And you fail to understand that not all women think alike.

Gene363 wrote:

I'm with you... You've got hepatitis ridden dogs to adopt 3 months before their miserable death... You don't need to be making babies...

opelmanta1900 wrote:

Libertarians value liberty, some the liberty of the unborn and most would not regulate abortion, but neither group would condone the use of government funding for abortions.

As far as the so called, "benefits" of abortion reducing welfare and prison populations, I would add genocide.

Gene363 wrote:

I leave an abortion in the toilet every morning.

bgz wrote:

In a perfect world abortion would be legal, yet never performed.

Meanwhile, it has to remain legal.
1. making it illegal wouldn't stop it.
2. The Supreme Court kinda already ruled on this one.

Abortion isn't murder, as already pointed out.
But it is absolutely killing an unborn child.

Haven't any of these women ever heard of adoption?

tailgater wrote:

Joe, I guess math isn't your thing. We both pay $100 of tax. But instead of each of us having $5 used for abortions. $10 of my tax is used for abortions and $0 of your tax is used for abortions. Same $10 total used for abortion, but none of your money was used for abortions. You could argue what difference does it make. The difference is you would know you didn't pay for an abortion.

Speyside wrote:

And logic isn't your thing... We're both working with a mixed bag here, just try to follow me...

You pay 100 in taxes.
Joe pays 100 in taxes.
A road needs paved at the tax payers expense.
The job will cost 200.
Joe has 100 to contribute to the road.
After you contribute 10 to abortion, how much do you have to contribute to the road?

opelmanta1900 wrote:

Nothing to follow. Originally $190 would be available to fund the road, not $200. Whith what I am stating $190 would still be available to fund the road. What you are stating is that no money would be used to fund abortions and $200 would be available to fund the road. That is inaccurate. I guess my concept just isn't registering for you or you can only accept that no tax money is used for abortions. What I am trying to offer is a way that someone who is religiously, ethically, or morally against abortion isn't forced to pay for abortions with a portion of their tax money. I have a problem that under the present system they are forced to pay for abortions with part of their tax money. This is a net zero as far as the amount of tax money used to pay for services.

Speyside wrote:

I would argue if we are a nation that has a welfare system, and I reluctantly think that we should, then to keep the outgoing funds to a minimum, it is in our best interest to fund abortions.

Children in single parent homes are far more likely to become criminals, that's a fact.

It really is simple math. $1k now, or $2k per month till the child is no longer a child, then likely $45k per year to house them in a prison indefinitely.

Which would you rather pay?

On to your second point...

You're pro genocide? Which race would you target first?

Equating abortions to genocide?!?!?!... all I can say about that is wtf while rofl.

bgz wrote:

If almost a million people were murdered it might be called genocide.

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States in 2014—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).

In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion."

Gene363 wrote:

Where did I say they did? Jesus Christ gene... Be smarter.
I was specifically referencing sampling bias which in and of itself acknowledges that not all "of group x" think alike.

Ok... Let me spell this out very slowly for you.

You select your set of friends based on who you get along with. That likely requires having similar values. As such, your sample size of "women who regret abortions they had in the past" is likely irrelevant, because that's exactly the group which would lean anti abortion, and would then have things in common with you.

Your inability to understand my statements, claim I'm wrong when I say one thing, and wrong when I then state the exact opposite is ridiculous.

victor809 wrote:

If true, then I see that as excellent news. If we could get that number up to like 30% to 40% over the next decade, that would do wonders to curb our population growth, and to build a better work force as automation takes over our low skill labor needs.

bgz wrote: