As an economic stimulus there should be an Abortion Tax Credit.
FLIPSIDE said 03/17, 02:37 PM
Imagine the savings -- in terms of welfare payments, ESL, No Child Left Behind, literacy subsidies, health care costs-- if only we replace this lifetime of state subsidies with a fast and easy tax credit to worthless people who get abortions. This payment, of $200. could buy everything that is important to the worthless: beer, fried chicken, and scratch tickets. It would offset the greater cost of over $100,000 per capita that it would cost to low income house, educate, incarcerate and eventually execute their goofy looking offspring. And it will slow global population growth.
Swerv said 03/17, 05:04 PM
The first problem with your arguments is you are making the assumtion that the only people who get abortions are low-income Americans or how as you referred to them "worthless". Lets look at the statistics in 2007 1.2 million women had abortions, 60% of those were women above the age of 25 and almost half of those women were of minorities. Only 18% of all women who got abortions were in the poverty level. So who are these worthless people you refering too? Second what makes you think a whole $200 is going to do anything to benefit them when the price ranges from $450 first trimester to $6000 second trimester. Third Global population growth has already been slowed by war, disease, famine, and laws legislating the number of kids a parent can have. The best thing we can do in this country to slow population growth is more emphasis on family planning. But why do we need to slow population growth in America? We are hardly living on top of each other. Have you ever been to the Midwest? Very unpopulated. The root of the whole problem is not that anybody is worthless it is the lack of education in this country. Fix education first and the rest will follow.
FLIPSIDE said 03/17, 06:56 PM
I agree that there should be a heavy emphasis on family planning. However, your other point, that we could somehow deliberately populate the sparse areas of the country or manage population distribution in a way detached from cities and economies is just not possible. You conceded that 40% (480,000) of women getting abortions are under age 25, that .5 x 60% (360,000) were minorities, that 18% (216,000) are poor. But rather than whittling away the percentage of abortion recipients who are worthless, what you have done is conceded that most of them are poor white trash, or lower to middle class blacks and hispanics. These are of course the original targets of Planned Parenthood and the eugenics movement. You also conceded that they are ignorant and uneducated despite their ranging into the middle income. Allowing for no overlap in figures, we are still faced with the conclusion that a large body of moderately educated, reasonably wealthy persons, to the tune of 700,000 persons are unable to plan families using contraception. That means too stupid or to impulsive to buy condoms, too lazy to get PAP smears and birth control pill prescriptions, and too drunk or forgetful to swallow.
Swerv said 03/21, 05:19 PM
My point was the complete oppisite. I was trying to show that it isn't "worthless" people who get abortions. As I believe no one is worthless. Planned parenthood is hardly aimed at any one group or minority it serves everybody. If it was a mandatory class for students in High School to take maybe they wouldnt be as stupid or impulsive as you say. If we give people a tax credit for having them thats just going to cause more people to get them which is hardly going to solve any problem associated with abortion. I know PAPs let you know if your pregnent but I dont see how getting a PAP smear is going to keep someone from getting pregnent, although it is a good idea to get one every year because of STD's, and Cervical Cancer. Oral contraceptives arent guarenteed and doctors rarly explaining usage to patients. Most women dont realize that the use of anti-biotics stops the effectiveness of any BC pill, IUD's are terribly painfull to put in, and most effective BC causes weight gain or has other uncomfortable side effects. That is why alot of women dont take them(Although the benifits outweigh the risks). Not because there forgetful or stupid.
FLIPSIDE said 03/21, 07:08 PM
At least we can agree that worthless people get abortions. And that it is okay, even desirable for them to do so. What we cannot agree upon is your pity for them, or your reluctance to give them a small tax credit in lieu of a huge stipend. Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicists to perform this very task of encouraging the worthless to be cleaned out of civilization. You also seem to be sorely mistaken about the effectiveness of oral contraceptives, which is nearly absolute if one is intelligent enough to remember to take them. The stuff about most women and antibiotics is a load of garbage. These arguments are not relevant to the main argument and value judgment I made above, and which I believe I have supported very well, and which you have mainly agreed to.
Swerv said 03/23, 06:24 PM
We do not agree that "worthless" people get abortions because no one is worthless. And I do not desire anyone to get an abortion. I think there are better options for most people out there. I've worked in a medical clinic for the last 3 years and assist in prescribing BC to many different women. I know for a fact that antibiotics lessen or stop the affects of Oral Contraceptives, plus they take at least a month to start working. I dont see how I agree with any of what you said, I have stated we should not give a tax credit on abortions, we should promote planned parenthood, and we should not promote getting an abortion before other options are first explored.
Comments
Add Your Comment
What particular worthless group has an affinity for beer? Same question for fried chicken and scratch offs?
jesterjabs | 03/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
While I think Swerv is correct I think he/she has misinterpreted Flipside's original argument. The point made is not about the demographics of people currently having abortions, but the demographics of people currently not having abortions. The statistics raised are actually not relevant to the topic at hand, since they refer to people who are already having abortions without the tax credit incentive - what you really need to examine are the numbers of children born to parents of lower income backgrounds where there will be an added burden to the state, but how to then guage the number of people who would then have an abortion for the meagre sum of $200 is something I doubt could be done without gross assumption. So far I remain very skeptical that such a tax credit would either change the numbers or provide any form of economic stimulus, but I shall wait and see.
Tickers | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
I won't go into the 'worthless' part of the debate, simply the idea of a tax credit for an abortion. I think it is a good idea, but it should only be given if the aborted tissue is then used for embryonic stem cell research. If the fetus is going to be aborted anyway, why not put it towards research that could be beneficial to the population as a whole?
base89 | 03/18/08
Report Offensive Comment
I believe Swerv is not only incorrect, but is using incorrect facts. The majority of women who get an abortion are between the ages of 16-25. That makes his statement that 60% of women who get an abortion are over 25. This is very untrue. I don't believe Flipside made a good arguement either and therefore I will not vote either way yet.
shrek | 03/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
Shrek - good spot. I've done a search and can't find any statistics for 2007 abortion rates, what I can find from the CDC are the numbers for 2003 where women 24 and under make up 50.6% of the abortion numbers in the United States. The 20-24 group is the largest demographic, making up a third of all abortions.
Tickers | 03/19/08
Report Offensive Comment
My vote goes to FLIPSIDE. Swerv's arguments would be very convincing if they were accurate facts. Since they are not, FLIPSIDE gets it!
shrek | 03/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Flipside, you seem to make generalizations and misinterpret what swerv says. While Swerve brings up statistics, you only bring up your own interpretations.
Progressive | 03/17/08
Report Offensive Comment