally against abortions, you don't need to have one.
Usually, though not this year yet, there is a collection of anti-abortion protestors down the street outside of the hospital near my place. It enrages me that these people show up. I'm all for your freedom of speech and right to protest, but these people don't see themselves as the (to use the current buzzword) bullies they are. Some poor girl / couple is going in there, making quite possibly one of the hardest decisions of their lives, and there's a collection of people out there (and they're always men, post baby making age women, or kids too young to not do what their parents are making them in the majority) telling them they shouldn't be, essentially because Gandalf says so.
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against funding all cancer treatments to all patients.
So.. you're saying there is no argument AGAINST funding cancer treatments? Great.. I'm on board with that.
Your prostate test thing should be covered too - I'm on board with that. As a penis-carrying person, I have a vested interest in that. Now, if some woman came up to you and said "fuck that, I don't want my tax dollars going to you! I'm a lesbian and I'd be giddy to see everyone with a Y chromosome have to pay for their shit so I'm not wasting a minuscule percentage of my tax dollars on you because I'm a rancid man-hating bitch" (note: This is one fictional lesbian man-hating bitch I'm referencing, I"m not inferring all lesbians are as such).
Wouldn't you consider that particular "lady" to be insanely ridiculous?
Also laughable is your comment that, "We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others", after which you go right on insisting that government should do just that.
Please make up your mind.
If you want government to avoid the imposition of morality on citizens, then a whole host of current government services are going to go away. and yes, Mother's Allowance will be one of them.
But that is not what you are arguing for . . . you are arguing for the imposition of your morality, in some misguided belief that your morality is somehow better than others.
Hubris, thy name is Mark.
As I responded to Trigs, LEGAL abortions do not equal MANDATORY abortions.
If you're against abortion, don't get one. This isn't a moral imposition of the government, this is the government taking responsibility to ensure all persons, regardless (there's that word that means there or not there) of one's personal morals is afforded the resources and opportunities to access medical procedures that are legally available.
YOU are defining moral imposition as the fact that since you and yours think abortions are immoral, then they shouldn't be accessible for anyone, at the LEAST not on your dime. In this case, I refer back to my man-hating lesbian.
If I thought it was morally wrong to eat meat, this is the equivalent of me throwing paint on anyone wearing leather, and protesting any meat-serving place of business. And everyone laughs at those nutjobs. Abortions, as well as eating meat, are legal, and those that have no moral problems with them should have access to them without harassment and red tape boogaloo.
Mark
Edit: Hubris? I can live with that as a descriptor, but you must acknowledge the fact the difference between my saying "Abortions need to be available for those that want it" vs. "Abortions are wrong, and should not be available to anyone". I'm not walking up to some ill-prepared young woman, who has improperly used contraception and is now pregnant, but a very religious gal, and telling her she really should go and get an abortion. See the difference?
If you're morally against abortions, you don't need to have one.
Mark
Thanks, Tips.
Yet I have to pay for them? You don't see that as forcing morals on someone else? Imagine if the government was fully funding the very protesters you mention. Providing them with placards, megaphones, and Tim Horton's gift cards. Surely you would be outraged even more than just by their very presence.
Oh, and just for the record, I am against Milo's prostate checks being funded by the government. And all cancer treatments too. And Mother's Allowance (not sure it's called that anymore), and everything else the State pays for. Just so no one claims hypocrisy when I say abortion clinics should not be publicly funded.
Abortions, as well as eating meat, are legal, and those that have no moral problems with them should have access to them without harassment and red tape boogaloo.
So anything that is legal is automatically moral, and no one should speak out or be an activist against it? Clearly you are not a student of history, sir.
Many things are immoral that are not and should not be illegal. Many things are legal that are immoral.
Yet I have to pay for them? You don't see that as forcing morals on someone else? Imagine if the government was fully funding the very protesters you mention. Providing them with placards, megaphones, and Tim Horton's gift cards. Surely you would be outraged even more than just by their very presence.
Oh, and just for the record, I am against Milo's prostate checks being funded by the government. And all cancer treatments too. And Mother's Allowance (not sure it's called that anymore), and everything else the State pays for. Just so no one claims hypocrisy when I say abortion clinics should not be publicly funded.
