Most of the mothers getting abortions are usually lower class. if they have the baby, the mother who has not enough income can abuse the welfare system, taking thousands of dollars in taxpayers money. the baby could be unloved and therefore more likely to become a violent criminal causing much more harm than if the child wasnt born in the first place.
2007-10-10 16:46:41 · 14 answers · asked by Teresa C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes!
2007-10-10 16:55:21 · answer #1 · answered by Jeremiah Johnson 7 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would like to see evidence that "most of the mothers getting abortions are usually lower class." This doesn't bear out against statistics I've seen which say most women getting abortions are usually white and middle class or higher.
But to answer your question, that rationale is trash. It is impossible to know who an aborted child would have grown up to be. And some of our most heinous criminals have come from middle class and upper middle class white homes (Ted Bundy ring a bell?).
2007-10-10 17:02:13 · answer #2 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure where you heard that only lower-class women got abortions.. I'd like to see your link, if possible. I did hear that abortion minimalizes crime rates.
At any rate, if that is true, it's pathetic - on the mother's part. Using your child as a meal ticket isn't the smartest idea.. I know from first-hand experience.
2007-10-10 16:55:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes I've heard it used before. In a few states there does seem to be a direct correlation between rising abortion rates and lower crime rates, the reason being that lower income people statistically commit more crimes and also are more likely to have abortions. These arguments do make sense on some levels but I don't think they are quite enough to justify something like abortion.
2007-10-10 16:53:31 · answer #4 · answered by Phil K 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
um... you do know that welfare only lasts two years, (of your entire life), and, at least in GA, only pays out 205$ per month for a family of 3 right? how about that it requires you to work 40 hours per week, (either in one of their ready for work programs or at a full time job), maybe you should research public programs before you go around saying that people can easily scam them for thousands of dollars...
But no I'm Pro-choice, ( have yet to ever meet anyone who was Pro-abortion BTW), and I do not in any way support or promote eugenics.
2007-10-10 17:10:16 · answer #5 · answered by vegan_geek 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1) Support of public financing for abortion. Abortion is legal. if you don't like abortion, don't have one. But it is more cost effective to spend $500 on an abortion now than to spend thousands on food stamps and incarceration later. (not my view, but the reasoning)
2a) back handed eugenics possibly: create better humans by eliminating certain segments from the gene pool rather than breeding for traits you want.
2b) More at genocide.
2007-10-10 17:06:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Wow, what an unproven polemic. What evidence do you have that women who have abortions are usually lower class? Eugenics? I believe the Nazis were all in favor of it, so I'm going to have to say no on that one.
2007-10-10 16:53:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, it is not. The rationale, is not allowing an already intrusive government to control reproductive practices.
2007-10-10 18:56:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is untrue and not a rationale. Life is precious. Sorry you don't feel that way.
2007-10-10 22:27:50 · answer #9 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Psst...I think people need a definition of Eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
2007-10-10 16:56:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