A quick and simple example: Should the federal government subsidize abortion, definitely not. Should the federal government enforces laws that allow to visit any shop I wish or live in any neighborhood I wish as long I have the cash, definitely.
So what you are saying is that Bush pretended to be something he was not. I am talking about someone who is not pretending, who is a genuine patriot. No, I don't think the type of person I am describing wants to run...but George Washington didn't really want to be president. Sometimes people do what is right, simply because it is the right thing to do. We have seen it before.
So it is better for a woman not to be subsidized for an abortion, and have a child that becomes a menace to society financially? Really, I would think the klannish would favor abortion for all women who have no means to support having children. Unwanted, or uncared for children end up costing society a lot of money and grief. I would love to see the anti abortion crowd step up and adopt all unwanted children and give then the life necessary to become a productive member of society. That doesn't happen of course.
That is some pretty flawed logic. 1- Abortion opponents don't fight it on the grounds of economics. They oppose the morals of it. It is your mentality that makes it an economic issue. 2- They are then saying that since they don't support it morally that they don't want their tax dollars funding it. This is completely logical. 3- You are essentially arguing that those who oppose the idea of abortion as a means of avoiding responsibility, should then be eager to perpetuate that irresponsibility by free relieving the irresponsible mother of any societal obligations. Please tell me that you see the problem with your argument, or that you were just trying to joke around a bit.
so your solution is for us to pay one way or the other, and that's the only solution you offer? we must pay for someone else's misbehavior?
Yes, I know what abortion opponents argue. Human life, yada, yada, yada. What I find immoral, is that they would force a child to be born against the mother's will, then when the forced child is born, the child is not cared for by the same people who demanded that the child be born. It is inconsistent logic. If you care for the child to be born, then you should care just as much that that born child gets what is necessary to have a good life. I don't want my tax dollars going to unnecessary wars. So we all have areas where money is spent we don't agree with. That's why we have compromises. Am I in favor of these women who have no business getting pregnant...getting pregnant? No. So what is the solution? Forced sterilization?
If you force children to be born against the will of the woman carrying a fetus, damn right those who force this to happen must take responsibility financially for that child. It is an eastern philosophy that states "if you save a life, you become responsible for that life."
I am neither abortion nor anti-abortion. If a woman wants an abortion, fine. But not on the public dime. It is a personal choice and should be funded with personal money.