Abortion Opinions

[En_Route]

I don't think we should, like, pay women to keep pregnancies.  But yes, I do believe that we need a compassionate society that provides for all of it's members, and I do hope that the creation of such would make less women feel like they have to get an abortion.  I'm not saying that abortion needs to be ended at all costs, but I do think that abortion is a sad situation, and I do hope that no women feels like she has no other choice than to get one.  If a woman wants to get one for personal reasons (not ready for a child, or whatever) then I support her right to do that, but I do hate the idea of a woman who would otherwise want to keep her baby but feels that, for financial reasons, it's not an option.  I hate the idea of anyone being forced into that position.

I suspect here in the UK, economic factors may not be the most significant determinant in the choice to abort.
Though in my still clergy- ridden part of it, it is remains illegal anyway.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I consider a fetus human too, and an embryo as well for that matter.  They're humans in the very earliest stages of life, but I don't see how they can honestly be considered anything else.  What other kind of genetic material could you call that?

Same here. It's human, and it exists, so it's a human being. You don't have to dehumanize the fetus in order to justify abortion (in most cases). The issue is conflicting rights between two humans - the fetus and the mother. The earlier in the process of pregnancy, the stronger the mother's rights are relative to the fetus. At the end of the pregnancy (after viability), the fetus' rights begin to predominate (IMO). After birth, it's only an issue of the infant's rights, as mother is out of the picture as far as existence is concerned.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

double post

[Tank]

Personally, I would like to see it made easier to be a mother in difficult circumstances so that women whose reasons to abort are economic or personal, rather than medical, have a real option to carry the child to term if they wish, and I don't care how much it raises my taxes.  It's important enough to pay for.  

Yes, I completely agree with this.  I support programs that offer support to women and children in the hopes that less women will feel the need to get abortions for financial reasons.  

I must demur. The effect of this, if not the intent, is to write blank cheques for women who are on low incomes to have as many children they want.

Not necessarily. Full support for first child, 50% for second and none after that.

Programmes of this nature can indeed be calibrated .However, they still imply that taxpayers like ourselves who have to bear the considerable expense of raising and educating our own offspring (and in today's straitened climate the financial haemorrhage doesn't usually stop at 21) will be expected to subsidise other people's children  -in many cases purely on the basis that they were careless in their contraceptive habits. Even in your scheme, it means that it will pay a female with limited employment prospects to have a baby and get the state to support her and  her child. Not exactly the best cure for the dependency culture. It's unfortunate if someone ends up having to have an abortion, but I really feel no urge to pick up the tab.

I agree with you, on reflection. One possibility would be elective adoption at birth.

[Stevil]

I would far rather a person whom can't afford to care for children, abort them rather than society paying the bill.

In NZ we have a DPB Domestic Purposes Benefit, and subsequently we have some solo mothers getting pregnant 7 or 8 times, and spending 20 years unemployed and paid by tax payers to keep getting pregnant and thus avoid working.

Where as the responsible people tend to only have as much children as they can afford.
So I ask, Why should the responsible ones pay for the irresponsible one's children?

Let the money pressures keep these people in check.
There is nothing wrong with limiting your offspring based on financial constraints.

[Ali]

I would far rather a person whom can't afford to care for children, abort them rather than society paying the bill.

In NZ we have a DPB Domestic Purposes Benefit, and subsequently we have some solo mothers getting pregnant 7 or 8 times, and spending 20 years unemployed and paid by tax payers to keep getting pregnant and thus avoid working.

Where as the responsible people tend to only have as much children as they can afford.
So I ask, Why should the responsible ones pay for the irresponsible one's children?

Let the money pressures keep these people in check.
There is nothing wrong with limiting your offspring based on financial constraints.

What would you prefer?  The way I see it, there is no such thing as a perfect solution.  We can

a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
b) Sterilize the poor after they've had their quota of children. (I believe Siz likes this option.)
c) Accept that some people will take advantage of the situation, and that's still better than letting people starve or forcing them to abort wanted children.

[Stevil]

a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.


I like this one.
Also
Offer free schools, and thus provide equal opportunity for the poor to get educated and get a high paying job.
Offer free medical care for young children, and subsidised medical care for all.


Ed: But I wouldn't term it as "fall through the cracks" instead I would say "let them be accountable for their own actions"
If we as society take away accountability from the people, then people will never learn to be responsible.

[Amicale]

a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.


I like this one.
Also
Offer free schools, and thus provide equal opportunity for the poor to get educated and get a high paying job.
Offer free medical care for young children, and subsidised medical care for all.


Ed: But I wouldn't term it as "fall through the cracks" instead I would say "let them be accountable for their own actions"
If we as society take away accountability from the people, then people will never learn to be responsible.

I guess my question here is, should the children born to low-income families be the ones who have to be accountable for the actions of their parents?

We can say 'well, these parents just need to figure out a way to feed and clothe and pay for the schooling of their kids', but in reality, a lot of parents aren't able to do that, so children go to school without breakfast/dinner, wear clothing that isn't warm enough in the winter, and end up never going to college or university because their parents can't afford it.

