I would say yes but I also believe health care should be funded with taxes and available to all people.

I wouldnt want to force people who on medicaid (welfare insurance) to be denied an abortion because they cant afford it.

I also dont think its just about being careless, birth control is far from 100% and can still be difficult to obtain for some folks. There are many women who may not realize that taking some medications interferres with their birth control effectiveness or that it takes some time for them to start to be effective at all.

Lastly, I dont think forcing a woman to have a baby because she was careless is a good "punishment" and its certainly not fair that the only ones who would end up "punished" this way are those who cant afford their mistakes. Its sad when its all about money and the only ones allowed to screw up are those with money and everyone else needs to behave very very good or suffer for being human and making a mistake.

I understand this concern... but wouldn't it also be a bit troublesome to make abortion more or less free... while childcare is a large burden?
I think it might pressure many poor people further into considering abortion. Abortion should not be the default option for the poor.


We should make birth control easier to obtain... and people should understand that there is always a chance of failure. Information should always be more available and visible.


I agree... but I also don't think abortion should be thought of as a legitimate form of birth control. The idea of a child being a "punishment" is awful... but so is the idea of aborting a fetus because it's inconvenient.
There will still be organizations like Planned Parenthood to help poor people get abortions.
They just have to get up and seek and sign the paperwork.

Abortion shouldnot be the default.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Abortions are a HUGE Bargain for Public Dollars, compared to the immediate and future Cost of Unwanted, unafforded Babies.

After all, If someone can't even afford an abortion, 18 yrs of assorted welfare costs (from Foodstamps to other programs) will far outstrip the relatively small investment in abortion. Also perhaps keeping the mother home and not being able to work/Pay taxes.

Not to mention the Greatly higher probabilty of these [unwanted/poor] children costing us/Taxpayers $30,000 a YEAR in Jail.

Better yet, and besides too, would be a Flood of free Condoms at 25c each.

(I give to Planned Parenthood)

__________________

Looks like your poll has been scewed by the anti-choicers, since no pro-choice person has posted an objection to taxpayer funding.

I understand the view by anti-choicers, I don't like my tax dollars buying bombs and paying for corporate welfare.

__________________
Obama/Biden 2008

I'm pro-choice and I said "no".
But I gave the caveats against the little tricks he had up his sleeve.

Maybe I was supposed to vote yes. The OP should have been more specific in the first place.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I am not sure I understand the point here. I personally advocate subsidized day care and would love to see programs that help families (paid time from work for both parents, universal health care, subsidized day care and even free college).

But that isnt really much to do with a woman having the choice to terminate a pregnancy she doesnt want (no matter her reason, its not my issue to judge her reasons or grill her over them).

I am not sure how availablity equates to pressure. I do see how making it inaccessible to the poor because it requires one thing they dont have ...money is a pressure to make them have the baby. Allowing a choice isnt pressure, its the absence of one that creates a pressure and coercion.


Absolutely, I am 100% for that. I would love to see more education and doctors take just a few minutes to explain some of these things when administering prescription birth control (or medicines that will interferre in its effectiveness).

Maybe so but we cant make other people view things as we do and we shouldnt force them into having unwanted babies because we dont like how they view things. I also doubt many would use this form as birth control, its expensive, painful and recovery takes weeks. Its much less convenient than actual birth control.

I also dont like the idea of a child as a punishment but I see it with people who are against it all the time...they want her to have the baby because "she did the deed so she should be forced to deal with the consequences"...thats just punishing her.

Thats why so many who are against abortion will allow it if she is raped...then they dont need to punish her. It all comes down to whether she is at FAULT and not about the "babies life" at all. (I should say not all anti abortion advocates take this position however...dont want to paint them all with the same brush).

Planned parenthood is not available nor accessible to all people AND last I knew, they charged and didnt provide them free for poor people. They charged less than a hospital or normal private clinic might, but not free.

Just because the choice is available doesnt mean it IS default.

Its a personal decision so each woman will make it according to her own criteria and women should be able to keep that private as well.

If we want to reduce abortions (and they have decreased over the last few decades)...better education, better access to prevention and definitely better support for families (both mom and dad) who have a new baby.

The US talks a lot about family values but we dont really support families much. We talk about fathers lack of involvement but dont seem to have enough support that honors their involvement or helps them to be involved.

I have no caveats and fear not a trap.

On an economic basis this is a No-Brainer. Taxpayers are saving HUGE by paying or partially paying for abortion.

As I outlined above. (Welfare, Foodstamps, Jail, etc).

Even a Single Emergency Room visit by the new poor family for the baby costs as much or more than a state fully/partially funded abortion. And that's maybe 1% of future costs of unwanted/poor baby. (a baby who may herself get pregnant at 14; ad-exponentia)

Talk about ways to cut the Deficit and reduce Taxpayer burden! This has got to be #1 in return on investmet (ROI).. besides the aforementioned condoms.

