stevil
Godless and without morals
We can just disagree on this.Stevil, I brought this up in the Abortion Dabates section and got this message for everyone else: It would be the same as killing a two-year old because you don't have insurance.
Once it's born it would be childcare. Prior to that it would be healthcare of the woman.A good question would be how early in life should "childcare" begin?
The doctors should consult with the parents with regards to making core decisions regarding health. Govt should cover the costs. Shouldn't need health insurance for this.Neonatal care absolutely needs to be covered in any children's health insurance plan. But then you come across the ethical questions about the age of viability. Should babies be born and taken to the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) or stay in the uterus until their due date while the mom pays for pregnancy-related issues?
Govt should cover costs, should at least provide ultrasound twice, should at least provide a mid-wife, and maybe anti-natel classes. Should at least provide hospital services for the birth, should at least provide post-natel care, and support, to help mothers progress on their journey with the new born.This is why I suggested the government could create a plan for women who think they may be, definitely are, or just were, pregnant. My fear is that many women have abortions because they lack the necessary health care coverage for the next several months (up to nine) so I want to see what the govenrment can do to give pregnant women a full range of health services that will drastically decrease the costs out of her pocket to deliver a baby.
The goal isn't to reduce abortions, but it is to support mothers and babies in these difficult times.
Of course being pregnant and giving birth and getting vaccinations and the like shouldn't make the family poor. Govt should provide these basic services free.
Upvote
0