Abortions....should tax dollars pay for them?

regardless of your religious or moral beliefs, most of us can agree on this statement:


Abortion is an elective surgery for a condition that is (easily) prevented. (rape aside since that only accounts for 1% of all abortions).





If you look at this table you will see that in NY medicaid pays for about 1/3 of abortions. Is it ok for tax dollars to fund abortion?


http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vit...

Abortions....should tax dollars pay for them?
god no





unless it couldn't be avoided (like cancer, broken bones, etc etc) it shouldn't be payed for





things that shouldn't be paid for:





lipo,


aids


abortions


stds
Reply:Well, you have to remember that the alternative is *discussing sex with teenagers*. That means not pretending that sex happens (or should only happen) between married couples, and forgetting the ridiculous notion of abstinence. And christians really, really don't want that.
Reply:Yes... it is a personal decision and a medical procedure that should be afforded equally, rather than based on personal income. Why should the wealthy have this choice and lower income young women be denied the same choice?
Reply:Actually, we already pay for killing human beings. It's called war. Pay for abortions, NO.
Reply:Johovah's witnesses and Christian scientists don't think we should go to doctors at all. They pay tax money too. Should we have to do what they want? I don't think we should be fighting a war, but my tax dollars pay for it. Should they be listening to me?
Reply:Nope.
Reply:If someone can't afford an abortion, they certainly can't afford to have a kid.
Reply:Well, it depends on the situation. The people who often get state funded abortions are often poor to begin with. If you make them have the kid - then the mother goes on welfare and that's far more expensive. Now I think there should be a LIMIT to the number of state funded abortions someone can get. I've heard there is a small percentage of women that have more than one. Personally, I think one should be enough to get the point across. So maybe they should, in the very least, impose a limit. At the same time - then you're in the same boat of having to pay for those kids with those few women who might be using it as a form of birth control.
Reply:Why don't we talk about this when they will pay for my BCPs too?
Reply:I suppose better $600 dollars now than $60000 later...
Reply:Abortion is legal. Denying abortion to the poor is discrimination. There are plenty of cold hearted pragmatic reasons to support it, and plenty of narrow minded reasons to deny it, but as long as its legal denying it to the poor will be a civil rights issue.


If the termination of an unwanted pregnancy is the worst thing that happens with your tax dollars this year then... well... you're definatly not living in the United States of America.
Reply:Yeah, let's STICK IT to the people in need and MAKE them have children.





Because, you know, that's cheaper for society.
Reply:If abortions aren't covered by medicaid then that unwanted baby is going to be born to a welfare mother and our tax dollars will pay for that baby and his mother to be on the dole for years and years to come. Maybe forever.


Which do you think would be cheaper in the long run for us tax payers?
Reply:I have no problem with women having abortions who really need them.





I do not and have never liked the attitude "I don't need birth control, If I get pregnant I'll just get an abortion". I believe birth control should be given out free to anyone who wants it.





I would much rather have tax money used for abortions than used to have to pay for the continued upkeep of the ever growing number of unwanted children.
Reply:No, it is not okay. You're right, it is an elective "surgery". It is terrible for the government to force people to pay taxes toward something that is against their moral beliefs (that includes war). The public should not be required to pay for people's abortions.
Reply:Well, I think if you are on Welfare already, then yes the govt should pay for your abortion. I'd rather pay for the abortion than the unwanted child that will undoubtedly be impregnated or impregnate someone else who will in turn need more welfare.





I think if you are on Welfare, you should have to be on birth control. Like Depo Provera or there's one for men too, but I don't know what it's called.
Reply:no
Reply:Let me tell you a story. My uncle and his wife have 6 kids. They lived on welfare. For YEARS. They kept having kids they couldn't take care of so they could get more WIC, welfare, and housing. At one point, they had a house paid for by the state that was better than what I was living in. And I was working and making great money. Finally, NYS welfare reform started to kick in, and they didn't get all that help anymore. So my mom and I took in 3 of those kids. My question is, abortion or state funded sterilization? Which is worse? If my tax dollars go to pay for an abortion for a woman who is already overwhelmed with kids she can't take care of, so be it. In the long run, it's less of a drain on those of us who do pay taxes in this state. Yes, abortion is elective surgery. But do we need more kids being abused and neglected, put into foster care or crappy state run facilities waiting to never be adopted, being a burden on the tax payer? Which is worse, really? People don't seem to think about the effect of growing up in poverty, being neglected like my cousins were, when they discuss abortion. With all they've been through and will continue to go through, medically and emotionally, with abusive, alcoholic, neglectful parents, poor as hell, and 2 with birth defects, maybe they would have been better off not having been born at all.
Reply:Not only that, but an abortion can written off on your federal income tax as well.





And I'm going to go with no. I don't think it should.








I also have to take issue with this 'unwanted baby' thing that so many people are saying.


First off all (yes, I'm going to say it) it is a baby. And they are more than wanted. In the United States, the waiting period for adopting babies is currently at around 4 years.


Someone wants the baby.
Reply:YES
Reply:No. They shouldn't. It should be just like everything else that is medical.
Reply:If you're truly asking for opinions "regardless of your religious or moral beliefs," why is the question in R%26amp;S?
Reply:How about tax funds supporting combat? As a pacifist, I have no choice in the sense that I cannot not pay my taxes, but I do choose to live in this country rather than another.





I
Reply:No, people should kill with their own money. Or give these babies to adoption.
Reply:Either abortion or welfare.
Reply:I am sickened by the idea, but better that than a lifetime of suffering, crime and pain for the kids born to parents who don't want them, and wouldn't care for them in utero or beyond. I worked with kids with disabilities for many years, there is no reason to trap a soul in a broken body like that. The parents capable of abortion wouldn't have taken care of themselves or that baby in utero and would have made the baby sick or deformed before anyone had the chance to adopt them. Kids with disabilities rarely get adopted, they usually end up living their lives in group homes.