Friday February 17, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Women face tough choices on abortion coverage

World Nov. 13, 2009 - 05:12AM JST ( 24 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

24 Comments

0

adaydreamNov. 13, 2009 - 07:37AM JST

I'm not really concerned about this issue. There will still be state, private help agencies, earmarked bills for Planned Parenthood and other avenues to obtain an abortion. It's the ability to get them, not the ability to pay for them that I'm ever concerned with.

This is just a distracting story. < :-)
0

MolenirNov. 13, 2009 - 07:45AM JST

Who really cares about this. Honestly. The bill itself is such a disaster that using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions seems almost meaningless in comparison. That said, it seems like a no brainer. If you want an abortion, then you will have to take responsibility for it, and pay for it yourself. If you don't want an abortion, then exercise some restraint, use birth control, or simply, don't get pregnant. Fairly easy to avoid considering the methods of contraception that are all readily available.
0

adaydreamNov. 13, 2009 - 08:02AM JST

Rape and incest aren't pregnancies that can be planned for. < :-)
0

skipthesongNov. 13, 2009 - 09:01AM JST

how about fining people for not having protected sex?
0

adaydreamNov. 13, 2009 - 09:06AM JST

That's a child. There's your penalty. < :-)
0

MolenirNov. 13, 2009 - 09:52AM JST

Rape and incest aren't pregnancies that can be planned for. < :-)

Hence the reason why those exceptions are specifically covered, even in this disaster of a bill.
0

BadseyNov. 13, 2009 - 10:06AM JST

This is why I am pro-choice. At any time this bill becomes a loser I want to kill it. -I want that added as a rider to my insurance.
0

DarkKnghtZNov. 13, 2009 - 10:24AM JST

Why is this bill even an issue? Last time I checked (outside of the already covered rape and god forbid incest) people dont just slip on the sidewalk and get pregnant. Im pretty sure you have to elect to have sex. Its time people started facing the music for their decisions. You want to have sex? Thats fine, its your right, but the consequences should not be the governments responsibility. There are plethora of BOTH male and female birth control methods. If pregnancy isnt for you, then use/have him use one method.
0

kokorocloudNov. 13, 2009 - 11:21AM JST

*“Abortion coverage should be part of the regular package,” Crane said. “Women don’t expect unplanned pregnancies and don’t expect their wanted pregnancies to go wrong. ... They don’t anticipate needing abortion coverage so they wouldn’t buy a rider.”

“This is a middle-class abortion ban that would impact millions of middle-class women,” added Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “It’s saying to them, ‘You can’t get full coverage that meets your needs.’”*

Arguements like this make me angry. I agree that if they have to, it should cover it in the cases of rape or threats to the mother's life, but to call it a NEED to have an abortion? I find that kind of sickening. You may not have "planned" to get pregnant, but that's kind of your problem, isn't it? You have to make a choice to have sex. Why should the government pay for you to freely have sex and then simply abort the baby because "you didn't plan on it"?
0

HehehohohahaNov. 13, 2009 - 01:47PM JST

I really do not like abortion. it offends on so many levels. This what I think about it. But since I am not a woman and I believe in personal freedoms I cannot legislate what a woman can or cannot do. What I can do what I can to protect life by supporting single mothers, equal pay for equal work, etc. in other words to remove the economic and social reasons why a woman "needs" an abortion.
0

ronaldkNov. 13, 2009 - 01:54PM JST

The rape and incest example is always thrown out there like an old dull christmas bulb that you hang on the tree every year for the sake of sentimentality. But really, is this a big problem? Is there any data on how many women in the US really get pregnant via those two methods per year?
0

skipthesongNov. 13, 2009 - 02:13PM JST

I wonder what people did back in the day before there was such a thing as abortion. I really don't like the idea of abortion out of convenience which one of the women in this article is saying.
0

YelnatsNov. 13, 2009 - 03:06PM JST

My thoughts are, if you have to get an abortion because you are already kidded out, then the money it costs you ...match that amount against the taxes you must pay and do not pay it. Anti abortion garbage really hurts the poor.