Well that last part helps your stance. Fact is though, that my tax dollars go to tonnes of things I don't agree with / don't use. What about people who have a moral issue with any and all medical treatments? Should they be exempt from a LARGE amount of tax because in Canada we pay for most of this? I don't think many would say they should.
Do I think that they should still be funded? Sure. Now, if you're talking about things that I think are morally wrong, there is any number of things that I do fund tax wise that I disagree with. To turn Milo's thing against him, if you're against something morally, but it is legal and therefore should be available and funded (IMO), then you should move. If, for example, Ontario ever re-instituted the death penalty? I would 100% move, because my tax dollars going to killing someone isn't something I can live with.
So anything that is legal is automatically moral, and no one should speak out or be an activist against it? Clearly you are not a student of history, sir.
Many things are immoral that are not and should not be illegal. Many things are legal that are immoral.
"Vices are not crimes" ~ Lysander Spooner
Once again, I'm not the one calling morals into it. Milo did. If something is legal, and a medical procedure, it should be funded. Be it prostate checks, abortions, hysterectomies, and delivery rooms (note, I only use one of those).
The side claiming that their tax dollars should not fund something they are personally against are saying that their beliefs mean that you should not be able to access services at my expense, despite its recognized legality and people's right to it. I am saying that everyone's tax dollars should be utilized to provide services deemed legal and a right to access should be accessible to anyone THAT CHOOSES TO USE SAID SERVICE. Say my kid gets preggers at 15, and I'm a morally anti-abortion kinda fella? Well, I'm choosing not to access it. My kid at 15 gets preggers and due to lack of government responsibility, I can't access an abortion? Well, now I've a lifetime of responsibility (and likely cost to the government greater than an abortion) and dependence on social systems.
Once again, I'm not the one calling morals into it. Milo did.
Mark
No, I have studiously tried to avoid the moral debate which surrounds abortion in this thread. The only times I have mentioned morals has been in response to your bringing it up.
There is currently a woman in my City who is being denied OHIP coverage for cancer drugs that will save her life. The reason is that these drugs are covered, but only for first time users. This is her second go-round. So, her treatment is legal, the drugs are covered, but she is being denied on a technicality.
Stories like this are abundant all across this province, and country. Personally, I would rather that my tax dollars go towards this woman's treatment, rather than what is essentially an elective procedure. I am not as strict a Libertarian as Big Mike, but I would sooner take his economics policies over what we currently have.
If it means these poor indigents going to the clinic have to fork out some of their own cash to get what is not a necessity in order that people like the woman I described above get to live, I am okay with that. I think if you polled most people and asked them that question, they would be too.
But to get back to the point, this clinic closing does NOT prevent women from getting abortions in New Brunswick. It makes it a little less convenient, but that is all. To that end, I say . . . tough.
And I really do not care if that makes me a callous bastard in your world.
Oh, and Mark? Please stop saying that abortion is "legal". It isn't. Neither is it illegal. Since all laws surrounding abortion were struck down by the Supreme Court, abortion exists in a legal limbo.
A more accurate description would be that it is tolerated, or allowed.
Oh, and Mark? Please stop saying that abortion is "legal". It isn't. Neither is it illegal. Since all laws surrounding abortion were struck down by the Supreme Court, abortion exists in a legal limbo.
A more accurate description would be that it is tolerated, or allowed.
That which is not illegal is, by definition, legal.
Actually, unlike the British North America Act, where that was true, our repatriated Constitution makes the opposite true. Abortion is in limbo as the Court has instructed Parliament to craft new legislation, but Parliament has yet to do so.
Cop out Milo. Abortion is for all intents and purposes legal.
Do I think your friend should get her treatment? Yes.
And frankly your claim that a lack of a clinic in an entire province is "a little inconvenient" and that's just "tough" for them doesn't make you a callous bastard.
It may be a pretty interesting contribution to sn1perboys question about what constitutes being a good person.
Actually, unlike the British North America Act, where that was true, our repatriated Constitution makes the opposite true. Abortion is in limbo as the Court has instructed Parliament to craft new legislation, but Parliament has yet to do so.
Maybe in the strictest legal sense, but surely you don't describe everything that there isn't a specific law allowing or regulating as being in 'legal limbo'.
I would describe abortion in Canada as being legal, unlike other countries (every other one in the world, I think) where it is regulated.