If you object on a Moral Basis.. be prepared to be Taxed $100 (maybe $1000) for every $1 you resent spending on abortion.
And that's just for the first/non-aborted generation.

__________________

the question isn't about whether tax money should go to a practice that close to half the population should be outlawed. there is a huge difference between give to planned parenthood on your own than the gov't providing with tax dollars.

You've made NO RESPONSE to me pointing out what Huge economic Boon/Bargain taxpayers are getting by paying/partially funding abortions.

Your whole string Premise was Blown To Hell, by what is in fact the Best economic investment possible.

Rarely/NEVER could the Taxpayer otherwise get these exponential Hedge-Fund like returns and on a gauranteed basis yet!

__________________

But the programs are not all connected and we still have a situation where abortion is cheaper than having the kid. When you're poor enough that's a problem.
And help is available. Like I said... I'm fine with Planned Parenthood getting funding as that is indirect (and more funding comes from private sources). It will exist. It will require taking some initiative... making it more expensive in effort at least... also offering more time to think instead of react.

And I also disagree that we can't judge. I really do not feel bad for people who have "accidents". That's how most people I know were born for crying out loud! The main reason to support choice is that the alternative is worse.
But, come on, would you really want to live in a country where it is widely acceptable for a child to be considered an STD?!
Keep it legal, sure... but not free.

It's another story when it is a health issue or the result of rape. The former is a real health concern. The latter can be considered as such due to the trauma and in any case, at least we know the behavior was not irresponsible.

The government should pad paralyzing and fatal mistakes but it should also encourage responsible behavior.

On another call though about this not subsidized abortion... the man needs to pay half of it if not more (since the woman is at least going through the abortion, it can be argued the man should pay a larger portion).


Children are expensive and having a baby one can't afford is heavily stigmatized (so is abortion... but at least you can hide that). During a very emotional time, this can tip the scales in favor of abortion.
If the scales are going to be tipped, they should be toward life... as children should not be viewed as an STD.



I'm overall concerned with the overall message.
Children should not be considered a disease. Abortion should be horrible. I'm not saying it should be more painful or dangerous- I'd rather minimize those things... but it should be deterred to some extent (the main deterrents you mentioned are afterthoughts- we need deterrent that works beforehand).
An economic cost or at least some effort that requires time and more info-seeking, that'll work.

I suppose my take on it is in line with that "libertarian paternalism" ideology I made a post on a few days ago. The default should be life, but choice should be an option.

Also I think you might be underappreciating just how horrible it is to ask the very large portion of the population that is against abortion to pay directly for it... At the very least it should be subsidized by the state or locality rather than the federal government.
To the pro-life it is murder, after all.
Granted, I hate both the pro-life and pro-choice arguments when in their absolutes ("It's evil always!" vs. "It's just like having a growth removed!")... but I have to give each of them the respect of understanding where it comes from.

Since this is something about half the population thinks of as murder... isn't making it legal good enough without making them pay for it?!

I agree... but I think it should be legal and there are organizations that will help her pay if she insists on it. Being that it is not as crucial as food or housing or even the long-term pursuit of happiness (a woman always has the option of giving up for adoption), I don't see why it is a charity in need of government running.

Yes, it's disgusting... but I think a culture that legitimizes the idea that kids are a disease is worse.
It's both sides that frame a child as "punishment". One sees it as just, the other as unfair.
I'd rather see something that gets us out iof this sickening paradigm that both sides are in agreement on.



From my standpoint that's even better, provided that it is affordable.
Here's a problem... What if both the child's upkeep is unaffordable? Then the abortion should be as well. It puts them on an even keel.
If not, abortion is in fact the default (it would require intense belief against abortion to make child-rearing an option).



The default is the position one takes with the least effort. If a woman is poor enough and abortion is free, it is the default. Because kids are not free.
This is independent of a person's feelings on the subject. The ecionomic choice is unbalanced toward the least expensive, least effort option.

There is always a default. My thought is that for the benefit of compromise between the two arguments... we should allow choice, but default to life.

I agree this is the bigger part... but when we teach about it and every one knows the risks, then there should be limits on how much we take over their responsibility.
I'm a believer in safety nets... Those are for life and death and helpa a person get back on track.
Having a kid is not life or death... and this is part of what I'm getting at about the paradigm that is coming into existence. Sure it's a pian... and people should know just how much they risk... but it will not destroy the mother or the father. They will, in fact, in the long run still be able to pursue happiness.
There is no urgency to terminating the pregnancy.

Therefore if they want to terminate the pregnancy, they can pay for it.

I agree with this too... but that is seperate from the abortion issue.
If anything, things that (*)(*)(*)(*) off the pro-life (like making them pay for what they see as murder) only undermine the goals of family-friendly policies.

EDIT: For more clarification, check out ib's bean-counter version of the "pro-choice" argument (more like soft eugenics than pro-choice)... That's exactly the kind of attitude I worry about poisoning us in a system where the government paid for elective abortion.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside