Because federal money towards unmarried women means women can survive without a husband therefore the republican start wetting themselves because traditional family is moot.

I thikn all single mothers should receive gov aid..Oh yeah...And can still have an abortion if they choose

I disagree with you on the government aid, aa -- there is no such thing as government money, only taxpayers money. And I don't want to be paying to support someone because they got pregnant and didn't want to have an abortion. That was their choice, they should rely on their family and friends if they need charity, not on my hard-earned income. I need it to buy cat food.

I do agree about the taxpayers money but there has to be some other alternative to the tradtional family. Then single mothers should join communes with cooperative caring and combing of resources. There is no way a woman can have a child on her own and care for it without struggling trmendously. Then they are driven into prositution, etc..And I don't think under the circumstances now women can always afford abortions or reach doctors/clinics who will perform them without paying more money for transport.

I would rather pay taxes that go towards helping people then where the majority go now--towards military funds etc. But if there wasn't such a stigma against abortions there would be alot less struggling, unhappy women with unwanted babies anyway.

Poo

"i disagree with you on the government aid, aa -- there is no such thing as government money, only taxpayers money. And I don't want to be paying to support someone because they got pregnant and didn't want to have an abortion."

correct me if I am wrong, but I know I am well informed, that the uk where your from gives "tax payers money" - (around 75% of which oppose abortion in certain areas or all) to fund abortions. So do I take it your infavour of gov using tax payers money in order to kill unborn children rather than to help women who may keep the child if she could have the same money.

I understand that the uk gov has decided or is considering giving tax relief and credit to single parent families and giving them houses too in order to increase the population that has be desimated since the introduction of abortion by liberal democrat sir david steel who now himself is lobbying goverment to change the laws.

I guess you wont be voting for mr blair - elections are due in uk arnt they?

right - you show me how many women with unwanted pregnancies would keep the kid if all they would ever get is the £250 or so it costs to have an abortion -- I mean, no child benefit, no tax credits, and had to pay for all the schooling and healthcare themselves.

Actually, how many people would actually have a kid at all if they had to actually pay for what it costs? No, definitely -- abortion is much the better economic decision. Particularly if you reckon that a lot of the aborted ones would also either have serious medical problems, require full time care if they lived, or become drug addicts, criminals and eventually trainwreck single parents as well. Most of them would probably never contribute their fair share in taxes.

Oh well, there you go then!

man a lot of people would give there right arm for $250 (i doubt its as cheep as that) esp the poor who could even sell the child on the net afterwards if they wanted to.

Poo what have you contributed to society... A great novel, a life saving cure, a great theological contribution, setup a charity, developed a new invention if you have not done one of these I think you should be terminated! It would be much wiser to educate another human being that could take your place

Izzy, I can sure see that you are not very experienced in the real world! A lot of this welfare money that is supposed to go to the children, never gets to the children, most(key word, most, I did not say all) of the money goes to the mother's and the father's to party, and yes, this money comes from people like myself that pay taxes. Parents in the u.S.A. Do get a tax break, if they are working.
Abortion counseling is available.
Sincerely,
sandy

Yes, government subsidized abortion are a brilliant idea. Izzy you even admitted that people cant take care of their born children and often they do sell them, well girls, to pornographers and into prostituiton. How the f is that a better decision than abortion?? I suppose they're girls so they are expendable according to the catholic church.

"izzy, I can sure see that you are not very experienced in the real world! A lot of this welfare money that is supposed to go to the children, never gets to the children, most(key word, most, I did not say all) of the money goes to the mother's and the father's to party"

wow the most compeling reason for abortion yet!

"izzy you even admitted that people cant take care of their born children and often they do sell them, well girls, to pornographers and into prostituiton. How the f is that a better decision than abortion??"

would you rather die because your mother cant support you or be a prostitute or a porn star?

Die?

Well thats your choice - who are you to make that choice for britny spears? Or an unborn person?

"i suppose they're girls so they are expendable according to the catholic church."

ya see, sly remarks - then people accuse us of being an aggresive fudemental religious extreemist - we are only defending our faith, suppose after a while you realise they only do it to get a rise so I wont even relpy to this absurdity!

I am not knocking on your post because you are right it is a great idea, and people complain and judge yet do nothing. Well, yeah they try to get rid of abortion, which is just ignorant, but they don't actually do anything helpful.
But I do have to say that yes, some women have abortions because of financial/emotional. But that is just some. And some women just simply do not want children. And no, that doesnt' mean that they just shouldn't have sex. Even married women don't want kids people. Bc is not 100% effective and things happen.
There are several other reasons for abortion also that we cannot forget about.

Well, now that I have read this whole thread.
Whatever girl.
First, learn how to spell please.
Poopooopooo is very intelligent and she is right. It would cost us taxpayers a lot less for a woman who doesn't want a child to have an abortion (even if tax money covers it) then for us to support her and her child for the next 18 years. And even that is usually a repeating cycle which costs us even more.

Some doctors will perform an abortion and call it a "d and c" so they will get paid by insurance or medicaid.It is a game of semantics.It is correct that an abortion costs less than 18 years of supporting a child,but I bet that many women would still not have the abortion,free or not.Some women just accept an unwanted pregnancy as their cost for having sex.I'm not saying that they are right or wrong, but if you cannot afford to raise the child,you need to think of that before the fact.Birth control is available at little to no cost at clinics and other programs.It just has to be used and used correctly(yes,i know that no method is 100%).It boggles my mind to hear some of the women say that birth control is too much of a hassle-and 5 kids are not??I worked at a community clinic and was amazed at the number of women who would come for their 6 week post partum check and be pregnant again.And not be concerned!Okay,i'll stop before I go off on a tear.Patty

Oh, I am not saying that every unwanted or unplanned pregnancy needs to end in abortion. I am not promoting abortion either. I am simply saying that if a woman wants an abortion, I would much rather have my tax money go to her abortion than to go to paying for her to sit on her ass for the next 18 years collecting food stamps, free health insurance, free college tuition, cash assistance, etc.
Yes, idealy there would be no unwanted pregnancies and I also get very angry with women who cannot be bothered by birth control and then have an abortion every time they get pregnant. It is so immature, irresponsible and immoral. "oh, I don't want to go on bc because I will get fat" grrrrrrr.

Well why dont you abort the woman also? Then you wont have to pay any taxes for her, including the taxes you dont want to give her now?

"i also get very angry with women who cannot be bothered by birth control and then have an abortion every time they get pregnant. It is so immature, irresponsible and immoral."

couple of questions

1.Why is it immature, irresponsible and most importantly immoral?

2. How is it not immature, irresponsible and most importantly immoral to have an abortion after using birth control, does birth conrol somehow take away all responsibility for your actions?

3. If abortion does not kill "anything" as you so adamantly declare.... How is abortion used as a form of birth control immoral?

4. Why do you admonish women who abort because they are pregnant with a "blob of cells" due to not using birth control and then support women who abort because they are pregnant with a "blob of cells" who's birth control has failed?

If its becuase the pregnancy is their fault, who's fault is the other.... The birth control company?

5. What other reason (apart from saving money) is there for using birth control instead of abortion if nothing is killed by having an abortion.

If using birth control deminishes your responsibility for conception of the child and therefor your responsiblity to that child and therefore your desire to not have that child resulting in you killing that child.... Havent you just proved that birth control is the reason you want abortion because in effect you want to use it as a means of birth control in the event you concieve a child?