BigBallinStalin wrote:1 and 2) Ah yes, it's so small of an expense, that it doesn't matter if you're paying for people to escape the consequences of their own decisions. That in turn leads to a further lack of self-responsibility--all of which you support.PLAYER57832 wrote:You forgot 2 tiny little pieces of information.BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Government funds can be used for to help subsidize PRIVATE INSURANCE plans for lower income people that might cover abortion.
#1 we are talking about a VERY, VERY small amount of money that even might possibly go toward ANY abortions.
#2. the numbers of abortions charged to these policies "because someone screwed up" is absysmally small.
#3. If someone is getting a government subsidy for insurance, they are already a low income individual. That means their child will go onto taxpayer roles. You are prime among those wanting to cut costs... yet here, you want more kids on the dole?
I suppose you are also against paying for birth control?
cut the crap, I DO NOT support perpetuation of irresponsinbility. Making abortion illegal does not truly teach responsibility. In fact, it often does the opposite. Education is what decreases abortion. Education and access to birth control.
As to birth control "promoting irresponsible behavior". That is a moral judgement. The law is a poor place to teach morality.
Again, EDUCATION, honest education gives kids the information they need. There are many, many medical and social reasons for younger people not to engage in sex until they are mature. It's not just about possible pregnancies. For all the right wing likes to blast Planned Parenthood, they actually perform few abortions and concentrate more heavily on education, etc. (I don't agree with everything they put forward, but its better than the so-called "abstinence only" stuff ultra conservatives try to call "education" -- that is, the kind that won't talk about sex or birth control or anything except "don't do it").
Once someone is older... I still feel there is a lot of evidence of harm, but it is a moral/religious judgement.
We have to pay to support many of those kids who are not aborted.BigBallinStalin wrote:That's fine, but don't make other people pay for something that they shouldn't have to pay for.
We have to pay for MANY things we don't personnaly support, because either the nation's "good" (as percieved by our elected leaders of the time) or other people's needs supercede our own beliefs.
Attempting to claim this is about money is extremely hypocritical, given the costs involved. A few pennies versus the hundreds of thousands it takes to raise a child.
Except, we were talking about irresponsible teens, primarily. Those children fall within the "first 2". Second, when a teen has to raise a child, their chances of becoming a fully tax-paying professional are much, much slimer.BigBallinStalin wrote:3) Well, I'm pretty sure that you know where my thoughts lie on extended welfare benefits or giving tax credits to low-income families that have more than 2 kids.
Again, another case of extreme hypocrisy.
Furthermore, as hard as it is to raise a child when you have the finances, a committed partner, etc., life of children born to "less than perfect" families have it even harder. They are far more likely to suffer abuse, even the extreme kind, are more likely to wind up themselves in social services or jail.
And note, we are not talking about people who are willing single parents here.. or necessarily even single parents only. We are talking about folks who don't want a child .