Anti-abortionists should have to register in a computer bank, and every time an unwanted baby is born, the computer randomly selects a name and you cannot say no. The kid becomes yours to raise. Problem solved.
0

sensei258Nov. 13, 2009 - 03:12PM JST

I believe in a woman's right to choose - they can choose to have unprotected sex or not (rape/incest cause only a small fraction of pregnancies). Is your child inconvenient? Should have taken precautions. Because getting aborted is sure as hell inconvenient for the unborn.
0

numbskullNov. 13, 2009 - 05:48PM JST

I can understand the talk about rape, but not incest. If relatives of legal age decide to have sex its their business. If they decide to have kids, we are not going to force an abortion. Not all incest babies are retarded you know.

And if a father rapes his own daughter, its not incest. Its rape and incest, the problem being rape. So why not just talk about rape? Is incest thrown in for entertainment value?
0

dolphingirlNov. 13, 2009 - 06:10PM JST

I am pro-choice. I believe that the majority of women do not make the decision to have an abortion lightly. And I would guess that most of the women who have abortions are those who face financial difficulties, young women who aren't mature enough emotionally, and single women who prefer not to have the child because they are not in a commited relationship.

Sometimes no matter how careful you are, accidents will happen. It's totally unfair to hold the woman 100% accountable when the man simply has to walk away. I think allowing these women to get an abortion that is covered by general health insurance is better than forcing some of these women to have unwanted babies which, in the long run, causes more stress on society.
0

HonestDictatorNov. 13, 2009 - 07:58PM JST

The man is held accountable, but only if the woman chooses to keep the child. With as many contraceptives we have around, unplanned pregnancies should be practically nonexistant. Its smarter to use combinations of contraceptives, condoms+spermicide, Condoms+the pill etc. Only in cases of rape, threat to the mothers life, I won't say incest because if its not caused by rape, then they sure as hell should have known better.

Remember if you think an abortion is every womans right to choose no matter what the circumstances are is right, your mothers also had the choice to not allow you a chance at life in this world as well. Hence you would not even have the opportunity to comment on this subject. Think about it.
0

samwattersNov. 13, 2009 - 11:31PM JST

If abortion is covered in this new health plan, I demand that child support enforcement be, with the exception of marriage, immediately eliminated. The double standard here is sickening.
0

Good_JorbNov. 14, 2009 - 12:16AM JST

If you believe studies like those of Steven D. Levitt, then publicly paid for abortions makes economic sense.

Unwanted children born into poorer families have at least according to Levitt's studies, have a much higher propensity to commit crimes when the grow older then others. Therefore, if you do a net present value comparison, the cost of abortion is a lot less then cost of dealing future criminals. Wade vs Roe is cited by Levitts' as the cause of the decrease in crime in the US over the last three decades.

That would speaking from a purely economic sense of course, the metaphysical arguments are a lot less black and white but often end with one side trying to impose their beliefs on the other side(which rarely ever works).
0

OneForAllNov. 14, 2009 - 12:55AM JST

Why have this discussion? Think! Who are we? What capabilities do we have? Repect them. Male and Female are meant for each other and children are born. What a wonderful gift in understanding humanity to the fullest, another is born. Quite wonderful. Man needs woman and woman needs man to understand themselves. We are meant for the other. And a child is born. Marvelous.
0

OneForAllNov. 14, 2009 - 12:59AM JST

sp. respect - one always gets by.
0

dolphingirlNov. 14, 2009 - 04:07AM JST

OneForAll: 'We are meant for the other'. I'm sorry but I do not totally agree with your statment if you mean that a man is supposed to be with a woman and have children. I don't need a man to understand who I am. (Although opposing qualities can help me learn and grow.) What about gay men and women? I do agreee that a child is a gift but as good jorb pointed out, if a child born is unwanted, not cared for properly, not loved then isn't it better not to bring that child into the world. And if you believe that every being has a soul, then that soul will be be born into another being.
0

usaexpatNov. 14, 2009 - 06:40AM JST

As usual special interests causing flawed legislation. It doesn't matter if it's the right or left everything can be blamed on special inetrest groups. By the way are there any pro-lifers who have a standing agreement to feed, clothe and educate every unwanted baby they "save" ? Thought not.....
0

usaexpatNov. 14, 2009 - 06:51AM JST

ronaldk: Who cares how many women get pregnant from rape and incest, one is too many and certainly one is too many to order to deliver the child of the guy who violated her.