Should the government provide free abortion for anyone who wants one?

Question

Every time the government forks over $500 for an abortion it saves thousands of dollars on welfare and education and child tax credit.

Answer 1

I could not agree more Emily. Abortion on demand clinics in every major US city would save us billions of dollars a year. Not only would social services costs go down every year, but our future health care costs and social security would be more stable. This coupled with the lowering rates in violent crime, energy consumption and education costs make abortion on demand a viable option for our future. You rock Emily.

Answer 2

No. This is the heart of the Conservative's argument against abortion.

Don't be misled about those child tax credits. A credit is to those who pay taxes. They are not the ones having abortions (or children they cannot afford).

The solution to saving dollars on welfare is to stop allowing welfare parents to have more children. Again, these are not the ones having the abortions.

And please factor Social Security into your analysis. By the time the Boomers retire, it will take 4 workers for every retiree. Think those 40 million abortions might have cost us some workers?

Answer 3

From http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers :

"Few issues speak more clearly about the immorality of the pro-choice mentality than the argument that abortion should be used to save us tax money. Imagine that the two-year-old daughter of a family on welfare fell into an abandoned well. Authorities calculate that since a funeral is cheaper than a rescue, and since this little girl might be on welfare for the rest of her life, the financially sound thing to do is just flood the well with water. Once the child floats to the top, the coroner can scoop up her body, have it buried, and the taxpayers will have saved a bundle. That is obviously a monstrous idea, but it is no more so than telling poor women that if they will kill their children to save us money, we’ll pay the killer.

Now if America is serious about having a social policy based on the philosophy that it’s cheaper to execute a child than support one, then we should start encouraging families on welfare to not only kill their unborn children, but their born children as well. Remember, the guiding principle here is not morality but saving money. If we are willing to ignore the biological fact that their unborn children are living human beings, why should we care that their born children are living human beings?"

Answer 4

No, no more so than the government should cover everyone's medical expenses fully. What the government SHOULD spend more on is education, which would ultimately lower the number of people who go for abortions and also the number of single mothers on welfare. That's what would save this country the most money in the long run.

Answer 5

This is actually a valid question. As a matter of public policy, I think the answer should be no. However, I can see people making the argument pro. The issue is really this: Is access to an abortion a privilege or a right? If it is a RIGHT, then the government should provide equal access by way of subsidization. The fact that you are poor should not be determinative of whether you deserve one or not.

Also, read Freakonomics. Pretty interesting stuff.

Answer 6

Aborting unborn children in order to save money on education?

Let's rephrase the question slightly: Should the government shoot everyone who reaches the age of 65? It would save billions of dollars on Social Security.

Sometimes I can hardly believe what I'm reading.

Answer 7

So far, they haven't done either. If you are a single woman, you're damed if you do, and damed if you don't. People who are totally against abortion have generally never had sex, or trust only in their own judgements, having never walked in anyone else's shoes or considered the circumstances of someone else's situation. They have no compassion for the adults or the children who are sometimes born into horrible situations. Some just like to sexually abuse children.

Answer 8

Assuming universal healthcare was established... abortions should be treated much like any other medical condition based on necessity or not.

As for your argument, I personally believe if a poor woman wants an abortion and she can not afford one, she should be able to apply for emergency medicare to get one. My reasons are not the same as yours though. I believe this based on the fact the Supreme Court has already established abortions are legal.

Answer 9

NO,IF SOME ONE WANTS OR NEEDS AN ABORTION DUE TO PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IT SHOULD GO BY INCOME OR BE COVERED ON INSURANCE.IF THE GOVERNMENT IS PAYING ITS STILL NOT SAVING ANY TAX PAYER MONEY.WELFARE AND EDUCATION GO HAND IN HAND IN LONG RUN SAVES US MONEY.CHILD TAX CREDIT IS PRETTY MUCH HELPS EVERYONE ESPECIALLY MIDDLE CLASS AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS.THEY DESERVE SOME OF THAT MONEY BACK.CHILDREN ACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM IT. I WILL APOLOGIZE FOR CAPS I WAS BUSY TYPING TO NOTICE SO I LEFT.

Answer 10

Nope. I'm a liberal and strongly opposed to abortion on demand, or abortion as a form of birth control. Abortian should only be used in the most extreme situations, and primarily to save the mothers life.

So, rarely.