should federally funded health care benifits be extended to fetuses or unborn children? why or why not?

Answer 1

I want you to think about this question for a second.

Where is an unborn child?

Right. In the mother's body.

And if something happens to the unborn child to threaten its health, where do doctors have to go?

That's right. Inside the mother's body with some procedure or another or some kind of medical attention.

If they dont do that, what happens?

That's right. Both the mother and child's lives are in jeopardy.

And where do the benefits come from?

That's right. In this case, from federally funded health care.

So, is there any need to fund health care benefits to unborn children when they are already covered?

That's right. No.

EDIT:

Any procedure that threatens the health of the child and that is life threatening also threatens the health and life of the mother and is covered under any plan. Anything that's not is covered after birth.

Answer 2

So, cyanne2ak is a medical expert as well.

Not!

There are many procedures that are performed on an unborn child before it's birth.

The mother's healthcare covers a lot but the child needs coverage as well, separate from the mothers.

Answer 3

Absolutely not! That is a waste of money. The mother's prenatal care is all that I would approve. As for the fetus, ALL procedures on a fetus are ELECTIVE procedures. They are NOT necessary and can ALWAYS wait until the child is born.

Answer 4

they already covering it