If the US outlawed abortions would you agree to pay higher taxes to fund a program providing full support for the pregnant woman if they agree to give the baby up for adoption?
yes. pre-natal care is critical to lessen the chances of babies born with learning deficiencies and handicaps. there are too many "un-adoptable" children in foster care the way it is. in other words, children with special needs because of lack of pre-natal or early childhood care. edit: let me clarify, i was answering "IF" abortions were made illegal and "IF" they agee to place the child for adoption. if a woman is to carry a child to term, the child needs every chance to succeed in life. that includes proper pre-natal care.
no, a woman should have the right to choose. it should be the last choice, but it still should be hers, and as long as it is very early in the pregnancy.
Never gonna happen IMO.....however No. Octomom used public funding to pay for her insemination and I was appalled at her efforts to seek more money from the public to pay for any of her care after her initial efforts were successful. What I would support, although maybe not with additional taxes, is an effort to reduce the amount of unwanted teenage pregnancies. The decision for abortion or not is the end of a process, not the beginning. The way I see it, people arguing over when life begins are wasting so much time because they are likely to change few minds on either side. The low hanging fruit in terms of overall numbers are teens who do not use or are not educated in birth control which includes anything and everything from how to properly use a condom to abstinence. The FDA is on the verge of recommending a papilloma virus vaccine for boys and girls as young as 9 but won't do the same for birth control. Makes little sense to me.
Not even the pro-lifers want to see a return to the back-alley outlaw abortionists that existed before Roe. Lots of young women would die again. If someone is looking for a real "life" issue, this is one of them.
At least in this state, indigent pregancies are already fully funded by the Medicaid system including full prenatal support and the standard complement of OB/GYN visits. LaMOMS Woman's Hospital will even deliver the baby. If the woman elects to keep the child, LaCHIP will pay for health insurance, and WIC pays for formula, milk, cheese, and certain cereals. Guys, the pro-choice crowd has no argument on "what about higher taxes to fund full care for indigent pregnant mothers". It's already happening..... again, at least in this state. I have full personal experience in the matter.
but the question were if the mother agreed to put the child up for adoption. i dont see psyco-octo-mom putting her kids up for adoption. she wouldnt have had them if that had been the stipulation. and dont get me started on that psycho-bitch. having been through in-vitro, i can tell you with 100% certainty the dr who performed her in-vitro procedure was negligent by inserting that many embryos in the first place!
MS has the same program and I have to believe other states do as well. Makes it easier to have children from a financial standpoint. Especially for those who are unable to afford maternity coverage and supplies on their own. However it is also grossly overused. I have three parents I work with that have 6-7 children each. Single Moms. All on Medicaid. Your tax dollars at work. What about the 60 year old woman who is pregnant? I saw her on Good Morning America.
I think some are avoiding the actual question here. This is a hypothetical. I think we all know Congress will never write it into law to make abortion illegal. It will have to be done in the courts and the only way that is going to happen is if there are more right leaning judges on TSC and that ain't happening in the next 4-8 years. So it goes back to the original question, would you mind paying more taxes to help with these programs for women who agreed to give their children up for adoption or not, with the assumption (no matter how far fetched the assumption may be) that abortions are once again illegal.
sure, it was a hypothetical. i just guessed that most pro-lifers are not libs/Dems, so i wondered which ideal wins out---right to life, or keep my money. (i think the answer is neither. most will weasel out of it by some impractical rationalization.)
