Taxpayer Consequences if Abortions are Banned!

South Carolina is proposing new legislation that would deal with the CONSEQUENCES of BANNING Abortion.

https://rewire.news/ablc/2019/12/13...ensate-people-for-forcing-them-to-give-birth/

Given that so many who are OPPOSED to abortion are also OPPOSED to raising taxes and spending money on those less fortunate than themselves the CONSEQUENCES of their ACTIONS that FORCE women to bear UNWANTED children set up a dilemma.

Which is MORE IMPORTANT? Their money or the unwanted child?

Now there is reason to believe that this won't pass in Red states but what if it were passed by CONGRESS instead? Then ALL states that IMPOSE draconian anti-abortion legislation would find themselves on the hook for the EXPENSES related to FORCING women to bear UNWANTED children.

Are those who oppose abortion willing to PAY for their beliefs when it comes out of their own pockets?

We are talking about ONE MILLION additional pregnancies PER YEAR! Paying rental fees on 1,000,000 wombs plus all medical expenses up to and including the birth as well as post natal care is a lot of money.

FTR Long Term Reversible Contraceptives (LARC's) cost just a small fraction the cost of giving birth so that alone would be a cheaper and smarter alternative.

So are those opposed to abortion willing to assume this additional taxpayer funded financial burden?

If not then why not?

Please explain why those who oppose abortion have the right to impose these financial burdens on women when they are not willing to take them on themselves?

Explain why those who oppose abortion are entitled to use a part of another person's body and impose the cost of their beliefs on others?

These are all LEGITIMATE questions that those OPPOSED to abortion should answer.

 

I'd make a few changes because there is a slippery slope here. If a woman declares she'd have an abortion if she could, now obligating the state financially shouldn't the state then have the right to order her to have an abortion? At birth, why should the state continue to pay the birth mother? Shouldn't she have to assume all responsibilities if she elects not to give the baby up to the state? Surrogate parents don't pay the mother to raise the child.

This legislation is not unlike the Ohio legislation that administers the death penalty to girls as young as 13 and medical abortionists in certain cases as well. Both risk taking away rights from the woman over her own body and life in favor of the state or a fetus.

I just wish both sides would recognize that nobody wants an abortion and the best solution is to prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies. If they could combine their efforts to prevention then the problem largely goes away. Fighting each other wastes resources.

 

Agreed!

Prevention is far better than cure and when it comes to abortion significantly more so.

Part of the reason for this thread is to bring up the cost/benefit alternatives.

If States/taxpayers provide LARC's and abortions then they would be off the hook when it comes to anyone who wants to have a child.

Alternatively if they provide LARC's while still banning abortions they would be liable for those unwanted children but there would be considerably fewer of them.

The current situation where they just deny all abortions and LARC's is a violation of the Constitutional rights of women.

So something needs to be done and either of the first two alternatives is preferable to the third IMO.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Your source is angry black lady chronicles?

What's up with peoples sources and links on here? yesterday it was atheist blog.


Jesus if you want us to take you seriously come up with some credible sources please and thank you.

 

Not quite sure I understand your point here...

Let's always bear in mind that no matter how good or affordable BC is or becomes , NO one is obligated to use it....that's part of that American Freedom thingy ..

There always has been unwanted pregnancies and always will be....and women should simply have what everyone else has, the right to their own body.

 

OUCH! That will hurt the Republicans

Bite them fair in the back pocket and given how many years they have gotten away with underfunding childcare.........

 

Rewire news

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rewire/

Now have you a better source?

 

I found the relalible source and posted pages ago.


Dont jump in a thread thinking you gotcha moment

 

Pages ago?


This is the first page.....LOL

 

.??? We are on the first page of the thread and you have not posted any links

 

The black population size would be twice it is now without abortion. Can’t have that according to the left.

 

What TF does that ridiculous statement have to do with the post you quoted? Nothing.

The "left", unlike the right, believe black women should have the same rights as white women......seems the right objects to that....

 

Okay, but only if it fines them for getting pregnant when they were planning on getting an abortion.

Or fines for having sex without adequate contraceptive measures, when the intention was not to have a baby.

 

Good luck with that - you going to have "bedroom monitors" to verify?

 

There could be snitches.
The first partner to report would get immunity from the fine.

Those who have a special card and have signed a paper waiving away their rights to elective abortion would not be subject to the fines.

 

Oh , wouldn't the slavering sex obsessed righties LOVE that ….!

 

Why not just put all women in big barns with pens for breeding? Seems that's what Anti-Choicers really want to do.....destroy any rights women have and make them slaves to the sexually maladjusted.....

 

The only freedom Anti-Choicers value is their own....no one else's ...

 

Contraceptions fails about 3% of the time it's used. That's about 300,000 failures per year, give or take. Why wouldn't everyone just say their contraception failed. It could very well be the truth.

 

Great post!


In their glee at chipping away at women's rights, the righties NEVER see the consequences of their actions.....higher taxes should help

Unless, of course, they don't mind if those "precious lives" are raised in poverty by people who don't want them......seems they care ONLY about the fetus, once it's born to heck with it...

And that's because a fetus is in a woman making it easier to control and subjugate her...

 

Up to a 17% failure for condoms

And I know that many of the so called “pro-lifers” who keep blathering on about using contraception have been told that because I have done so

Again and again and again

 

if the state makes the choice, yes, they can choose either, that is the point, this should be a personal choice, not a choice for the government to make

100% agree with your last statement, sadly most against choice are also against birth control

 

Christians have the most abortions in this country, why doesn't the church just tell them not to have them if this is a religious issue

 

Catholics do but the response to the pope is "You no playa da game you no maka da rules "