


Apparently you *didn't* read the whole thing.  You continue to miss the point.



[deletions]



Counselling that only provides alternatives to abortion would be just as
biased as counselling that only provides *abortion* information.  How about
providing counselling that will give a woman help in finding what *she* is
comfortable with.

Your adoption-funding idea may be a good one.  Any idea if it is feasable?




Making adoption easier on the birth-mother may help reduce abortion, but
it will *not* eliminate the need for it.  Abortion is not done just because
the mother can't care for the child and doesn't feel good about giving it
to strangers.  Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the
*pregnancy*.







Then please justify why being "human" automatically makes something valuable.
And why that includes the unborn.




No, they are not guaranteed to become productive members of society.  Even
if they do that is *MANY YEARS* in the future--until which they are a burden
on someone, or society.  There is also the matter of the mother.  Forcing
her to carry a pregnancy to term at a critical time in her life could prevent
her from being a productive member of society.






Ok, look.  It's like this.  We *are* footing the bill.  Maybe they will
take choice A.  Maybe they will take choice B.  Maybe they will take choice
C.  They can't afford any *one* of them.  If they take choice A we'd have
to pay them, say $5.  If they take choice B it would cost us $20.  If they
take choice C it will cost us $20 now and a hell of a lot more for the next
18 years.  Which one sounds the most realistic for us to be willing to pay
for?  Now some people happen not to like choice A.  Other people happen
not to like choice C (paying for it, that is).  C has been around and paid
for for years.  Even though it means we spend a lot of money, we can't in
conscience refuse to pay for it.  Now A has been around and is perfectly
legal, but it hasn't been funded in the past.  Now A is going to be funded
but some people object.  They don't like the idea of their tax money going
to pay for choice A.  So we could refuse to fund A at all.  Then those
women who can't afford any of those choices will be forced to take choice
B or C, which will cost *all of us* more money.  Most of us don't see any
reason at all why *more money* should be spent to the effect of *removing
personal choice* from some women.  The alternative is to fund A if that is
what the mother chooses.  We will also still fund B and even C if *that*
is what the mother chooses.  However, some women will certainly choose A,
and that will then save us $15 we otherwise would have had to spend.  Your
"taxes" are not being raised to fund a choice you object, they are being
*lowered* because we will fund a choice that is *legal*, despite your
objections to it.  (Actually, your taxes are not really going to go down,
as I'm sure you would point out.  But the amount that is saved in that
area can help out in another--like our massive debt.)





Those other procedures you mention only cost money.  There is no savings
in other procedures that would be required down the road without them.
(In fact, there could be additional costs down the road *because* of them.)
This is quite different from the case of abortion.


This is bullshit.  We are *not* refusing "to make the alternative affordable
too".  If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then*
your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't.
If Clinton tried to block funding for pre-natal care and delivery (or left
it out of his health-care plan), I would certainly object.  I would also be
quite surprised.



Yes, but probably not your definition of it, or for the reasons you think.


YOU STUPID FUCK!  *WE DO* want to fund *all* the choices.  *YOU* are the
one who wants to *NOT* fund all the choices.


Your humble opinion is still wrong.  Even with easy adoption, there is still
the fact that pregnancy takes several months.  Months in which a young woman
could need to be getting an education.  (like finishing High School, entering
college, finishing college, getting a job...things that are much harder to
do if you have to "take a break" for a few months...things that have a massive
impact on her future productivity.)




You *can* have a conversation with the "mentally incompetant".  And even
though *you* personally may refuse to have a conversation with "people
you just don't like", it is still *possible* for others to have a conversation
with them.  It is *not* possible for *anyone* to have a conversation with
a fetus.



He was still biologically independent.  At least to the same extent you are
now.  He consumed nutrients and digested them in the normal manner.  He
breathed his own air.  A fetus on the other hand, gets it's nutrients already
digested by the mother.  It gets its oxygen from the mother as well.  That
is not biologically independent.



Awareness is only *part* of what makes a "member of society".  It is the
minimal conceivable requirement, yet many people seem to think that something
without awareness could still be important enough to justify the suffereing
of a true member of society.  I keep asking, but I still haven't seen a real
justification for why the life of a non-sentient creature should be worth the
suffering of a sentient being.  (I haven't read every response on the threads
I've been asking on, yet, so we'll see if I see one later.)



Anyone who can program in UNIX has a lot of experiences in the real world.