I think all low income women should have their abortions paid for by the state. It would be cheaper than the amount of welfare we would end up paying per child.
2007-03-05 01:54:49 · 16 answers · asked by Count Acumen 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes Duh, we are stuck in this issue that has become a moral one, while we ignore the morality of bringing more unwanted children into the world (should abortion be restricted) many of whom might not be desired because the family could not afford another mouth to feed, (a lot of these people assume abortions occur because of promiscuity and say screw the mom, keep the baby as punishment, but consumers of abortions could be married, hello?) let alone nurture another child beyond the simple necessities. I know I keep repeating this but I wouild like anti abortion types to do this: If you want to control women and keep them having babies they don't want, and you don't want the government to help support them, then shell out the bucks to support them or adopt each unwanted fetus that you want to force to be born.
2007-03-05 02:06:47 · answer #1 · answered by squeegie 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"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?"
Source: http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/Answers.cfm?ID=9
For more information on abortion, including video and photos of early first trimester abortions, visit http://Abort73.com
2007-03-05 13:28:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the government already subsidizes birth control via your local health department.
Condoms and birth control pills are handed out for free at the health department.
You can even get condoms from the school nurse at most public schools.
Planned parenthood exists for those who desire to make the decisions regarding their reproductive health .
There is no excuse (except stupidity) for an unplanned pregnancy in this day and age.
I believe people who receive government assistance in the form of WIC, food stamps, housing assistance, and AFDC should be on birth control.
If you can't afford to feed what you have , you sure don't have the right to bring another child into this world just to raise them in poverty.
I am pro- choice but I think our government would be best served to leave abortion up to the woman forced into making that kind of choice.
2007-03-05 10:19:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Define low income. Less than $20k a year? $15k a year? $10k a year? What happens when somebody in Washington decides that low income is anything less than $50k a year? If you believe in a government that tells you what you need to earn before having a child or how many children you're allowed to have, then I suggest you move to China. You'd love it over there. Til then this is STILL America. At least I thought it was........
2007-03-05 09:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wouldn't a depo shot when a woman picks up the check work better than an abortion? The message forced abortion would send is not something our government should send.
2007-03-05 09:59:56 · answer #5 · answered by kittenbrower 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Being that they are poor maybe the government should make sure they dont have any children after the first one. There are easy ways to do that. And you are not killing a fetus anymore. The first child lives
2007-03-05 10:01:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, no, no. If anything, why doesn't the government implement BETTER sex education programs for our children and provide better access to birth control options rather than giving them the easy way out???
2007-03-05 10:04:23 · answer #7 · answered by Jennifer C 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, we shouldn't be giving out free handouts. That's like saying everyone should get free birth control. Well, not free because it would come out of tax money.
People should learn to make their own decisions and learn to live with the consequences that come with their choices.
2007-03-05 09:59:30 · answer #8 · answered by az 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
well, after the cons overturn roe v wade, the government can start mandating poor people to have abortions. But until that happens, I prefer letting women make their own deicisions free from the government, and reforming welfare
2007-03-05 09:58:29 · answer #9 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Absolutely not! I do not think that our government should be spending our tax dollars on promiscuity!
If they can't afford an abortions they should keep their legs crossed!
2007-03-05 10:00:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