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.
The prevalence of single mothers in this country disagree with you. If a man gets a woman pregnant after a one night stand at a party or whatever, all he has to do is walk away, and if the woman can't find him, the man has ZERO responsibility.
Government is NOT sponsoring or encouraging abortion. I don't know how many time I have to say this, it probably won't be the last
Abortion is essential service. Whether you disagree with it or not. Wacko peace hippies think there should be no army, but armed forces are essential.
Adults are privy to the flaw of human beings: making mistakes, being an adult doesn't exempt them from making mistakes. Birth controls break either through misuse, accidents, or by chance. The consequences of an unwanted child is a cost burden to society, providing abortion as a possible option along with other methods such as adoption after pregnancy has occurred is a remedy to the mistake.
Not my example. Productive citizens are valuable to society, it is in society's best interest to maximize the potential each citizen to become productive and lower the amount of unproductive citizen.
Your idea here is one step below to banning abortion completely. Taxing and raising the cost of abortion while making it inaccessible defeats the purpose of having abortion in the first place. Your "tax" saving argument is illogical and unreasonable, economically and socially, if you've read the thread it's already been covered that abortion actually saves cost in the long run. In case you missed it.
Abortions are bad the pro-choice people should be satisfied that they're legal in the first place. So making them free is taking it one step too far. There are all types of sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes why not abortions. The pro-choice people want to have their cake and eat it to. If they want to have these things continue to be legal why not tax it more and use the money for birth control for the poor or foster care for children given up for adoption. If a woman chooses to have an abortion there should be consequences for that and a heavy tax burden fits in my opinion. I'm not making a tax savings argument I'm making a punishment/abortion simply being harder to come by argument. Honestly if I had the choice I'd rather my tax dollars pay for an unwanted child that's alive than an abortion.
If government pays for an abortion no matter how dire the circumstances then government is sponsering and encouraging abortion. If it's free what's to prevent a woman from having abortion after abortion? There has to be consequences! What's next get an abortion at Safeway while you wait for your prescriptions? I'm sorry but free abortions is just taking things way too far!
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,023,210 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by chattypatty
I'd be more in favor of forced sterilization of all males and females convicted of violent crimes or repetitive non-violent crimes, as well as anyone applying for public assistance. That ought to take care of the problem.
I can understand the rationale behind sterilizing criminals but folks on welfare have the ability to get off of welfare and become productive citizens. Sterilization is permanent but welfare status isn't so it is not fair to resign folks to being permanently childless just because they found themselves in need of public assistance at a low point in their lives. I much prefer a child cap on assistance to avoid folks from pumping out babies after babies in the hopes of receiving more assistance but I believe these folks are trully in the minority.
The "prevelance" of single mothers is in large part due to divorce, which is intiated by women 75% of the time. Not to mention most of the single mothers are getting child support.
If a woman has any clue who the man is she can sue him for child support, whether or not he walks away. It's his responsibility to disprove paternity, and those tests are not always approved. There have been several cases where men have been obligated to pay child support to a woman for a kid that isn't even theirs. There is no legal way for a man to avoid responsibility, there are at least 4 different legal ways women can.
Now if the woman had no idea who impregnated her.......hmmmm.....being that irresponsible (not even knowing the name of your partner) has consequences. However if at any point someone can remind her who it is, she can sue for child support.
Women have many different ways to avoid responsibility, men have none. Not even disproving paternity is an effective way out of responsibility in some cases.
A lot of these cases are unfortunate, especially when someone has to pay child support for a child that's not even his. To find a middle ground though, I will say both parties have ways to avoid responsibility, but ultimately, it's the woman who ends up with the burden of a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
Abortions are bad the pro-choice people should be satisfied that they're legal in the first place.
Legality =/= access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
So making them free is taking it one step too far. There are all types of sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes why not abortions. The pro-choice people want to have their cake and eat it to.
Alcohol and cigarettes are very different from abortion. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed to alter consumption demand, because they are harmful and costly to society. Abortion isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
If they want to have these things continue to be legal why not tax it more and use the money for birth control for the poor or foster care for children given up for adoption. If a woman chooses to have an abortion there should be consequences for that and a heavy tax burden fits in my opinion.
If someone wants to abort their pregnancy but can't afford abortion at current or the higher cost you proposed, how can they afford to raise a kid? Abortion cost $400 minimum right now, if someone can't afford that, and you want them to continue raising kids and have additional burden on the system? That makes NO sense, which is why a heavy tax burden is ridiculous, the trauma of having an abortion is enough of a consequences to most women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
I'm making a punishment/abortion simply being harder to come by argument.
There's no sense in making abortion illegal or difficult to come by, to do this is barbaric and a slap in the face of women. No women wants to get an abortion (at least I hope), unless it's absolutely necessary, and when it's absolutely necessary, it needs to be available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
If government pays for an abortion no matter how dire the circumstances then government is sponsering and encouraging abortion. If it's free what's to prevent a woman from having abortion after abortion? There has to be consequences! What's next get an abortion at Safeway while you wait for your prescriptions? I'm sorry but free abortions is just taking things way too far!
