Abortion Coverage
In recent news, Illinois lawmakers have passed the law that abortions can be paid with medical
insurance. This topic has been a big thing recently since many people do not
think that medical insurance should cover abortions because it promotes killing
a child. However, others believe it allows all women to be in control of their
body.
As stated earlier,
many people feel that this law promotes the killing of a human being. Some
critics of this newly passed law state how people will now try to use this as a
new form of birth control and that this might be taken advantage of.
Nonetheless, many people have been asking the question “where will funding for
this come from?”. This is an issue because higher education cannot be funded
but the state has money to cover the harming of children.
However, people who
support the new law states that since this has now passed it will allow people
who accidentally got pregnant and cannot afford to get an abortion to do so.
Many say this will reduce harm towards unwanted children.
In my opinion, I think that abortions should not be covered
under Medicaid because that extra money can be used to better the state. I do,
however, think that abortions should be cheaper so people want have to stress
about the payment of an abortion.
SEPEDA-MILLER,
KIANNAH. "Democratic Illinois House OKs Public Funding for
Abortions."U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World
Report, 25 Apr. 2017. Web. 27 Apr. 2017.
The critical question with abortion is the issue of when a zygote or embryo or fetus becomes a child. At some point in the pregnancy, the baby is a human child, and should be protected, unless there are complications that endanger the mother’s life or possibly defects that mean the child will die within seconds or hours of birth. But, when does this point stand? Is it within minutes of fertilization of the egg, or the zygote's implantation into the wall of the uterus? Is it in the eighth week of development, the 10th week, the 12th week, the 15th week, the 20th week, the 22nd week, or when? So long as the thing in the woman is not a human child, abortions seem morally neutral, or possibly beneficial. A person who doesn't want a child, is too young or too poor to rear the child, and wants to terminate a pregnancy before the embryo has become a child is possibly doing something meritorious. But, when an abortion is performed after the threshold has been crossed, then an abortion is essentially the killing of a child, and it is morally objectionable.
Very few Americans think that the embryo is a human child in the first week or two of development, and most people are not opposed to abortions performed in the first month or first six weeks of a pregnancy. Those who do oppose abortions even in the first hours or weeks of a pregnancy almost always base their opposition on religious beliefs, and our government is supposed to stay out of theological and religious disputes.
Opposing public spending on abortions on the basis of cost seems odd to me. The costs of allowing a poor and unwilling mother bear a child are potentially far higher to that mother and society in general than the relatively modest cost of an abortion. The main objection to public-funded abortions that appeals to me is the idea that some people take such a strong and deeply-held objection to abortions that we ought to respect their strong feelings and refrain from using public expenditure on such a controversial procedure. Let abortions be funded by private charities and non-profit corporations. I say this argument has some appeal to me, but I do not say it is persuasive. I actually hold no firm opinion on this matter; I'm inclined to desire that abortions are legal and affordable and accessible, but I'm also inclined to oppose abortions and desire a society in which no woman chooses to have an abortion.
I recommend the ACLU fact sheet about public funding for abortions.
A television station in Chicago covered this issue.
Public broadcasting in Urbana-Champaign covered this bill as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment