Numbness in the Pro-Life Cause

[Latias]

Considering many of those “overwhelming reasons” have to do how expensive it costs to carry a baby for nine months and then additional expenses once the baby is born, I would like to know which of those agencies actively work to make deliveries more affordable. Why, if abortion is murder and we need to everything possible to prevent babies from being killed, logic would dictate that deliveries would be and should be more affordable than abortion, but they’re not. Why not? What’s being done to make deliveries more affordable so women won’t want to kill their babies since SOMEBODY has to pay for those deliveries – someone has to pay the obscenely expensive hospital bills – and the state cannot compel a woman to PAY for something she doesn’t want. It’s not that many woman having abortions can’t afford deliveries (that’s a myth) – they can – it’s that they don’t have the expensive childbirth costs adequately financed. Not trolling, just asking tough questions I don’t see being addressed in the “pro-life” camp.

You are right. There are reasons why many women are desperate to use illicit, back-alley abortions.

It sometimes cost too much to bear a child.

 

[RCinMT]

Considering many of those “overwhelming reasons” have to do how expensive it costs to carry a baby for nine months and then additional expenses once the baby is born, I would like to know which of those agencies actively work to make deliveries more affordable. Why, if abortion is murder and we need to everything possible to prevent babies from being killed, logic would dictate that deliveries would be and should be more affordable than abortion, but they’re not. Why not? What’s being done to make deliveries more affordable so women won’t want to kill their babies since SOMEBODY has to pay for those deliveries – someone has to pay the obscenely expensive hospital bills – and the state cannot compel a woman to PAY for something she doesn’t want. It’s not that many woman having abortions can’t afford deliveries (that’s a myth) – they can – it’s that they don’t have the expensive childbirth costs adequately financed. Not trolling, just asking tough questions I don’t see being addressed in the “pro-life” camp.

I addressed that: adoptive parents generally pay the labor and delivery costs. Plus, both Catholic and other hospitals have financial assistance available to patients.

I can give you a very concrete example: a co-worker’s daughter just adopted twins. The mother of the girls became pregnant, didn’t want to have an abortion but was financially unable to keep the babies. She went to her local church who placed her in a home for pregnant women in difficult situations, saw to her prenatal care and my co-worker’s daughter covered all L&D costs, partly through her own employer’s adoption assistance policy (which is a fairly common fringe benefit).

You’re not asking tough questions, you’re asking very simple questions that can be answered with a modicum of effort by serious people.

 

[Rau]

…The average pro-lifer (in my experience) is much more outraged at terrorist attacks or school shootings…

This is understandable since the nature of attachment we humans experience to born persons is greater than it is to the recently conceived.

…If you believe that abortion is murder, but you still think it should be legal, then you are a sociopath.

If you on the one hand exhibit, and expect others to exhibit, the respect due to the unborn, but you believe abortion should be forever legal, then that is difficult to comprehend. However, it does NOT follow that the moral course is to pursue an immediate legal prohibition. In moving toward a proper approach to respect for the unborn we must have regard to the effects of the changes we seek to make - and we must judge that the effects will on balance be good. There may be much groundwork that needs to be established before any legal prohibition is a positive change.

 

[Rau]

…What absolutely confuses me is why there is no interest whatsoever in the motive of WHY do women even want an abortion in the first place? How can we stop the killing of unborn babies if nobody cares to know why so many women are killing their babies? Isn’t that an important thing we should want to know so that we can help STOP the killing of so many babies? I just don’t get it – nobody wants to talk about motive, and nobody wants to talk about how expensive deliveries are.

Who is not interested? In the US, the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute are sources of abortion stats, including the “why” question.

Where’s the “PRO-LIFE” legislation to make abortion more expensive? Why have we allowed abortions to be so affordable?

While abortion is broadly viewed as a woman’s “right”, such legislation would be characterised as an assault on that right, one step shy of removing that right. I don’t understand your incredulity.

 

[Rau]

There’s plenty of data out there on why women don’t want the babies and the overwhelming reasons are related to lifestyle…

That is a major factor. Poverty also plays a huge part.

 

[Rau]

…What’s being done to make deliveries more affordable so women won’t want to kill their babies since SOMEBODY has to pay for those deliveries – someone has to pay the obscenely expensive hospital bills – and the state cannot compel a woman to PAY for something she doesn’t want.

The way in which the cost of healthcare services is met varies greatly from one society to another. In some - the healthcare practically available is a strong function of the individual’s financial resources. In others, there is a degree of “socialisation” of healthcare such that services (eg. public hospitals etc.) are broadly available to all, independent of personal wealth. Perhaps your point fits within the broader question of how healthcare costs are met.

 

[randomuser]

You’re not asking tough questions, you’re asking very simple questions that can be answered with a modicum of effort by serious people.

