This is correct. And given that most physicians now demand payment "when services are rendered" I would be better off paying the doc each month than BCBS.
i was not talking anyone here, i was talking the general (that we seem to hear so much) arugment of if they cant afford it they shouldnt have gotten pregnant, usually in the case of welfare moms. my argument is that pregnancy is going to happen no matter what the income bracket and we have to take care of kids that are born to give them the best chance of fighting in life. and yes, i commend you for looking after your family. however, there are families that are working 2-3 jobs, or those unable to find jobs because they live in a part of the country that is much worse off that lousiana or oklahoma right now, and no matter how hard they work, cannot get ahead. if those families were trying to pay for prenatal care or a premie, god help em. my argument is that without abortion, there are gonna be a heck of a lot more of these children that need support. the opinion that more taxes are gonna be needed to support them is just that, my opinion. because if you look at the numbers of abortions, and how many women abort because they arent ready for/cant afford a child, i just dont see how more tax dollars arent going to be needed to help support those children.
let me add... my argument is also for the original question of this thread, and that is IF the child were to be put up for adoption. i still believe that babies are a lot more likely to be adopted if they are healthy rather than if they are children that are at higher risk for life long problems due to no or little prenatal care. having a child adopted into a family that CAN afford them means no tax dollars supporting them as they grow. give these babies a better chance of being adopted.
You posted some facts about how much medical care costs in the first year of an infant's life. You didn't post anything to substantiate the claim that the tax burden would substantially increase due to the increased demand for medical services. To clarify, what I need to see is the state budget number for the LaMOMS and LaCHIP programs and compare that against revenue received. My argument is the following: 1) Taxpayer-supported prenatal and infant insurance programs already exist. 2) There is a budget for such programs, and there is a level of utilization. Please prove that criminalized abortion would substantially increase the necessary budget. This responsible dad needs to puff out his chest every now and then, especially when he feels he's getting a bad rap. The statements that I make on health insurance, health care cost, and cost of living issues are made with a boatload of experience. How many kids do you have, batty? I sense sarcasm
It's a great sentiment. Where do you draw the line, though? At some point, we are incentivizing indigence. I can easily see how, with a different level of motivation and initiative, I might be in a different place moaning and waiting on handouts. I find that to be a nearly universal problem among the indigent. One thing that could and should be changed about our system is that adoptions should not cost tens of thousands of dollars for the prospective parents.
It stands to reason that children with birth defects from being born prematurely or with a birth defect attributed to a lack of quality prenatal care would result in high insurance and support costs over the child's lifetime. None in the house. One on the way. Why? Oh and yes I own a boat. :wave:
Bull$hit scare tactics !! You'd never see coathangers in back alleys. Just under the counter morning after pills. Make some real arguments here to support your position. I respect real, grounded opinions. I'm pro life, but I have a lot of problems with the religious right. "Back Alley" abortions is a knee jerk phrase that presents no argument at all. This will be my only post on this subject...I don't want to debate. I didn't mean to come on so strongly...it's not Red or his position on this issue...I just hear the back alley argument all the time and it's not really an issue due to modern technology. Interestingly, this thread addresses an issue that gives me problems with the pro life movement... namely... ending abortions is looked upon by pro lifers as the end of the issue; when in reality it's only the beginning. It's really about saving souls. The souls of the aborted children are in Heaven for sure, so it's our own souls I'm worried about. Once unwanted children are brought into this world by people who have absolutely NO business being parents, what are the rest of us going to do? Wash our hands like Pontius Pilate? Or do we as pro lifers have the moral responsibility to actually provide for these babies with mercy and compassion? All the pro life emphasis is on ending abortion when we haven't even begun to address adequately take care of our own brothers who are in dire need! How can we even begin to think about our new responsibilities if abortion is ended, when there are so many dignity of life issues out there already that are not even being considered much less being dealt with at all? Our own souls will be judged greatly by our reactions to these pro life issues that exist already.
agree with sista on both of these counts. and a lot of "rules" regarding adoption should be changed. there are couples that because one of the spouses is over 40, they are automatically disqualified from adopting from a lot of private agencies. 40!! 40 is not old, esecially when its just one spouse. there are a lot of 40 year olds that would make better parents than some in their 20's and 30's.
