Bricker
February 5, 2010, 12:39pm
116
emacknight:
Unless the baby is poor and can’t afford health care, then they deserve to die after they’re born.
Seems strange that you would force a life to be born only to then force it to die because the mother can’t afford health care.
And let’s not forget that babies born with pre-existing conditions will also get excluded from health insurance, and ultimately bankrupt the parents.
Wouldn’t the most logically consistent argument be, “if you can’t afford to pay for your child’s medical care, the pregnancy should be terminated.”
Force a woman to be pregnant, but don’t provide pre-natal care, increasing the likely hood of low birth weight and neo-natal problems, then dump the child into a world without health care, where it will ultimately die of an easily preventable condition. Sounds like a very long and very complicated abortion to me. But I guess potato potato.
Those are very compelling arguments. And if we restricted abortion, I have to say that we’d be morally obligated to provide some form of universal health care, pre-cradle to grave.