I think the one point everybody on the pro-choice and pro-life side on abortion should be able to agree upon is that the government should not be subsidizing the act of abortion (defined as the removal of a fetus from a pregnant woman's body and the killing of that fetus). If we are going to have legal abortion, why not require women who choose to abort their babies to pay for it themselves instead of receiving a handout from everybody else? If women can't afford the abortion, they can find a charity that will pay for it or just have their baby.
I don't think anybody wants to increase the number of abortions (afterall, we don't have enough babies being born as it is and abortion is definitely morally questionable), so why are we allowing the government to subsidize them?
2007-09-12 04:48:51 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
What comes to mind when reading your question is if you feel ALL abortions should be illegal.
I would question the morality of one getting an abortion because they didn't want a baby. There are plenty of options available for care of a baby through adoption.
You have to consider, however, that there are some who may seek an abortion for life or death medical purposes.
Just my thought!
2007-09-12 04:57:10 · answer #1 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
(1) Because failure to subsidize abortions is to deny a whole class of women access to them. If you're a mother in poverty, getting a measly stipend for "welfare" and food stamps, you can't afford the $500 or so for an abortion. So, instead, you cost the system thousands for emergency room visits and medicaid for prenatal care (if you get any, in which case you'll probably cost the system even more for neonatal care when the baby's born), cost the system thousands more for welfare payments for the kid, and end up with a kid that may be neglected because mom doesn't want it / can't take care of it.
To the extent there's a woman's right to choose, and that REALLY is a fundamental privacy right, then the fact that you may be poor should not interfere with that right. The same argument was made with "poll taxes" and other poor (or minority) repressesing acts.
(2) There are times when abortion MUST be subdized to be available. For example, foreign military bases. If a soldier gets pregnant and wants an abortion, you either (a) have to "subsidize" the abortion (through paying for the facilities and doctors, even if there is a "copay" by the soldier) or (b) basically prohibit them from being offered on a base.
There's a difference between wanting to "increase the number of abortion" and making a choice available to all women.
(P.S. your arugment that we "don't have enough babies being born" is completely off the base. Population has slowed among the rich, educated, and the white, but babies are still booming among the poor, minorities (especially African American and Hispanic American populations) and the uneducated. The babies of these children are also not as 'in demand' for adoption and may likely end up in a lifetime of foster homes, or worse, used as tools for 'welfare mothers' to get more benefits, even after welfare reform).
2007-09-12 05:01:26 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It actually benefits the government to fund abortions. Any parent that would have an abortion will cost the government more money if they can't afford the child than if the government just aborts it. A sad state of affairs, no doubt.
2007-09-12 05:07:14 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the way it extremely is now, abortions are way overrated. it truly is extensive enterprise and a extensive income is made on them. If and jointly as the government is in cost of well being care, the cost of an AB would be minimum jointly as you evaluate it extremely is a reasonably straightforward technique (takes approximately 5 minutes contained interior the palms of a specialist) and would desire to no longer often cost the taxpayer a dime. If and jointly as the government takes over our well being care and AB by ability of twist of destiny isn't lined, the cost of AB is in many cases minimum so danger is even a bad guy or woman would desire to desire to locate the money for it. by ability of making use of on the instant's standards with inner optimal well being care flipping the bill, the cost of AB is off the charts and that's truly jointly as you evaluate it extremely is income pushed and the privateness and welfare of the female in touch are their very final precedence.
2016-11-10 05:45:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because our gov'mnt is satanically evil,and loves to butcher infants at the expense of the taxpayers! The gov'mnt has planned this for many years and that is,get rid of(murder)as many americans as possible,so that you can get cheap labor aliens into this country WHO WILL WORK HARDER than most americans,and dont demand to live like the wealthy,it's very obvious as to what the gov'mnt is doing,it's infanticide! I'm totally against infant slaughter and our satanic gov'mnt! God CURSE the usa!
2007-09-12 08:07:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's not, and if your next question is about stem cells it doesnt. But the private sector does
Why so much debate about these things.
Finance them yourselves leave the gov out of our lives
2007-09-12 05:05:59 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it does not, but it should. Why is it okay to fund a war with lies and made up documents, and kill many women and children, but not allow a poor women to have control over her body. You might call it murder, but your self righteous views are paid dearly by the poor women, and you pay in taxes and in crime to support these mostly unloved and unwanted babies.
2007-09-12 04:59:12 · answer #7 · answered by jean 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I don't think the government should pay for it, but I do think that they should be doing to a better job at sex education and access to contraceptives. This "abstinence" BS has been hurting people for long enough.
2007-09-12 04:56:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It does Mr. Scourge!!! Your and my tax money goes to social programs that not only fund but give counseling!!! I don't like paying for that
2007-09-12 04:56:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it is a legal medical procedure, then it should be funded just like any other legal medical procedure.
2007-09-12 04:55:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