Should taxpayers pay for abortions

[exUte]

under Medicaid?

[Ma'ake]

What about birth control? Treatment for STDs? Blood transfusions? Medical treatment for conditions related to eating pork? OK, the last one was a stretch, but you get the point about legitimate moral objection, depending on religious / moral orientation.

Some would stretch a pro-life stance into reduced funding for war. In hindsight, a whole lot of US-sponsored killing would have been avoided if the DOD didn't have the funds to jump into Iraq haphazardly. Much like the adverse effects of abortion on the individual, what about the clear, strong effects of PTSD for veterans.

I'm no fan of abortion, but practically, let's start with the common ground: how to reduce the number of abortions? How about healthcare counseling for avoiding sexually related health conditions, including the emotional toll of abortion.

It's a bit of a quandry for conservatives of the social & economic bent - government sponsored social programs vs moral imperatives. I think a bit of both isn't such a bad thing.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by exUte

under Medicaid?

Viagra? They and Cialis seem to have a helluva lot of money for TV commercials. How much of that came from Medicare/Medicaid?

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by exUte

under Medicaid?

this is an easy one. yes.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by hyrum

Viagra? They and Cialis seem to have a helluva lot of money for TV commercials. How much of that came from Medicare/Medicaid?

I could see it being a legit item, especially *if* the taxpayers don't have to pay full retail pricing, like they do now. (No discount pricing - what a joke. Why not just load up a few trainloads of tax money & deliver it to Big Pharma?)

[BlueHair]

Generally, I am opposed to the government paying for much of anything. However, from a strictly financial point of view, it would make sense to pay for them. Abortion is cheaper than a lifetime of food stamps, housing, education, and prison. I am not an expert, but it would seem that most women who have an abortion do so because they are not fit at that time to be a parent.

I don't like abortion and wish people wouldn't do it, but I am not any more opposed to the goverment paying for it than anything else.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Generally, I am opposed to the government paying for much of anything. However, from a strictly financial point of view, it would make sense to pay for them. Abortion is cheaper than a lifetime of food stamps, housing, education, and prison. I am not an expert, but it would seem that most women who have an abortion do so because they are not fit at that time to be a parent.

I don't like abortion and wish people wouldn't do it, but I am not any more opposed to the goverment paying for it than anything else.

You make a good point that abortion is cheaper than a lifetime of social support. However, while there are certainly women who have abortions who aren't ready to be parents, I'm very surprised at the number of women I see who have convenience abortions. I guess I can't really make that judgment, but financially speaking, they could certainly handle it. From my experience, it's about half and half. Then again, we're talking about Medicaid funding and most of those on Medicaid are probably not able to financially handle a child.

What bothers me is the lack of funding for birth control. The same conservatives that strongly oppose abortion also resist any effort to provide birth control options to adolescents. Just stupid.