but also federally funded? One court case set the standard for the ENTIRE country, no matter what the people felt. 9 individuals made this decision for the whole country...I think the people should have a say through electing their representatives (you know, the way the constitution says?)...I honestly don't care what the end result of that would be, just that it is done properly...
Second, do they not realize that our income taxes would go toward abortion if it were federally funded? So even those who are morally against abortion would then be paying for them...Why is that okay with you? Because you got what you wanted? Because they are "wrong" to feel that way?
I just want to know what the rationale is.
Thanks!
2007-09-22 04:52:49 · 10 answers · asked by monkiby 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Wartz,
You're right, we can't pick and choose what we pay for with our taxes, but if the government would work within the confines of the constitution, we wouldn't have to be paying for (in your example) the Iraq war, OR abortion...we would only be paying for things the constitution says we should pay for (undeclared, unconstitutional wars not included)...most likely there would be little to no disagreement about that...
2007-09-22 05:09:43 · update #1
Oh and Goldenrea, if women in a certain state weren't allowed to have abortions, I doubt that every woman who would have considered one would adopt out her child. Many would keep their children, and maybe there would be less unwanted pregnancies if there was no easy way out? <--that I'm not sure about but it's a thought. And it is ridiculous to think that all originally unplanned babies go to prison as adults. My boyfriend's mom was going to have an abortion but his dad wouldn't let her, now he's an education major at a University and everyone's doing fine....silly..
2007-09-22 05:15:28 · update #2
Sorry to keep adding, but to those of you who keep saying we should allow abortion so we don't have to pay for welfare, prison, whatever for these kids...most will not end up this way, not to mention that many women have unplanned pregnancies and their kids are fine, and most importantly, if the gov't followed the constitution, there would be no welfare, WIC, etc...so we wouldn't be paying for their abortions, or to take care of their kids if they had them. Amazing, right?!
2007-09-22 05:28:19 · update #3
obviously there's nothing in the constitution to support abortion. the supporters pretended to see something that was there that clearly wasn't because it would increase the odds of winning the case. abortion should be a state by state issue, funded by the one who is getting the abortion, where legal. it's one thing to support abortion choice. it's another to almost "like it", like some supporters do, and to demand it be legal everywhere, even states that don't want it. i'm not sure at all where those people are coming from and what drives them to such lengths to assure continued abortions. it's one of those things where they should feel at least a little bit of shame inside, even if they remain pro choicers.
2007-09-22 05:04:50 · answer #1 · answered by White 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
With 300 Million people in the country, there are going to be a lot of opinions. Lumping abortion with health care, you could argue that providing health care should be a government function as it is in Canada. That is not going to happen here soon.
The government does many things that many people are morally against. The war in Iraq is a good example. You are not allowed to pick and choose which government programs you will support with your taxes.
2007-09-22 12:02:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The rationale is one from the '60s and it goes like this: "I should have what I want when I want it and nothing should ever get in the way of that; oh, and before I forget, it should ALL be free!"
Essentially, it's the point of view of a spoiled child. And since these are in fact adults making their case they dress up that childish view with all sorts of arguments that their expensive educations have prepared them to make. It doesn't mean that they aren't still children living in a child's dream world.
2007-09-22 12:00:19 · answer #3 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Funding one abortion is a lot cheaper than funding what happens next to an unwanted child. The foster system and prison are two majorly expensive examples that I can think.
2007-09-22 11:58:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The root issue in abortion is when the fetus becomes a person under the law.
That's a question for the state legislatures.
The USSC was wrong in Roe v. Wade when they found they had jurisdiction. That's what needs to be overturned.
2007-09-22 11:59:59 · answer #5 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it's a person until they have gone through puberity. Unless we see pubic hair, changing voices, menstruation, etc, I see no reason why a woman should have the right to take a kid to the doctor and have him or her straped to a chair, stabbed in the head and their brains sucked out.
Oh wait, that would be wrong. But how would it be different than legal abortion is today? It's just as sick and evil.
2007-09-22 13:07:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, I would encourage abortion. As a taxpayer, we are stuck taking care of these unwanted babies from cradle to grave. Most are worthless.
2007-09-22 12:10:00 · answer #7 · answered by Robert J 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I have no idea, I definitely dont want to be forced for stupid people who cant get the concept of birth control, whether its paying for an abortion or paying for THEIR kids.
Its not hard to put on a damn condom.
2007-09-22 11:58:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
same rationale as the war - a very few decide that everyone must pay for killing
2007-09-22 12:00:22 · answer #9 · answered by sudonym x 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its like Killing a baby..
Well it is kill a baby
2007-09-22 11:59:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