Reply #317: This is where we differ then [View All]

[rd_kent]

Elective is not synonymous with cosmetic. I disagree, because while there are other procedures not considered to be cosmetic, they are still elective.

Cosmetic is a subcategory of elective. Abortion does not fall within that subcategory, but I consistently see people trying to argue against funding of abortions by comparing it to that subcategory. I never see people argue against funding by comparing it to a more similar type of surgery. Again, all abortions that are not medically necessary, ARE elective. Thats the definition. Its not my opinion, that is a fact.

I could care less for the reason a woman wants an abortion. She should be able to get one any time for any reason. But it is MY opinion that public money should not be used to fund elective abortions, because they are medically unnecessary, the same as ALL other medically unnecessary procedures.

You argued that when it comes to abortions, that if a decision is made between a woman and her doctor that the abortion is necessary then it IS necessary and should be covered with public funds. Then that logic can and should be applied to ALL unnecessary procedures, whether it is bunions, boob jobs, botox, facelifts, mole removal or (insert your own elective procedure here). See what I am getting at? Is has nothing to do with gender, or abortion specifically, just how we label elective procedures, and if one elective procedure is going to be covered by public funds, shouldn't they all?