Respectfully: if what I’m asking are very simple questions, then why DON’T more women “choose life,” anyway, when they don’t want the baby? Why don’t they inconvenience themselves for nine months, just to give the baby away? It’s because of the huge, undeniable difference in costs between abortion and deliveries – no, as another OP snarked, no parents have to pay the $50,000 tab at the hospital before they can leave with the newborn. There may or may not be insurance to help with costs. Yet, if they want to pay for abortion, it’s simply – and I do mean “simply” – $300-$500, paid in full, end of story, no further additional expenses they need to pay. Hence, the prevailing (and undeniable) disparity in costs – carrying a baby for nine whole months, when the mother doesn’t want the baby, costs much more emotionally and financially than it does to simply get an abortion. Like I said previously: If abortion’s murder, then why don’t we do more to make childbirth more accessible? Isn’t the slaughter of so many babies worth the tax cuts (for example) to hospitals that agree to reduce costs? You are correct that these are “simple” questions, but** I simply don’t see the “modicum of effort” being made to make delivery more affordable vs. drafting more and more legislation ostensibly designed to get the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Ward. ** Why is there absolutely zippo PRO-LIFE legislation intended to help make deliveries more affordable? Where’s the “modicum of effort” to help pay for social programs and financial assistance so the parents (especially if a single parent) can properly care for the baby after he or she is born? Where’s the Pro-Life Affordable Delivery Act? And why are so many food-stamp programs being cut? Don’t even get me started on Florida or Texas.

 

[randomuser]

Who is not interested? In the US, the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute are sources of abortion stats, including the “why” question.

While abortion is broadly viewed as a woman’s “right”, such legislation would be characterised as an assault on that right, one step shy of removing that right. I don’t understand your incredulity.

Thank you for proving my point. Such legislation to increase the cost of abortions – and thereby (perhaps some day) make deliveries more affordable or comparable by comparison – should be paramount on PRO-LIFE legislation. Requiring ultrasounds, requiring pre-abortion “counseling,” requiring the abortionist to have hospital-admitting privileges, et cetera… simply don’t do much to increase the costs of abortion. Where’s the PRO-LIFE legislation to jack up the costs of getting an abortion – there could be licensing requirements (that would jack up the rates), for example. For another example, medical malpractice insurance carriers could jack up their premiums. As long as abortion’s still legal and as long as it’s still way more affordable that delivery, why isn’t there any legislation to increase the cost of abortions so women will look at the costs of deliveries by comparison and say, *“Hmm…it really would be more affordable to choose life.” * Don’t you want women who would otherwise kill their babies to instead say, “Hmmm…it really would be more affordable to choose life”?

 

[RCinMT]

Respectfully: if what I’m asking are very simple questions, then why DON’T more women “choose life,” anyway, when they don’t want the baby? Why don’t they inconvenience themselves for nine months, just to give the baby away? It’s because of the huge, undeniable difference in costs between abortion and deliveries – no, as another OP snarked, no parents have to pay the $50,000 tab at the hospital before they can leave with the newborn. There may or may not be insurance to help with costs. Yet, if they want to pay for abortion, it’s simply – and I do mean “simply” – $300-$500, paid in full, end of story, no further additional expenses they need to pay. Hence, the prevailing (and undeniable) disparity in costs – carrying a baby for nine whole months, when the mother doesn’t want the baby, costs much more emotionally and financially than it does to simply get an abortion. Like I said previously: If abortion’s murder, then why don’t we do more to make childbirth more accessible? Isn’t the slaughter of so many babies worth the tax cuts (for example) to hospitals that agree to reduce costs? You are correct that these are “simple” questions, but** I simply don’t see the “modicum of effort” being made to make delivery more affordable vs. drafting more and more legislation ostensibly designed to get the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Ward. ** Why is there absolutely zippo PRO-LIFE legislation intended to help make deliveries more affordable? Where’s the “modicum of effort” to help pay for social programs and financial assistance so the parents (especially if a single parent) can properly care for the baby after he or she is born? Where’s the Pro-Life Affordable Delivery Act? And why are so many food-stamp programs being cut? Don’t even get me started on Florida or Texas.

Women aren’t having abortions because of money–let’s be serious here. The number one reason they cite is lifestyle as in they don’t want their lifestyle disturbed at all, not even for nine months.

The poor in this country would be incredibly wealthy in several, if not most, other nations. Why are food stamps being cut? Because people are forgoing work in some instances because they can get more money from the government. Government can’t be the solution for everything.

Take a look at Paul Ryan’s Better Way Forward plan.

 

[Rau]

…Such legislation to increase the cost of abortions – and thereby (perhaps some day) make deliveries more affordable or comparable by comparison – should be paramount on PRO-LIFE legislation. Requiring ultrasounds, requiring pre-abortion “counseling,” requiring the abortionist to have hospital-admitting privileges, et cetera… simply don’t do much to increase the costs of abortion. Where’s the PRO-LIFE legislation to jack up the costs of getting an abortion – there could be licensing requirements (that would jack up the rates), for example. For another example, medical malpractice insurance carriers could jack up their premiums. As long as abortion’s still legal and as long as it’s still way more affordable that delivery, why isn’t there any legislation to increase the cost of abortions so women will look at the costs of deliveries by comparison and say, *“Hmm…it really would be more affordable to choose life.” *

The legislation is not proposed because legislators anticipate it would fail or be unacceptable to the constituency.