But the thing is the woman does not want the child!
Then her correct choice was to not have sex. Having sex carries with it the acceptance of the risk of getting pregnant.
Since the baby is a human being, it cannot be morally killed just because it's mother is a fool.
It's really as simple as that. Mayor Snorkum is perfectly pro-choice. The choice is between using the words "yes" or "no" when the sperm donor approaches, requesting to make a deposit. Neither choice justifies killing a human being afterwards.
So if money for poor women seeking abortions are not funded what do you think will happen?
There will be less sex in the 'hood, once word gets around that those baby things are a real pain in the ass and they even cost money to care for.
Believe it or not, and your Very Liberal "lean" indicates you lack knowledge of basic market economics, making something cost more leads to the consumption of less of it.
Do we really wanna go back to the days of cheap back alley abortions, women killing themselves and the fetus by drinking Drano? Do you wish to live in that kind of world?
You mean as the alternative to killing three million babies a year?
Yes, that's a preferable alternative. Maybe if people like Madonna and Angelina Jolie would stop adopting babies in Africa and start "giving back" to the communites that were stupid enough to buy her records, things could see a little improvement in the US?
This is nothing more than folks trying to cut funding based on morals and not looking at the big picture.
Morality is a fine reason. You just completed a post using nothing but moralistic arguments.
The BIG PICTURE is that the United States is broke, the Constitution does not permit funding for medical procedures or any other welfare-type transference, and that de-funding Planned Parenthood does not in any way make the murder of unborn babies illegal. All it means is that the moral taxpayer will not be required to see his hard earned tax dollars being spent on a particularly offensive purpose.
Is there any particular reason you don't believe the prochoicers in America couldn't contribute their own money to the goal of killing unborn babies as a charity? That would be tax deductible, and completely exempt from any effort by the Pro-Life people to curtail.
Not to mention a sneaky way to see if this would go over well and test the waters to try to overthrow a womans right to an abortion. I am on to this sneak tactic and the folks are not gonna go along with it buster.
Women do not have a right to murder children, be they born and breathing, or not.