an abortion is way cheaper than feeding a kid for 18 years...
2007-12-06 05:55:21 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No because abstinance is way cheaper than either, and easier on the environment.
2007-12-06 06:03:35 · answer #1 · answered by mbush40 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You seem to recommend that the Republicans are dropping elections because of the fact of their stance on abortion or help for social, ethical and kinfolk values. i don't have self assurance that that's the case. Republican applicants will probable lose as many votes as they benefit on each occasion they alter place on those subject concerns. that's a wash. on the different hand, if Republicans would govern responsibly and show management at no longer only reducing taxes and stifling over-regulation, yet reducing spending, reducing government classes and reducing the debt, they're going to easily benefit many greater votes than they lose. The Republicans have not been very good financial conservatives these days; subsequently, a painfully important element of their very own constituency did no longer problem to pass to the polls over the previous 2 national elections. in the event that they return to their fiscally conservative concepts, they're going to initiate triumphing returned!
2016-11-13 21:06:15 · answer #2 · answered by monsalvatge 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly the reason why with a Republican President and Republican-controlled Congress for 4 years (2002-2006) there were no laws enacted to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
There are an estimated 800k abortions last year. What would the govt. do with 800k more unwanted children every year?
Dump them on the overcroweded foster care system, reopen orphanages?
Who would pay to house, feed, and provide medical care for 800k more unwanted children every year? Especially considering that many of those children would be developmentally disabled, have genetic disorders, or other life-time medical needs.
The politicians like to use abortion as a wedge issue to divide voters and are really good at talking the talk, but never deliver and walk the walk.....
2007-12-06 06:07:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm a conservative and a republican .......AND pro choice.
I don't believe a fetus is a baby unless it's viable outside the womb. I also don't think abortion should be used as a means of birth control. Education helps prevent unwanted pregnancies. Republicans better push for education if they want less abortions. You can't have it both ways, no education to prevent unwanted pregnancies yet no abortions. That's like living in a fairy tale.
2007-12-06 06:19:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Fiscal conservatives are about reducing government spending and redirecting that spending to more efficient venues. One example of fiscal conservatism is not using federal dollars to pay for taxpayers' abortions. Such dollars have nothing to do with the business of government.
Fiscal conservatives are about cutting excess governmental spending; fiscal conservatism is not about paying for taxpayers' personal choices. And besides, babies are the future taxpayers of America. Our future is tied directly to them.
These future taxpayers will pay much more in taxes anyway than the cost it took their parents to feed them over 18 years, so the benefits of fiscal conservatism far outweigh the costs!
2007-12-06 06:08:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You'd think being a conservative period would make you against abortion. Government shouldn't decide what we do with our own bodies.
Edit: I really really LOVE hearing from conservatives who claim they have morality and therefore unborn babies are more important then the fiscal responsibility. Right guys. That's why you want to give health care to kids...not to mention pre-school, head start, day care and money for schools that are literally falling down. How moral is it to deny asthma medication to a dying kid??????
Disgusting.
2007-12-06 06:02:20 · answer #6 · answered by Franklin 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess other people have answered the question. It's not about economics, but morality.
I guess Republicans aren't just concerned about money, as certain people think. Some people actually think the protection of human life is a moral issue, not just a financial commitment.
2007-12-06 06:10:55 · answer #7 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isn't the 'fiscally responsible conservative' thing another urban legend? Oh, you said 'fiscally conservative republican'. Really, I have to ask the same question. Isn't it a myth?
2007-12-06 06:03:30 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
With that way of thinking... :
By the looks of how poorly our GOVERNMENT Public Schools teach kids...
It'd be cheaper to home-school all the kids in America during their duration of learning than to send them off to a Public school for two years and learn next to nothing. (For the same price.)
2007-12-06 06:02:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Murdering the unborn isn't about money.
If you are fiscally conservative, that means you are a responsible person.
If you are a responsible person, you believe in raising the children you conceive.
2007-12-06 06:02:18 · answer #10 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