Maybe in the strictest legal sense, but surely you don't describe everything that there isn't a specific law allowing or regulating as being in 'legal limbo'.
I would describe abortion in Canada as being legal, unlike other countries (every other one in the world, I think) where it is regulated.
Nah . . . just tweaking Mark a little with that one.
Cop out Milo. Abortion is for all intents and purposes legal.
Do I think your friend should get her treatment? Yes.
And frankly your claim that a lack of a clinic in an entire province is "a little inconvenient" and that's just "tough" for them doesn't make you a callous bastard.
It may be a pretty interesting contribution to sn1perboys question about what constitutes being a good person.
Mark
Abortions can still be carried out in hospitals in NB. Pretty sure they have a few of those . . .
Comments
Yes, I am discussing the economics of the situation, as that is the easiest knot to untangle here.
This clinic is a private business and, just like the restaurant on the corner, should survive or fail on it's own profit/loss statements.
I did not want my tax dollars going to GM and Chrysler, and I do not want them going to this private business, either. It is not a moral issue for me but an economic one, so that is how I am approaching this.
That is not what is happening here. What is happening is that a failing business is trying to put it's hand into our pockets to prop up it's operations. No thanks.
As for the women of NB who wish to have an abortion, there remains a process in place for them to have one. Do you really think that the "medically necessary" threshold is that high a hurdle to cross, these days? Hell, I am willing to bet that a good portion of physicians would accept the economic argument I am making for denying tax dollars to this clinic as justification for allowing one of these "impoverished" women the procedure. To say nothing of the notion that it would quickly become widely known which physicians were an easier "sell" than others for getting the forms rubber stamped. But keep holding that coat hanger up high, Mark.
Well
Truth told, I just said that it's an embarrassment that the government in NB has allowed this to happen. Would I much prefer non-profit abortions accessible without this unreasonable bullshit of 2 medical opinions? For sure... I'd say it's preferable to sponsoring a private clinic by far.
However, this is where the moralistic and people enforcing their own beliefs on others comes in and causes headaches. Leaving women in an entire province without an option is an embarrassment, actively or passively complying with it is straight up treating women as second class citizens. Denying it is laughable.
Mark
And again
I have explained, and to borrow a phrase from another forumer, I am typing as slowly as I can... Unwanted children, born to ill prepared family units (which is a result of lacking options such as abortion) costs the government much, much more. If a fucking burger joint closes, it affects one family and some part time workers, who may or may not seek social assistance. If an abortion clinic closes, it affects 10,000 women over 20 years.. lets see.. a fuckton more than your callous comparisons.
Mark
YES!
Holy fuck yes. You stick one pro-life doctor in the equation, and suddenly abortion is straight up off the table in most cases... There is a doctor in Cambridge that is one of these unprofessional fucks that do this kinda shit. I have two co-workers that went to him to discuss birth control, and first he sat them down - in his clearly determined position of power - and lectured them about the importance of reproduction as their duty to god.
THIS is someone that should have his medical license revoked.
Mark
Once again . . .
I am espousing no morality or beliefs other than economic ones in this thread.
And again . . .
They still have the provincial process. The fact you disagree with that process does not negate it's existence.
Just admit it. You are wrong on this one . . .
See the adoption comments for rebuttal, as a start, and the only "option" that is lacking by this clinic closing is a more streamlined process than the provincial option.
sort of proves my point about knowing who the "easy approval" doctors would be, doesn't it?
good night now.
At no point do I say that this for profit clinic should be sponsored. I even at one point told Milo he was making it about the clinic's "profitable philanthropy" instead of the government's "misogynistic misstep". I don't think that the government should be giving money to private business, but they are doing a grievous disservice by requiring women to jump through hoops for something legally a right.
There should be a government clinic whose process is :
"Hello! I would like an abortion"
"Okay, here's some forms to get the process started".
Not "Oh, do you have the proper clearance from people completely unrelated and unaware of your situation, but decide based on their educated opinion as to whether you will die?"
The economic and tax-based moaning is moot. Average cost of raising a kid until 18 in Canada is now $243,660... let's say our government kicks in only 10% of that.... for the families on assistance, and coupled with the fact that some % of these kids will end up crown ward, this leads to a cost of 2436.60 per kid. I'm sure 10% is a very generous calculation.
