we already know that that doesn't work
we already know that that doesn't work
Instead of just blankly restricting access, and disproportionately effecting poorer women why not suggest a system wherein all abortions are subsidized until a certain income range.
Then, if a woman has X amount of abortions that they must receive some counselling prior to the procedure etc.
You've done your due diligence then. I really dont know (slash want to know) whats involved in the procedure from a pain/comfort/stigma/blah blah blah blah point of view, but I imagine that its fun. "Really loving this abortion, cant wait to do it next month woooh".
Simples.
And honestly, catch 'em early and you just pop a pill or two to abort. Sure your vag is bleeding chunks for a few weeks and it's fucking disgusting, but it spares you the vacuum.
The procedure itself is fucking ass, combined with the cost, I dont think there are many women getting 3+ a year, sounds like obamaphone to me to be honest. I'm sure there are a few, but that can be said for p. much anything on the planet.
lolhellbent on abusing abortion
Originally Posted by http://www.theonion.com/articles/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex,20476
No, I don't, because abortions and birth control have never been widely covered by insurance companies, to the best of my knowledge - at least none of the insurance companies I've been through. (I will admit that I may be wrong, this is anecdotal evidence.) I've always had to go to Planned Parenthood for my birth control.
It isn't a far stretch to say that women who have repeated abortions to the point that it affects their reproductive health will end up costing insurance companies much more in the long run than women who choose other methods of contraception. Do I think this is widespread? Probably not. And I'd wager a lot more data needs to be collected. But like other medical procedures, there's a cap to how many per year you can have done. Mammograms and pap smears come to mind off the top of my head.
Regardless, I have personal qualms against widespread abortion use as a birth control method. I will admit to that. Yes, part of it is the added cost, part of it is my own morality. I would never say that abortion should be taken completely away. But I think that women should really understand abortion as a last resort while doing what they can to prevent pregnancy in the first place.
And with that, as fun as this has been, I really need to get back to work, because I've been slacking and I have a ton of shit to get done before 5. Whoops.
Personally, I'm channeling Mr/Ms. Garrison right now.
http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.c...t-out-16x9.jpg
I'll just leave it at this. I'm a male and abortion is at the top of my list of things I never ever want to go through again. I would imagine even the loosest of hos feel the same way.
http://resources1.news.com.au/images...8141-zoe-2.jpg
Liked abortion so much she went back for thirds!
Seriously guys, how often do you think women get pregnant per year on average if you think 3 abortions or more a year is the norm and get head-over-heels about it?
Besides, do you honestly think that women who gets more than 3 abortions a year would use pills even if provided to her for free?
Majority of the Republican base likes to think so.
Serial abortionists
addicted to the rush of killing fetuses
With Brazzers stamped over it?
I think you all are jumping at aks for no reason. The chances of some women is so small that two is really just an arbitrary number in many ways that even if you want insurance to cover it, the number should not be that big of a deal to you.
I see where she is coming from and agree. To me, in a perfect world abortions should only be done because of health complications since unwanted pregnancies no longer exist. Now, I know it is not a perfect world and I don't think we could ever get there, but I would like us to focus more on that being the goal. Make it so unwanted pregnancies are as rare as we can possibly make them. A good start is a stronger education and easy access to free contraception. I don't think it would be too hard to make it so next to no women need more than one abortion a year, let alone two or more. So if insurance companies wanted to put a cap to hopefully make more women more careful about having unprotected sex, let them imo.
also, aks made a good point in that having three pregnancies a year would be bad on the woman's system. The US is working more and more about doing preventative medicine for everyone which is good, I don't know why this should be the exception. After the first one, hospitals should offer the woman a free IUD or something to try and prevent her from needing to come back.
there's no disagreement on education as prevention, why keep bringing it up
Tangent: but it is annoying that often when people talk about free contraceptions they immediately think of condoms and pills, which are the two easiest forms people can fuck up. An IUD can last five (mirena) or ten (paraguard) years, and you can have them removed at anytime if you want to finally get pregnant. The shot is every three months. Of course, these aren't for everyone, but I think we would severely reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies if we focused more on the "get it and forget it" kinds. Unwanted pregnancies don't just happen because someone could not afford a condom (pp gives them out for free or cheap), it is often because people are horny and if they ran out or forgot them, they don't want to wait.
When people say condoms and pills I don't think is Limited to just that. That is just what comes to mind first.
I would like to add to this that although there is no disagreement, there has been a large push from some factions to limit/minimize the amount of sex education in public schools. Something along the lines of Abstinence being the only sex education that should be taught.