Abortion - Great Idea, but will all agree?

Question

Political compromise is great when practical.

There is not a lot that Pro/Anti abortion folks can agree on but I believe this is a great step toward reducing abortion that both sides should agree with.

Take profit out of abortion.

If we drew up legislation that would keep abortion legal but would only allow it to be performed by not-for-profit agencies, this would go along way toward reducing the propaganda that is pushed into an industry that I think we can all agree should not be motivated by money.

What say you?

Answer 1

There may not always be an non-profit org with the required facilities, so I'd expand it to allow any qualified medical facility but keep the "no profit" requirement for the procedure.

Another snag is that this works fine of objective costs, such as materials or use of medical buildings. But the tricky bit is defining "no profit" when it comes to salaries and payments for medical personnel involved. Do they need to act for free, or at some maximum rate of pay for time?

But overall, I see no problem with this idea. It won't make any of the anti-choice people happy, and most such procedures are already being done by non-profit orgs, and it goes against the very concept of capitalism, but other than that I have no objection.

Answer 2

Sure I guess that would work, but we should also take funding away from the churches who have crazy misinformed people that participate in these anti-abortion rallies. They are uninformed and spread spotty information and don't know what they are talking about most of the time.

I think we can all agree that it should not be used as a method as birth control because it's impractical and much more time consuming and risky than simply taking birth control pills or the morning after pill.

I'm a guy but I support a woman's right to choose and her uterus is her property. As the old saying goes.

Don't like abortions? DON'T HAVE ONE.

Answer 3

I think the woman's health is more important than money.

I think if the woman could stay out of situations where pregnancy was likely to happen, perhaps most of this abortion discussion would be limited.

I am pro-life, but I am not that far out on the deep end. I can understand the necessity for an abortion and even the Orthodox Church has prayers of forgiveness for those who've had abortions and for those souls who've died during abortions.

Answer 4

That sounds like a liberal compromise. I agree with one of your respondents that the main issue is not money, but morality. Yes, money is a factor for the doctors that perform them and taking the profit out of it would make abortions less available. If they are less available, black market abortions might have a resurgence. We don't want that to happen either.
Coming from the conservative side of the fence, I believe that young people make mistakes on a regular basis, including their procreative proclivities. The answer is to make the babies available for adoption to families that want a child but can't have one of their own. Adoptions would be more common if they were more available and less expensive. Of course the best answer is for people to not engage in sexual activity unless they are willing and able to accept the natural consequences of such activity. Chastity before marriage and fidelity after marriage. It is a simple and foolproof solution.

Answer 5

If you take profit out of a specific medical practice, you are setting a dangerous legal precedent. Which medical practice will be next? In vitro fertilization? Cosmetic surgery? Psychiatry? How about just going all the way and having non-profit universal health insurance?

Answer 6

That's not how non profit groups work. They still pay salaries and expenses and if it looks like they are going to have a profit at the end of the year, they simply write bonus checks to clear the profit. The profit is still there, they just pay it out in bonuses and don't pay corporate taxes.

The second problem with your idea, is that it doesn't change the nature of abortion. It's still killing for convenience.

Answer 7

to a definite quantity, definite certainly. If the foetus isnt so previous that it would even word of what's occurring, and if the abortion might extra useful the lives of those in touch then i think of its ok. the only ingredient which I hate is human beings being careless and having to get abortions extra beneficial than as quickly as using fact of sloppiness. in case you arent in good condition to have a new child, you may determine you dont finally end up with one on your abdomen!

Answer 8

It's not about profit, or who performs it, the anti-abortion people don't want abortions at all, so there is no compromise with them.

Answer 9

Its a nice idea, but not practical.
As a medical procedure, it is an expensive procedure to conduct. Non for profits would need to secure not only qualified medical personel, but liability insurance, safe medical facilities, etc. No matter how you try, its still a service provided, and someone is needing paid. I would feel it would endanger those seeking such service if it was not preformed professionally. It is unfortunate that people would profit from such procedures- but there are many other things that people profit from also.

Answer 10

The issue most people have with abortion has nothing to do with money. It all has to do with when they think human life starts. Opponents of abortion feel that human lives should not be exterminated.

Personally, I think it should be legal because women will still do it regardless, but it is much safer if a doctor does it.