Curious
- 2016-10-27
OK, no tax payer money to pay for condoms or abortions.
Then the child is born. Mother is 16. No father.
Then what?
Don't you think society will have to pay a lot more during the life time of that child, and the mother's ruined chances at making a living, than the price of an abortion?
Foxy
- 2016-10-27
But the problem with having to pay for an abortion is that it is often poor
black girls/young adolescents who become pregnant
I'm sorry but are these 'poor' girls so poor that they cannot afford to buy condoms?
Are they so 'lame' that they cannot get themselves 'on the pill' once they become sexually active?
Why should taxpayer's money be used to fund operations just because they act so irresponsibly?
It is, disproportionately, the poorest who have to
carry the burden of a policy that would require the woman to pay for an abortion.
Good! It might make them think twice before having sex without using some form of contraception.
Curious
- 2016-10-27
I know you are thinking about a middle class/professional woman who accidentally becomes pregnant. But the problem with having to pay for an abortion is that it is often poor black girls/young adolescents who become pregnant (they are not the only ones in the USA, but they constitute a substantial share). They or their single-parents can't afford to pay for an abortion, or can't even afford to send the girl to a planned parenthood clinic that is 500 miles away like in the case of Texas for example, whose strict anti-abortion regulations had a lot of abortion clinics closed in the last few years (requirements are too stringent). It is, disproportionately, the poorest who have to carry the burden of a policy that would require the woman to pay for an abortion.