So one unwanted kid would cost roughly 3.5 times the cost of an abortion. Do you think at LEAST 1 out of three unwanted pregnancies will now come to term because of a lack of options? (Hint, the math is DEFINITELY inaccurate, but not in the "side of the angels" way).
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against having a requirement free abortion clinic. We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others. Therefore, any argument against the fact that NB needs to immediately create a government run abortion clinic is laughable.
Mark
Anything the government does is imposing morals on others.
Creating a government run abortion clinic forces people who find abortion morally abhorrent to pay for it. So either we should be allowed to impose our morals on others, or there is a clearly non-laughable argument against a government run clinic. Which is it?
If I turned magically into a pro-choicer right now but the rest of my opinions and knowledge remained the same I would say this:
What is needed is NOT a government run clinic. What is needed is for a better businessman to take over this failing clinic. Either that, or people who support abortions should be making donations to keep this one in business. Is it a charity? No. But I guarantee they'll cash a cheque if you mail one.
There is no good, non-moralistic argument against funding all cancer treatments to all patients. We've agreed that morals should not be imposed upon others. Therefore, any argument against the fact that ONTARIO needs to immediately fund ALL cancer treatments is laughable.
And yet, that is not how it is . . . see how that works. Government, like people, make choices every day. Don't like the choices? change the Government.
Until the NB electorate do that, then folks who are upset about this clinic going under can, much like men do with their PSA tests, fund it themselves.
And the reason I keep going back to the PSA, is that I suffer from a genetic disorder that makes my shot at colorectal cancer about 50% higher than the average for most folks. Just like your economic argument with respect to unwanted kids, men in my situation who cannot afford, or choose not to pay for the test, end up costing "the system" an astronomically higher cost, than if the test were funded and their cancers caught sooner. but, to use your term, that is the passive misandry that I/we find ourselves having to deal with.
Please make up your mind.
If you want government to avoid the imposition of morality on citizens, then a whole host of current government services are going to go away. and yes, Mother's Allowance will be one of them.
But that is not what you are arguing for . . . you are arguing for the imposition of your morality, in some misguided belief that your morality is somehow better than others.
Hubris, thy name is Mark.
#problemsolved
If you're morally against abortions, you don't need to have one.
Usually, though not this year yet, there is a collection of anti-abortion protestors down the street outside of the hospital near my place. It enrages me that these people show up. I'm all for your freedom of speech and right to protest, but these people don't see themselves as the (to use the current buzzword) bullies they are. Some poor girl / couple is going in there, making quite possibly one of the hardest decisions of their lives, and there's a collection of people out there (and they're always men, post baby making age women, or kids too young to not do what their parents are making them in the majority) telling them they shouldn't be, essentially because Gandalf says so.
Mark
So.. you're saying there is no argument AGAINST funding cancer treatments? Great.. I'm on board with that.
Your prostate test thing should be covered too - I'm on board with that. As a penis-carrying person, I have a vested interest in that. Now, if some woman came up to you and said "fuck that, I don't want my tax dollars going to you! I'm a lesbian and I'd be giddy to see everyone with a Y chromosome have to pay for their shit so I'm not wasting a minuscule percentage of my tax dollars on you because I'm a rancid man-hating bitch" (note: This is one fictional lesbian man-hating bitch I'm referencing, I"m not inferring all lesbians are as such).
Wouldn't you consider that particular "lady" to be insanely ridiculous?
Mark
As I responded to Trigs, LEGAL abortions do not equal MANDATORY abortions.
If you're against abortion, don't get one. This isn't a moral imposition of the government, this is the government taking responsibility to ensure all persons, regardless (there's that word that means there or not there) of one's personal morals is afforded the resources and opportunities to access medical procedures that are legally available.
YOU are defining moral imposition as the fact that since you and yours think abortions are immoral, then they shouldn't be accessible for anyone, at the LEAST not on your dime. In this case, I refer back to my man-hating lesbian.
If I thought it was morally wrong to eat meat, this is the equivalent of me throwing paint on anyone wearing leather, and protesting any meat-serving place of business. And everyone laughs at those nutjobs. Abortions, as well as eating meat, are legal, and those that have no moral problems with them should have access to them without harassment and red tape boogaloo.
