Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There would be more children in foster care and more single mothers dependent on government benefits. Inotherwords, increased tax burden. Would these children grow up to be productive members of society or themselves welfare recipients having their own kids dependent on the government?
In any case the point is moot. If republicans try to ban abortion, they will be quickly voted out of power, no matter how loony democrats are. Leave it up to the states. This should be the motto of both parties going forward to save the polarization of our culture and prevent civil wars, states seceding, etc. Limit federal government oversight.
"they will be quickly voted out of power,"
Wishful thinking!
"If republicans try to ban abortion" "Leave it up to the states."
Which repub ran states woiuld put some restrictions on abortions.
Science says no such thing. The majority of biologists consider that life begins at conception, not that a human being is formed at conception. It is the beginning of a life and has to go through numerous stages before it becomes a fully formed human being. It has been agreed upon that at the end of the first trimester, the embryo will be considered a viable human being. Once it reaches third term, it is a fetus which is an unborn child. An unborn human being. This is why twelve weeks is often the legal cut-off for abortions.
Look, no-one likes the idea of an abortion. Terminating an early pregnancy is more acceptable to most folks but even then, most folks don't like the idea of terminating a pregnancy. (I cannot speak for radical left though).
Chas is not deciding the fate of anyone, let alone that of millions. Chas is not telling anyone to have babies or to get pregnant. (They are doing that on their own.)
Now you're just splitting hairs. What's the difference between life beginning at conception and a human being being formed at conception? So what that it goes through various stages of development? It doesn't change the fact that life begins at conception.
Very little will change. People will either travel out of state or the new post-contraceptive pill will become much more popular.
This will impact the demographic of poor women more than any other, they can not easily travel out of state and travel several hundred miles or hop on an airplane. So yes there would be an increase in social support for women living below the poverty level, in particular a single woman with a child will be doomed to a lifetime of poverty.
Close to 76% living slightly above or below the poverty level.
Quote:
INCOME, AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE POVERTY LINE
Below poverty level
49%
Up to twice poverty level
26%
More than twice poverty level
25%
Source: Guttmacher Institute
About half of women who had an abortion in 2014 were below the poverty line, with another quarter very close to poverty. Guttmacher surveys show low-income women have been a growing share of abortion patients in recent decades. Several smaller studies of abortion patients have shown similar results. Researchers say this shift reflects improved access to effective contraception among higher-earning women, and a recognition of the growing costs of raising children among poorer women. It may also reflect the growing presence of charities that help poor women pay for abortions in states where public programs don’t.
Yes. And, according to Janet Yellen today, banning abortion would be horrible for the economy! I'm starting to think she is now suffering from Joe Biden's foot in mouth problem.
I'd think that the Treasury Secretary wouldn't wade into "social issues politics" without at least using data/research as their reasoning. I'd be wrong.
This will impact the demographic of poor women more than any other, they can not easily travel out of state and travel several hundred miles or hop on an airplane. So yes there would be an increase in social support for women living below the poverty level, in particular a single woman with a child will be doomed to a lifetime of poverty.
Close to 76% living slightly above or below the poverty level.
So you are saying that poor women are promiscuous by nature? They can't get free birth control? A lot of poor women choose not to abort because their kids are a meal ticket for them via welfare.
Would banning abortion increase self-responsibility, given that men generally and women specifically know they no longer have the "get out of pregnancy free" card?
Human beings are, in fact, capable of changing their behaviors.
Of note - abortion will not be banned in the United States if Roe/Casey are vacated. Yes, there are 23 states that are rumored to make abortion more restrictive should the SCOTUS do the thing, but that means 27 other states WON'T.
Virtual guarantee that post-Roe/Casey, if you need to be personally irresponsible and then have an abortion provider bail you out of the consequences of that irresponsibility, you will be within a few hours car ride of such a provider. And that assumes the 23 states everyone is panicking about actually banned abortion entirely.
Do you really not understand the god given drive to procreate? Do you not understand the concept of "the selfish gene"?
Healthy young adults are compelled by their biology to have sex. It's a drive that very few can resist. That's why humans are so successful in procreating and we've overpopulated the earth. Few of us were planned, our parents were just compelled by our desires.
Few young people have your grim outlook, Oldglory, of calculating finances and birth control before engaging in sex.
This is SO correct!
Many parents are not concerned with their financial positions,before having sex, many struggled financially after having kids, I remember my mom and dad working 2 and even 3 jobs as a result...but they made it work!
There are a few young parents like this today, but not as many as the past, its easier and more convenient to just delete the consequences of a lustful night. what is the alternative, working 2 and 3 jobs for at least 17-21 yrs?!!
No, we know what the core position of anti abortionists is. Its that sapient human life begins at conception. Most of us just dont agree. Sure there are some catholic Democrat politicians who try and have it both ways, but most pro-choice people dont believe zygotes and early embryos are yet human.
That argument appears to have been abandoned by pro-choice proponents. I remember having the discussion here on this forum and mentioned that whole "life begins at conception vs birth" and he/she pretended as if that was never even the discussion. I was taken aback. But then I later saw something posted online about how that position has been dropped as a losing one for pro-choice advocates and they are now focusing on the whole "nobody can tell a woman what to do with her body." This was a pro-choice article not pro-life. It made sense to me as you dont really see that "life begins at.. . " mentioned much these days.
And most pro-choice people disagree with your basic premise. Therefore, if we can't agree on what is a "person", then we're unlikely to agree on what might be ethical behavior regarding that fetus.
And if you want to talk about manufacturing "silly logic", then please explain to me why most of the "pro-life" advocates seem to lose interest in what happens to that fetus once it gets out of the womb. Once it exits the birth canal, then the baby and mother (along with the rest of the family) are no longer a concern of the "pro-life" crowd.
Are you equally adamant about what happens to the young unwanted kids AFTER they're born? If so, then what ways do you show it? Do you volunteer to babysit for young unwed mothers so they can continue their schooling or work at a job? Do you volunteer to help the mother who just had her fourth kid and whose husband is working at a low wage job trying to keep them fed and clothed? Or does your interest in what happens to that mother and child end once the child is born?
I agree that they dont and wont agree. But saying that banning abortions increases poverty is irrelevant to the argument. They should just focus on why someone shouldnt be protected from being killed if they are a young fetus.
They are a concern after birth to the pro-life crowd. I am not aware of a pro-life position suggesting that it is ok to kill children after they are born.
I am very adamant that children shouldnt be killed after they are born. You tell me who is advocating for that and I will absolutely oppose them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
