From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxm!houxa!houxi!houxz!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan Newsgroups: net.women Title: Re: Abortion is a *personal* decision, m - (nf) Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1511 Posted: Fri Feb 18 20:30:09 1983 Received: Mon Feb 21 05:50:14 1983 #R:utcsrgv:-103100:uiucdcs:31600005:000:2668 uiucdcs!mcewan Feb 18 18:30:00 1983 ***** uiucdcs:net.women / utcsrgv!bobr / 7:48 pm Feb 14, 1983 ... Equating "abortion on demand" with "money on demand" shows, in my opinion, an extremely simplistic approach to a complicated problem which DOES involve (dare I say it) moral VALUES even if Mr cbostrum does not want to realize this. ... ----------I am getting sick of seeing articles from illiterates that flame about something they completely misread. The article you are responding to was clearly talking about FUNDING abortions, not about the legality of abortion. Although the two subjects are related, they are very different. ***** uiucdcs:net.women / yale-com!mwolf / 10:22 am Feb 17, 1983 If a person is poor enough that the government is paying for the rest of her health care, then she is very unlikely to have money to spare to pay for an abortion. Since very few doctors will perform and abortion without getting paid, this means that, by refusing to pay for the abortion, the govenment is preventing the person from having one. If those who can afford it are allowed to have abortions and those who cannot afford it are prevented, we have two moralities. Since all people should be equal in the eyes of the law, I think that this is a bad thing. I am not necessarily arguing that women should or should not be allowed to have abortions. I just think that the rules should be the same for all women, instead of having one rule for people who pay for their own health- care and a different rule for those who cannot. -Mary-Anne Wolf ---------- Lets see; very few car salesmen will give someone a Rolls Royce without being paid, this means that, by refusing to pay for the Rolls Royce, the government is preventing a poor person from having one. If those who can afford it are allowed to have Rolls Royces and those who cannot afford it are prevented, we have two moralities. Since all people should be equal in the eyes of the law, I think that this is a bad thing. The government should therefore buy everyone who cannot afford one a Rolls Royce. Seriously, since the government has already made the decision to fund medical treatment for the poor, I think they should fund abortion as well. >From a purely economic stand point, it makes much more sense to pay for the abortion then for the much more costly childbirth, and that's not even counting the tremendous expense of raising the resulting child. However, it's a totally different matter to say the poor should get money for abortions *because the rich can afford it.* Rich people can do a lot of things that poor people (or middle class people) can't. That's the point of being rich.