I do really like your idea of free schools (or at least discount colleges/public schools), and I'd add the idea of more scholarships/bursaries.
I also like your idea of free medical care for young kids, and subsidized care for everyone else.

I'd also add that if I could find a way to (not that I personally know how), I'd find a way to make daycare/childcare a lot more affordable, make sure every school had a breakfast program and reasonably priced healthy food for lunches, and that schools had before/afterschool programs kids could go to that offered activities or some homework help, so that parents with school aged kids could have more flexibility in being able to work while knowing their kids were safe.

[Ali]

a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.


I like this one.
Also
Offer free schools, and thus provide equal opportunity for the poor to get educated and get a high paying job.
Offer free medical care for young children, and subsidised medical care for all.


Ed: But I wouldn't term it as "fall through the cracks" instead I would say "let them be accountable for their own actions"
If we as society take away accountability from the people, then people will never learn to be responsible.

I guess my question here is, should the children born to low-income families be the ones who have to be accountable for the actions of their parents?

We can say 'well, these parents just need to figure out a way to feed and clothe and pay for the schooling of their kids', but in reality, a lot of parents aren't able to do that, so children go to school without breakfast/dinner, wear clothing that isn't warm enough in the winter, and end up never going to college or university because their parents can't afford it.

I do really like your idea of free schools (or at least discount colleges/public schools), and I'd add the idea of more scholarships/bursaries.
I also like your idea of free medical care for young kids, and subsidized care for everyone else.

I'd also add that if I could find a way to (not that I personally know how), I'd find a way to make daycare/childcare a lot more affordable, make sure every school had a breakfast program and reasonably priced healthy food for lunches, and that schools had before/afterschool programs kids could go to that offered activities or some homework help, so that parents with school aged kids could have more flexibility in being able to work while knowing their kids were safe.

Agree.

As far as schools go, my husband worked in some pretty "at risk" populations when he was doing his student teaching (as do most of the student teachers in our area, as it is a way to give those schools free "teachers.") and they (the schools in these areas) were required to provide both breakfast and lunch for the kids every day because at least then they could be sure that the kids were eating at least twice a day.    It breaks my heart to thinnk of those kids going home and not being able to take eating dinner for granted.

[Sandra Craft]

What would you prefer?  The way I see it, there is no such thing as a perfect solution.  We can

a)Limit the help that we offer people in the knowledge that some people will fall through the cracks, and probably the children will be the ones that suffer.
b) Sterilize the poor after they've had their quota of children. (I believe Siz likes this option.)
c) Accept that some people will take advantage of the situation, and that's still better than letting people starve or forcing them to abort wanted children.

Option b has been tried, many times.  It never ends well.  I go for option c, largely because of the fallout from option a. 

I understand how galling it is to think that your money is going to support spongers -- and not even spongers you're related to! -- I'm annoyed by that myself, but not enough to over-look the fact that it's the kids who'll suffer most.  The children are our future, as they say, and I don't want them too badly damaged when I'm old and helpless and it's time for them to take care of me.

But seriously, I think that, like the taxes it takes out of our wallets, accepting the inevitability of spongers and looking after them is part of the price of civilization.

[Stevil]

I guess my question here is, should the children born to low-income families be the ones who have to be accountable for the actions of their parents?

Yes, absolutely, parents ought to be held accountable for their children.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that children are dependant on their parents and those with responsible, financially well positioned parents are likely to have an "easier" life.

As a society if we don't take care of the poor then we will eventually have a revolt on our hands. With regards to the basic necessities of life (food, warmth, shelter), we need to assist. I don't feel this assistance should be unconditional though. With regards to accepting the assistance the beneficiary needs to make a commitment towards positioning themselves towards independence and away from being a dependant of the state. Putting in effort towards up skilling, towards better financial management, saving for future, ensuring children attend school etc. Government in turn needs to provide support towards the training, counselling, mentoring of these people.
If people unreasonably refuse to input their part of the bargain, or are irresponsible and skip many commitments then benefits should be withheld (This will certainly impact the children). If the children are not provided reasonable care by their parents then the government has the duty to relocate those children into an environment where reasonable care will be provided.
It is possible that instead of providing breakfast and lunch money to the parents, these funds should go to the school and breakfast and lunch to be provided by the school.

[Sweetdeath]

How would one go about sterilizing the poor? Just curious 

[Asmodean]

How would one go about sterilizing the poor? Just curious 

Proper pills mixed with the soup at soup kitchens? 

[Ali]

\It is possible that instead of providing breakfast and lunch money to the parents, these funds should go to the school and breakfast and lunch to be provided by the school.

That is how it works, the state provides funding to the schools so that they can every child breakfast and lunch.

[Sweetdeath]

\It is possible that instead of providing breakfast and lunch money to the parents, these funds should go to the school and breakfast and lunch to be provided by the school.

That is how it works, the state provides funding to the schools so that they can every child breakfast and lunch.

I'm all for government funded programs for breakfast plans at school, but parents who cannot provide financially really shouldn't even have children. I mean, it's common sense. I know it's not so black and white for a lot of people, but for most it is...