What sort of financial plans can the government come up with for women to avoid abortions?

Question

Im doing research for an english paper. I am pro-life, so I wanna know, what kind of financial aid plans can the government come up with to help women so they don't go down the abortion path? and where should they get these funds?

Answer 1

The only "financial plan" the government has to offer in that direction is welfare. We all know why paying people with taxpayer money to be poor doesn't work.

If a woman cannot afford to raise a child, there's always adoption. Not being financially secure enough to raise a child is not an adequate excuse when there are better alternatives.

The government shouldn't pay people to have, or not to have abortions. I think most pro choice people will agree that protected safe sex and personal responsibility are much better alternatives than having abortions.

Answer 2

You and many others don't understand...... If a woman doesn't want to give birth, she won't. If she wants an abortion, money won't stop her, the law won't stop her - nothing will stop her.

The government needs to keep out of womens wombs and go on about the peoples business. Abortion is a decision only the pregnant woman can make. Nobody can compel or force a woman to give birth.....

There have been abortions since the beginning of time - there will always be abortions when women want them.

Answer 3

Our church is filled with pro-life supporters. Although it is the law is some states to "choose" between life and termination. It may seem sad to you and I, but it isn't our choice to decide.

When a teenage mother to be is poor, uneducated,etc and cannot raise a child, she will not ask us for our approval. It just isn't our place to decide. That is why the government cannot jump in to prevent abortions. It is allowed in some states, just not all. The government cannot monitor unwanted births or conceptions, of course. They can neither afford to build programs to force women to have babies that they really don't want or can afford.

If we had that kind of money, we would be able to afford health care, public housing and vocational training for the homeless. But we don't, so we buy bullets and bombs to feed the war...instead.

Answer 4

I am pro - life also. Why does everybody always turn to the government right away to take away the sins of the world . How about starting in a family at the infant level and teaching children, especially 'males' to keep their pants zipped. You want money to help avoid unwanted births, then go to the guy who can put the seed somewhere to cause them. Make him pay big time forever and not only 18 years . Why always pick on the women who most of the time gets coerced into an act that has such dire consequences.

Answer 5

Any financial aid plan to avoid abortion results in a financial incentive to have more children.

This is a bad idea.

Answer 6

That could quite possibly be the wrong way to approach this. What you are basically doing is looking to increase welfare which already has plenty of people up in arms about it. Taxpayers are not going to want to support additional financial incentive for women to have babies is what it boils down to.

Answer 7

Screw a financial plan, how about an education plan? Learn to use birth control. Its a 2 way street.

Answer 8

there is no plan it has nothing to do with the goverment at all if the majority felt the way you felt there would be a plan but there is a lot of people who don't feel like they should keep paying all this money out to people who should just wear protection in the first place.

Answer 9

I don't think it's the place of the government to fork out any money to support abortion one way or the other. Is aborting babies murder? Is the fetus alive at the time of conception or after he/she exits the womb? If a fetus is indeed alive it becomes the responsibility of the government to protect life and preserve the constitutional rights of even a fetus. Abortion would then be criminal and the question would then be how does the individual promote birth control? It's perfectly evident to me that a human fetus is one of the smallest most vulnerable form of human life.

Answer 10

As a pro-choice advocate, I believe you are on the tougher end of the argument. You need to keep in mind in your writing that NOBODY on either side of the argument LIKES the idea of abortion, but feel that it is a very unfortunate necessity in our society. It is very difficult to argue at this point, with current domestic policy on women's health seriously lacking, that abortion should be across the board illegal. Such an act would only drive desperate women to illegal and dangerous extremes, such as were seen throughout the '40's and '50's. You should check out The Cider House Rules as further example. But I think you can find common ground in your argument by advocating that the government needs to shake of its ultra-conservative attitude toward reproductive health, and really step up to the plate on women's health issues by providing safe, effective and INEXPENSIVE birth control to all women, regardless of their socio-economic status. You simply cannot expect the situation to improve if you take away a woman's right to choose, while simultaneously turning a deaf ear to the root of the problem by advocating abstinence only. You can argue self-control until you're blue in the face, but it WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE POPULACE. It never has, it never will. To sweep it into the broad category of "not my problem" is not only recklessly irresponsible, it is also painfully short-sighted. It would be a mistake to assume that women have abortions because they wants to, or that it is a light decision, even in those cases where it is the most obvious solution. If a woman makes that decision, you can bet that she has a good reason for it. She has very definitely concluded that she is not fit to raise a child, and she has her reasons for so believing. The truth that doesn't get argued so much is that she alone is not bearing the burden of her unwanted pregnancy. Society at large bears the brunt of it. Children born to impoverished or drug addicted mothers, or mothers who otherwise just feel that they aren't qualified to have children, are much more likely to require social support, not to mention that children in bad socio-economic situations are MUCH more likely to continue the cycle of drug addiction and poverty. Check out a book by Steven Levitt called Freakonomics. He has an entire chapter devoted to this issue, at the end of which he reiterates that abortion is NOT the only way to decrease the population of unwanted babies, that it can be done on a grand scale if the government will just accept that providing safe and inexpensive birth control to all women (and men) is not condoning irresponsible behavior, but rather is the responsible way to provide its citizens with less extreme options. There should be a federal program that covers people's reproductive needs, it shouldn't just fall to non-profit organizations to pick up the slack. Every person should have access to birth control in whatever form they need it, be it shot, pill, patch or more permanent surgical procedures with reproductive cell banking, regardless of their socio-economic, insurance or (dare I say it) immigration status. If the government can make this a reality first, then we can further discuss the abortion issue.