[Tail Gunner]

(12-12-2013 12:57 PM)BLarsen Wrote:  

Quote:

I shouldn't be subsidizing other women's bad decisions. That's the only argument that needs to be had here. I can't stand paying for birth control too.

There's an argument to be made that subsidizing abortions is a net positive for society. The argument goes something like:

• Irresponsible woman gets pregnant, usually by irresponsible man
• Irresponsible woman is unlikely to become responsible becasue she is pregnant
• The expected life outcome of unwanted children born to irresponsible parents is pretty poor (e.g., prostitutes, druggies, future criminals)
• Therefore to eliminate a future criminal underclass and the high social/monetary costs associated with them, why not just eliminate the problem before it even starts?

That is the same argument historically made about blacks, Jews, Indians, Irish and every other underclass: as a class, they will not produce more than they take from society so, even as individuals, they are all worthless human garbage.

That is also a long and convoluted supposition leading to a very unclear proposition.

The opposite argument, however, is very clear: If abortion is murder, then your argument is irrelevant and morally untenable.

At the point when two DNA strands unite to form a third DNA strand that is -- and always will be -- unique, then a separate person is created, regardless of whether it still temporarily exists in its mother. Sounds pretty simple to me.