Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (155206)	1/29/2011 10:02:49 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541787

There are people who are opposed to any wars, who have to pay for them- and that's a religious thing, not approving of war. So really, having to pay for things you don't approve of doesn't work out as a very good reason. Of course it sounds nice, but logically it doesn't hold water. Society makes choices. What seems reasonable to me, is that people who don't want to spend nine months pregnant don't have to. It's cheaper to give them abortions, than give them medical care to keep babies they didn't really want- and it's unlikely most women are going to give the babies up to adopt. On top of that, most nice middle class families, even the ones who say they don't like abortion, pay for their kids to have an abortion when the kids turns up pregnant. So really, the only people who we are talking about are the poor. If Freakonomics is correct, and I've no idea whether it is or not, I've not done the research, the abortion boom resulted in lowered crime decades later. If that's the case- I'd say it's win win. Women get the freedom NOT to be pregnant if they don't want to be, which I'd say is a pretty important freedom; we get fewer criminals; we probably pay less to support poor women who have multiple babies they can't afford, and the women themselves are more productive. It would be better if women didn't get pregnant, and if women had some help from the male side of the population not to get pregnant, but that's really not going to happen, now is it? So why burden poor women who can't afford abortions, because sex happens and people are stupid? And btw, do we really want people too stupid to avoid getting pregnant reproducing anyway? I can't say I like the idea- and if they don't want to be pregnant, let them get rid of their unwanted offspring early. It's not like anyone is ordered to get an abortion. It's a choice. Give people a meaningful choice. The rich will always have choices, but the poor have no choice if they can't afford the option. And in the case of medical services, like this, they really ought to have a meaningful choice. Unless of course you're one of the "It's murder" crowd. Then I get why you don't want to give women a choice. I think it's stupid and impractical view, and probably would be detrimental to society if acted upon, but I get it.

To: Elroy who wrote (155206)	1/29/2011 2:04:02 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541787

>>You can have your own view as to whether or not a woman should be able to have an abortion, but it seems reasonable to me that people who are opposed to ANYONE having an abortion should not be compelled to pay for it.<< I was opposed to the war in Iraq, but my tax dollars were still used to pay for it. Anyway, federal law already restricts payment for abortions to cases of rape and incest, or when pregnancy endangers the woman's life. So what are we talking about?