Some thoughts on the logic of the proposed abortion legislation changes...

[lightstorm]

There has been legislation proposed that states that the only situation where government funds can be used to assist women in need of abortions, is when a pregnancy results from a violent/forcible rape committed by a stranger to the victim.

The modern US woman on average will live to be 80 years old.  At age 13 she will begin having a regular

Comments

Government funds

[ext_422156]

Let me say, I think there's no legitimate argument to make abortions illegal - all the arguments are all spurious. But that said, what are we actually talking about here? You say "the only situation where government funds can be used"... is that opposed to funds from, say, medical insurance?

Now, not being a US resident I'm not familiar with exactly what gets covered by whom, if at all, so please forgive and correct my ignorance. But my understanding is that the government covers little to nothing for at least the majority of the population. Would it not be a consistent stance, then, to defer to medical insurance to also foot this medical bill? (I'll admit it's a pretty heartless stance especially to people without insurance, but I'm playing devil's advocate here.) Honest question.

I'll also point out that a woman is fertile quite a bit longer than just the 2 days she ovulates. One of the reasons is that sperm can live inside the body for 3-5 days, meaning the fertility duration is more on the order of a week each month - that's almost 25%. I doubt it changes your general conclusion, but I thought I'd mention it.

Peace,
Tachyon

Re: Government funds

[lightstorm]

About 2/3 of medical insurance providers in the US cover abortion in part, though there are often stipulations as to the nature of the procedure. Such as, if it's necessary to the health or well-being of the woman as opposed to "elective," which is not generally covered. And providers are usually pretty strict.

To be fair, abortion is not astronomically expensive, but Government funds are generally available for women who either become pregnant as a result of rape or are in medical danger, and cannot afford it out of pocket, and are not covered by insurance. It's basically in place as assistance to those in fairly dire circumstances, to give them one less thing to worry about.

Basically the problem I take with this, is that it seems like the legislature specifically whittles down the circumstances to the one which is exponentially least likely to happen. Where pregnancy from violent stranger rape is about one in a million, some of those others are as common as one in 100. Not to mention the need for abortions for women whose lives are in danger by the pregnancy. It's just a huge cop-out by claiming that violent stranger rape is the only "legitimate" form of rape, and therefore is the only kind in which a victim should be provided with assistance if needed.

And yea, ovulation can be longer than 2 days, but from what I could find it seems like any length of time after that is pretty unpredictable. 2 days seemed to be the time frame where fertility was pretty much guaranteed in the average woman, so it seemed the best to go with.

I do admit to taking a kinda knee-jerk response to all this, and didn't explain some of it well, especially for anyone who's not familiar with the US system. And I apologize. It is an emotional issue.