Mark
Edit: Hubris? I can live with that as a descriptor, but you must acknowledge the fact the difference between my saying "Abortions need to be available for those that want it" vs. "Abortions are wrong, and should not be available to anyone". I'm not walking up to some ill-prepared young woman, who has improperly used contraception and is now pregnant, but a very religious gal, and telling her she really should go and get an abortion. See the difference?
Thanks, Tips.
Yet I have to pay for them? You don't see that as forcing morals on someone else? Imagine if the government was fully funding the very protesters you mention. Providing them with placards, megaphones, and Tim Horton's gift cards. Surely you would be outraged even more than just by their very presence.
Oh, and just for the record, I am against Milo's prostate checks being funded by the government. And all cancer treatments too. And Mother's Allowance (not sure it's called that anymore), and everything else the State pays for. Just so no one claims hypocrisy when I say abortion clinics should not be publicly funded.
So anything that is legal is automatically moral, and no one should speak out or be an activist against it? Clearly you are not a student of history, sir.
Many things are immoral that are not and should not be illegal. Many things are legal that are immoral.
"Vices are not crimes" ~ Lysander Spooner
Well that last part helps your stance. Fact is though, that my tax dollars go to tonnes of things I don't agree with / don't use. What about people who have a moral issue with any and all medical treatments? Should they be exempt from a LARGE amount of tax because in Canada we pay for most of this? I don't think many would say they should.
Do I think that they should still be funded? Sure. Now, if you're talking about things that I think are morally wrong, there is any number of things that I do fund tax wise that I disagree with. To turn Milo's thing against him, if you're against something morally, but it is legal and therefore should be available and funded (IMO), then you should move. If, for example, Ontario ever re-instituted the death penalty? I would 100% move, because my tax dollars going to killing someone isn't something I can live with.
Mark
Once again, I'm not the one calling morals into it. Milo did. If something is legal, and a medical procedure, it should be funded. Be it prostate checks, abortions, hysterectomies, and delivery rooms (note, I only use one of those).
The side claiming that their tax dollars should not fund something they are personally against are saying that their beliefs mean that you should not be able to access services at my expense, despite its recognized legality and people's right to it. I am saying that everyone's tax dollars should be utilized to provide services deemed legal and a right to access should be accessible to anyone THAT CHOOSES TO USE SAID SERVICE. Say my kid gets preggers at 15, and I'm a morally anti-abortion kinda fella? Well, I'm choosing not to access it. My kid at 15 gets preggers and due to lack of government responsibility, I can't access an abortion? Well, now I've a lifetime of responsibility (and likely cost to the government greater than an abortion) and dependence on social systems.
Mark
No, I have studiously tried to avoid the moral debate which surrounds abortion in this thread. The only times I have mentioned morals has been in response to your bringing it up.
There is currently a woman in my City who is being denied OHIP coverage for cancer drugs that will save her life. The reason is that these drugs are covered, but only for first time users. This is her second go-round. So, her treatment is legal, the drugs are covered, but she is being denied on a technicality.
Stories like this are abundant all across this province, and country. Personally, I would rather that my tax dollars go towards this woman's treatment, rather than what is essentially an elective procedure. I am not as strict a Libertarian as Big Mike, but I would sooner take his economics policies over what we currently have.
If it means these poor indigents going to the clinic have to fork out some of their own cash to get what is not a necessity in order that people like the woman I described above get to live, I am okay with that. I think if you polled most people and asked them that question, they would be too.
But to get back to the point, this clinic closing does NOT prevent women from getting abortions in New Brunswick. It makes it a little less convenient, but that is all. To that end, I say . . . tough.
And I really do not care if that makes me a callous bastard in your world.
A more accurate description would be that it is tolerated, or allowed.
That which is not illegal is, by definition, legal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do I think your friend should get her treatment? Yes.
And frankly your claim that a lack of a clinic in an entire province is "a little inconvenient" and that's just "tough" for them doesn't make you a callous bastard.
It may be a pretty interesting contribution to sn1perboys question about what constitutes being a good person.
Mark
Maybe in the strictest legal sense, but surely you don't describe everything that there isn't a specific law allowing or regulating as being in 'legal limbo'.
I would describe abortion in Canada as being legal, unlike other countries (every other one in the world, I think) where it is regulated.
Nah . . . just tweaking Mark a little with that one.
Abortions can still be carried out in hospitals in NB. Pretty sure they have a few of those . . .
AKA - "reaching"
Mark