Are you also pro-culling old people ala Logan's Run? Saves money. Good economic benefit.
Hey, what about slavery? That's got a lot of economic benefits too... Works pretty well as long as you're not the slave, but hey, we just demonstrated two other groups we can selectively mark as undesirable before we exploit or harm them, so why not?
Pro-tip: Utilitarianism kind of sucks in an argument... because you can almost always use it to justify the unconscionable.
The video clearly shows that the study indicates:
-Abortion does not "Stop people from having babies". It delays people from having babies until they can personally afford them, something any *actual* conservative person should be thrilled about\
Yeah, what a great deal! For everyone but the dead kid. Or any of the other ones that get killed along the way, since so many abortions are requested by "repeat customers."
Oh good so you love the idea of a massive state and Federal system taking your money and sending it to a poor single mother, who then says "hey, that wasn't so bad, and I'm probably going to be poor the rest of my life, let's do that again.."?
No, I don't approve of socialism, at all. Which is pretty irrelevant given that you want to talk about abortion.
Abortion is an issue of socialism...
We have soft socialism in this country
-17 Year old births little boy
-Parents financially cut ties with her @ 18
-Single Mother now applies for food stamps, assisted living, takes ex to court for child support (all using taxpayer dollars to have all this set up) + more benefits
Abortion is an issue of socialism..
We have soft socialism in this country because we have legions of religious people going around telling 17 year old single mothers to not abort. Let's go over a simple scenario for you, Mr. Libertarian.
-17 Year old births little boy
-Parents financially cut ties with her @ 18
-Single Mother now applies for food stamps, assisted living, takes ex to court for child support (all using taxpayer dollars to have all this set up) + more benefits
-Socialism BUT apparently GOD is now thrilled.
-Life long Democrat Voter created. Edit: Multiple Life Long Democrat voters created + Socialism fostered.
That is the reality of anti abortion efforts. You are paying for your own political tomb by being anti abortion.
Doesn't need to be. Two independent issues.
Agreed.
So end all "food stamps", end all "assisted living," end all other "more benefits." Ex is expected to provide for the offspring he creates, if he doesn't, well, that's one of the reasons we have courts, to compel deadbeats to pay what they owe. Hell, make them pay the court costs, too.
Problem solved. No taxpayer money wasted.
Doesn't need to be. Two independent issues.
Agreed.
So end all "food stamps", end all "assisted living," end all other "more benefits." Ex is expected to provide for the offspring he creates, if he doesn't, well, that's one of the reasons we have courts, to compel deadbeats to pay what they owe. Hell, make them pay the court costs, too.
Problem solved. No taxpayer money wasted.
...
All a pro abortion person is saying to you is, let's stop the madness. Let's accept these studies and accept that cause and effect are real. Let's not blindly scream about principles while Rome burns. There is no reason a 17 year old needs to have a child. No reason. She can have a child when she is older, has a man in her life, has a job, has maturity. Abortion does not prevent children. Repeat. Abortion does not prevent children. It delays children. ..
As long as food stamps and the rest exists these individuals will use it. The problem of young girls having children is with us regardless of what we do here towards abortion.
...
It's even weirder when you consider that if someone is going to take welfare is at least in part due to their upbringing. Not everyone that is poor wants to take welfare or will and many of them will find their way out of that condition.
Yes, obviously this problem will always exist. But so what you're really saying is, let's not address the problem. My walls are high enough. The rest of you can have your daughters raped, your homes robbed, your cars stolen. I'm not in favor of policy that would acknowledge the fate of the commons.
Society is a collective. The Libertarian concept of denying the collective is illogical. The commons exist. Your walls might not protect your offspring one day and if that day came you'd have nothing to say to the person who wanted to abort your offsprings assailant.
Society is a collective. The Libertarian concept of denying the collective is illogical. The commons exist.
No they're not independent issues.
You say "Just end all benefits". Did you watch the video? You can't or crime goes up. What social benefits really are are mechanisms put in place so the fatherless offspring don't rape your daughter, don't rob your house, don't steal your car.
If Rome has no principles, Rome deserves to burn.All a pro abortion person is saying to you is, let's stop the madness. Let's accept these studies and accept that cause and effect are real. Let's not blindly scream about principles while Rome burns.
There is no reason a 17 year old needs to have a child. No reason. She can have a child when she is older, has a man in her life, has a job, has maturity. Abortion does not prevent children. Repeat. Abortion does not prevent children. It delays children.
As long as food stamps and the rest exists these individuals will use it. The problem of young girls having children is with us regardless of what we do here towards abortion.
Unintended pregnancies continue to be an issue in many areas of the U.S., the authors noted. "U.S. taxpayers pay approximately $11 billion annually in costs associated with 1 million unintended births," they wrote, adding that the U.S.'s unintended pregnancy rate is "significantly higher than in other developed countries."
So Peipert and colleagues designed a prospective cohort -- the Contraceptive CHOICE Project -- "to promote the use of the most effective contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to 10,000 female participants" in the St. Louis region who were at risk for unintended pregnancy "in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies."
The study measured teen birth rates and percentages of repeat abortions in a population of 9,256 females ages 14 to 45 (mean age 25) recruited at two abortion facilities in the St. Louis region and through healthcare provider referral, advertisements, and word of mouth, and compared these data against regional and national statistics from 2008 to 2010.
The study population was 51% black, 35% had a high school or less education, 37% lived on public assistance, 39% had difficulty paying for basic expenses, and 63% had a prior unintended pregnancy, they wrote.
Participants desired a LARC and were not currently using one or were willing to switch to a new LARC, had no desire for pregnancy for at least 12 months, planned to be sexually active with a male partner within 6 months of baseline, and spoke English or Spanish.
The women and teens received the reversible contraceptive method of their choice at no cost for 3 years in the first 5,090 participants, and 2 years for the remaining patients. Patients could continue their LARC method after the study conclusion, but would no longer be given free treatment or be offered a free alternative contraceptive.
<SNIP>
Compared with regional and national data,
St. Louis adolescents and women given free long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods had nearly four times fewer abortions --
a proxy measure of unintended pregnancies --
than the regional rate (4.4 versus 17.0 per 1,000 women),
and and nearly five times fewer abortions than the national rate
(4.4 versus 19.6 per 1,000 women) in 2008 (P<0.001 for both), according to Jeffrey Peipert, PhD, and colleagues.
Except when poor girls and women were offered free birth control in a privately funded study many poor girls/women did use it and both pregnancies and abortions were reduced quite significatly.
I'm not sure what that is meant to suggest? That people will take and use whatever they get for free? Isn't that a bit obvious? Why did they need a study to prove that?
No these women were at abortion clinics because they did not want to be pregnant.
THey did not want any /or more kids.
They did not want more food stamps.
They wanted to be pegnant free.