IrishinSyria
In truth lies victory
- Messages
- 6,042
- Reaction score
- 1,920
I fail to see how anyone takes abortion as a defining issue in a presidential election. Republicans are hypocrits, save babies but go to war every chance you get. Their extreme stance on this issue only erodes the margin away from their stance. I don't think it is too much to ask an expecting mother to crap or get off the pot. As such, third term abortions are ridiculous.
My view - stop trying to criminalize everything and focus on proper incentives. Facilitating adoption for unwanting mothers while providing some financial support seems to be a logical starting place. It is still a choice, but at least you provide the preferred choice as not costing more than abortion. Abortion is covered by health insurance but I have to get a maternity rider on my individual policy to cover having a baby. What kind of incentive is that? Just had a baby, ain't cheap and if I am uninsured I am likely in line for a medical bankruptcy after $10K in hospital charges for a normal healthy birth (not including all the prenatal care). If I am middle income, I just spent all my discretionary money on medical deductibles.
As you move from poor to rich, people have fewer children. This is due to financial incentives. Shouldn't we encourage the poor to have fewer children and the rich to have more? I'll be having a vasectomy soon. I would love to have more kids but they are too damned expensive and my taxes are going up big time. If I lived in a trailer with a subsistence mentality, more kids would mean more money in my pocket. Why is it I neuter myself but the concept of birth control for welfare recipients is abhorent?
I don't have time to look up the study but I saw something in Wisconsin where a family of four would have to earn about $50,000 a year to have the same lifestyle as a pure welfare family of four. I'm not saying everyone does it, just that the incentive is there.
At the end of the day, facilitate good economic choices. Leave the morality of it between the individuals and God.
This thread kicks butt.
I just wrote a good long post and then my internet shat out, but I couldn't agree with you more.
Morality is a measure of individuals, not of governments. Governments should be concerned with providing space for civil society to thrive. Even if one accepts the argument that abortion=murder, it does not follow that society gains from criminalizing abortion.
If government were to make morality a primary factor in it's decision making, policy would become unpredictable and would change drastically depending on who happened to get 51% of the vote in any given year. National interest, on the other hand, is much less open to personal interpretation. There's still room for debate (see: tax policy) but at least that debate can be confined to clear and quantifiable boundaries.