just wondering if all the anti abortion people would be willing to pay for the kids that would be born but not wanted that is right up to the point when they leave university and start to work and how much would it cost.
2007-06-14 14:46:36 · 25 answers · asked by saint_of_sinners_1967 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
On the surface, your question has merit....however, what most people don't realize that if Roe was somehow overturned, it wouldn't affect the abortion rate one bit.
Women would merely revert to what they did before Roe. Those who have money would fly to Europe and have it done.... Those who didn't have the money would return to the back-alley butchers, kitchen tables and self-abortion with poisons, knitting needles, coathangers and the rest.
You must understand, legal or not, abortion will ALWAYS be an option because if a woman doesn't not want to giver birth, SHE WON'T.
A woman cannot be FORCED to have a child.
2007-06-14 15:07:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The particular costs will be paid by health insurance and the parents as usual. But you seem to think that there may be some additional impact? That isn't necessarily true.
The US birth rate is lower than replacement. That means that we cannot sustain ourselves without massive immigration - legal or not. The same is true in Europe and in industrialized countries.
So a higher birth rate will mean a larger and better educated workforce, greater advancements in science and industry, and a general benefit to the whole of the nation. Down the line a higher birthrate will also make Social Security solvent again and provide the tax base that will allow us to address any number of national and international concerns.
Those benefits are in addition to the moral good that results from taking greater personal responsibility for one's sexual habits, and the end to the tradition of killing children who are deemed to be inconvenient
2007-06-14 22:06:47 · answer #2 · answered by Kathi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And whats your problem with people being responsible for them selves?
I mean you're basically saying if you want to kill a kid because you want to act like one that's your right, well what about the unborn babies rights?
See the thing you don't understand is that by all definition it's not a fetus but a human being.
Yes it is.
See some ahole named it a fetus, so people like you wouldn't feel as bad for killing it.
And guess what? they were right.
See what a puddy-head you are.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for abortion, why?
Well because I'm thinking of another unintelligent human being not contributing to society, yeah I mean if you have an abortion that means you are incapable of handling responsibility.
So why the hell would I want another ahole in this world.
Rape, incest and genetic deformities and health issues for the host, should be the only reasons for having abortions.
Not because you felt like not putting a $.50 condom on.
2007-06-14 22:29:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
so you guys think that the crack head mother that doesn't give a crap about herself and whats growing inside of her should HAVE TO have a crack baby and raise it to an adult crack baby so we have another criminal walking the streets and wasting tax payers dollars. is this really better than allowing a woman to make a logical choice with her own body? do you realize how many abortions are performed daily? it isn't just a handful, its thousands. be prepared to pay the costs because not everyone is a fit parent.
2007-06-14 22:00:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If I am not party to the conception, what the hell makes you think I should be responsible for the results?
The upside is that these now aborted babies would be able to "do the jobs that Americans aren't willing to do" and put an end to that hollow argument for illegal immigrants once and for all.
Fact is, we may as well support the kid - we're probably supporting the irresponsible mother already.
2007-06-14 21:56:42 · answer #5 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Along these lines, a book was published a couple of years ago entitled "Freakonomics". It was on the bestseller lists for quite awhile. The author made a compelling argument that the legality of abortion led to lower crime rates, and he had enough data to give one food for thought. I recommend it.
2007-06-14 21:57:16 · answer #6 · answered by stonecutter 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the government should pay for the kids if abortion is banned. I think the government should have welfare programs to improve the situations and environments that lead to abortions.
2007-06-14 21:55:58 · answer #7 · answered by Maid Mesmera 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The parents.
Regardless, what does that have to do with abortion? Murder is not justified just because the victim is poor. Why confuse the issue of life and death with money?
2007-06-14 22:00:38 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ted Kennedy is going to have them and the Mexicans stay with him at Kennybumpork until they are through haaaarvard.
I think the catholic church should be called on the carpet
Telling people who don't have food that God says they can't
use birth control. These people are poor they got nothing
to do but lay around and screw and then the pope says you has to use the rhythm method. Whats up with that sh*t.
I say have the catholics pay for them.
2007-06-14 21:51:59 · answer #9 · answered by trichbopper 4 · 4⤊ 3⤋
We all will, we will also be paying the medical bill of desperate women who get illegal abortions.
2007-06-14 21:55:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