Economically and socially, subsidized abortion is logical and rational. Most developed countries have abortion covered by the government, and no, it doesn't lead to abortion at your local Safeway while you wait for your prescription. Even the health care plan issued to the RNC have abortion covered. RNC to opt out of abortion coverage - Jonathan Allen and Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com
Abortions are bad the pro-choice people should be satisfied that they're legal in the first place. So making them free is taking it one step too far. There are all types of sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes why not abortions. The pro-choice people want to have their cake and eat it to. If they want to have these things continue to be legal why not tax it more and use the money for birth control for the poor or foster care for children given up for adoption. If a woman chooses to have an abortion there should be consequences for that and a heavy tax burden fits in my opinion. I'm not making a tax savings argument I'm making a punishment/abortion simply being harder to come by argument. Honestly if I had the choice I'd rather my tax dollars pay for an unwanted child that's alive than an abortion.
If government pays for an abortion no matter how dire the circumstances then government is sponsering and encouraging abortion. If it's free what's to prevent a woman from having abortion after abortion? There has to be consequences! What's next get an abortion at Safeway while you wait for your prescriptions? I'm sorry but free abortions is just taking things way too far!
making it harder for women, putting more tax on it only serves to punish and give additional road blocks. many women have a hard enough time coming up with money to pay for even a low cost abortion. if you make it more expensive, restrict where it can happen, then some of these women will try to figure out a way to take care of it on their own. a very dangerous thing. abortion is here, legal or not. it needs to remain legal and safe. no one likes abortion but your views only serve to punish poor women
On one hand I totally agree with you but I just don't know that kind of goes into a human rights violation area and that's a slippery slope to socially conservative socialism.
Yeah, I see your point, and even though I'm pro choice, I see abortion as also a human rights issue - for the fetus. For some, forced sterilization would seem less a violation of human rights than abortion is.
Some types of sterilization procedures are reversible, whereas abortion is not.
Chatteress, I agree with your point about temporary welfare recipients too, but there should be some way to stop welfare queens and breeders.
making it harder for women, putting more tax on it only serves to punish and give additional road blocks. many women have a hard enough time coming up with money to pay for even a low cost abortion. if you make it more expensive, restrict where it can happen, then some of these women will try to figure out a way to take care of it on their own. a very dangerous thing. abortion is here, legal or not. it needs to remain legal and safe. no one likes abortion but your views only serve to punish poor women
So should we start paying for poor people's drug habits then? I suppose it would cut down on them stealing to support their habit.....
Using the excuse that poor people will do it anyway even if they cannot afford to do it safely is hardly an excuse for subsidized abortions.
There's no sense in making abortion illegal or difficult to come by, to do this is barbaric and a slap in the face of women. No women wants to get an abortion (at least I hope), unless it's absolutely necessary, and when it's absolutely necessary, it needs to be available.
Over 90% of abortions in the US are elective (elective being defined as aborting an otherwise healthy fetus that does not endanger health of mother and was not product of rape or incest)
A study was conducted to determine the reasons women get abortions. The results prove that elective abortions far outnumber neccesary abortions.
Neccesary reasons:
Incest: Less than .5%
Result of rape: 1%
Health of fetus: 3%
Health of mother: 4%
The rest are elective. "don't want a kid" (25%), "don't want financial expense" (24%), "finished childbearing" (19%) and "relationship problems" (8%) are not reasons for a neccesary abortion.
So should we start paying for poor people's drug habits then? I suppose it would cut down on them stealing to support their habit.....
Using the excuse that poor people will do it anyway even if they cannot afford to do it safely is hardly an excuse for subsidized abortions.
drugs are another issue all together. apples and oranges. so you would prefer poor women put their health at risk with a back alley abortion rather than to pay for it? you want women to feel punished because some people don't approve of what their choice is?
drugs are another issue all together. apples and oranges. so you would prefer poor women put their health at risk with a back alley abortion rather than to pay for it? you want women to feel punished because some people don't approve of what their choice is?
How many women are still getting back alley abortions? I can understand doing that when abortions were illegal but why now? Just how much money do these women save? Seriously!
How many women are still getting back alley abortions? I can understand doing that when abortions were illegal but why now? Just how much money do these women save? Seriously!
I hope there are NO women getting back alley abortions, now or ever again. but when you limit, tax, and make more expensive abortions, like the poster suggested, then it only punishes poor women who have a hard time coming up with the 400 bucks to get a safe legal abortion. abortion is here to stay and some women get so desperate that if they are unable to get one legally or can not figure out how to pay for it, or would have to travel hundreds of miles to get one, they will do whatever it takes for them to terminate. I don't want any woman to face that.
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.
