>>113201>The World Health Organization just said people have undeniable reproductive rights
The WHO is not a legal authority. They cannot ratify any legislation, they can merely advice people.
>Not too long ago Texas passed a law that defunded many free clinics and Planned Parenthood with reasoning that they were not at "hospital standard" to host abortions even though many of them only administered bc/checkups, or abortions via pill
Which, correct me if I'm wrong, was overturned by the supreme court, for this reason>We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so."
Not the best example when it wasn't legally sound.
>Because viability is weighed by gestational age, however that can only be calculated by inspection of the sonogram or else it's the woman's word against the obgyn
Which is arbitrary because?
>They are not always accurate and it's impossible to account for all variables
This is like saying that a brain cancer is arbitrary because CT scans aren't always accurate, and can't account for every variable.
Nothing is 100% accurate, that doesn't make it arbitrary.
>Therefore, it would be pretty arbitrary for a woman whose fetus's actual gestational age was 23 weeks but because of a spurt or the obgyn's overestimation of size, she was actually determined to be at 24 weeks and could not get an abortion because of that.
That's not anything that can be changed though anon, as medical standards have to be set for entire populations, you can't base it off outlying cases or possible variables. A doctor getting something wrong doesn't mean it's arbitrary, and arguing that we should make the regulations around the actual surgical procedure of abortion more lax won't do anything but increase the risk to women who need them.
>Not all. Most insurances have a copay for obgyn visits.
What reason do you have to see an obgyn for bc? Just go see your GP.
>bc like hormonal implant rods are not yet covered by insurance policies
It doesn't have to cover every possible option anon. BC is covered by insurance.
>If they take oral pills then they should be having regular checkups to monitor weight, bodily changes, and cardiovascular functions.
All of which your GP can handle. And by this you mean that they tell you to weigh yourself and come in if there's any unusual changes, and make you have a blood test before, 6 weeks after, and then a few months later.
>Really the only kinds of birth control where they wouldn't need as many routine checkups are the implant and sterilization, but those aren't totally covered by even the best insurance policies.
Sterilisation isn't covered because it's optional surgery. You don't need it, and it shouldn't be covered by insurance any more than a nose job should.
>Condoms are fine but they break. People use them incorrectly.
This is true for any form of birth control. Did you know that you acn still get someone pregnant when you've been sterilised? It's insanely rare, but happens, because sometimes the surgery isn't done entirely correctly.
If condoms are used correctly, they're at most a percent less effective than contraceptive pills. It's really not a notable difference, and the amount of people who get pregnant while both condoms and oral contraceptive pills are used is negligible.
>All I'm saying is if birth control, morning after pills, and early abortion were made more accessible, we wouldn't need to bean count over these kinds of cases as much because their numbers would simply decrease.
But they are insanely easily accessible. See your GP, or go to a clinic. At most you need to drive an hour or so to get to a clinic if there isn't one in your area.
Morning after pills I'm not sure about for the US though, in my country you just pick them up from a pharmacy, though they do cost a lot. I think it's pretty retarded to say that it should need to be covered by insurance though, if you want access to birth control, use birth control.
>And I'm sorry but your comparison about religion just doesn't make sense and it really has nothing to do with this issue. Denying women bc and abortion is proven to drive unplanned pregnancy and birth rates up
And you know what? No-one is being denied bc or abortion unless there's a solid medical reason for it.
>Not in all states to the extent that it should be to be the most efficient.
This is true for hospitals, which I'd say are just slightly more important on a larger scale.
>You also say that there's little reason for abortion if someone isn't prepared for a child but the same could be said for a low-income parent who is welfare dependent.
Did I say this? Where? I'm not quite understanding what you're referring to with this sentence, so I possible could have.
>An interesting trend that's happening in America right now are more women choosing midwives to do home births
Which still takes a lot of paperwork. Not all of the paperwork is related to the hospital itself.
>Not to mention people give birth to undocumented babies all the time. Women theoretically childbirth anywhere.
Yep, which is why I argued that restricting who can reproduce would be a negative, as it would drive this up and increase the risk.
>Attempts to self-administer can lead to injury or death whereas childbirth is a natural process unless medical complications arise.
And medical complications do arise relatively regularly. The difference is that one is something you choose though, and one is something that you can't stop happening. If you're pregnant, unless you abort, you will give birth (generally, there's always exceptions). It is important to have access to abortion, but it's dumb to act like it's anything but an optional procedure, it doesn't preserve your life at all.
>Many women have killed themselves over being denied abortion.
People have killed themselves over losing their phones anon. Not getting the abortion won't kill you. You might kill yourself, but that's not the same thing, and it's incredibly dishonest to imply it is.
>Also every pregnancy delivered has a probability of a fatality that is way higher than abortion, so quite literally, having a baby can kill you.
Didn't you say like, 5 lines ago that childbirth was a natural thing that is less risky than abortion?
>And forcing pregnancy on the unwilling when they have a reproductive RIGHT to not be, simply isn't ethical.
No-one is forcing pregnancy on anyone. Short of cases of rape, you know the risk when you have sex, and you have made a decision to do it anyway. In no way is that forcing anything on you. You also do have access to abortions, very easily.
>Agreed, but it's not intended to be lifelong or be the backup for when someone irresponsibly and purposefully brings another child into the world solely for those benefits.
Yep, generally it's not meant to be lifelong, though it is sometimes, and the disabled have a right to reproduce the same as everyone else, so I feel this isn't worth mentioning.
>Shouldn't the end-game of any social welfare program be to, yes, provide aid but also provide education and resources to folks so they won't return to welfare? Again just because the security is there doesn't mean it's intended to provide for decades to people who have no motivation to be independent.
And it is, generally. Some people abuse it, but ultimately, people will always abuse it. People will fake disabilities, and do, regularly. It's not worth compromising the system that does care for people to try to crack down on a real minority.
>The more children you have=the more welfare you get. This is how it works in the States and very little has been done to restrict this circular system.
Same here, but what could be done? The only thing we have to stop it is if they're proven to not be using that money to take care of the kids, and are using them purely for financial gain, they can be taken off them as they're not deemed to be appropriate guardians.
Is there a law like this there?
>Lol, I don't know what country you're from but you would be DENIED in my state for basics, like an $80/month food stamp allowance, if you make over 18k as a single person.
Same here. I said you can apply, not that you'd get it.
Though in my country, if you have children, the amount you need to earn to be eligible for welfare payments does increase a fair bit, though I don't know the exact figure off by heart.
>You could argue nobody needs welfare
But I'm not? I'm not sure what your point is here. Why would the government programs collapse? It feels like a hypothetical honestly, kind of like "What if all the money disappeared". Sure, it would fuck over society, we're not fully equipped to handle it, and welfare systems are vital to all of us at some point (even if it's just the right to legal representation and government funded attorneys). But it's not going to happen.