"Sheila" wrote in message
...


Vox Humana wrote:

"Sheila" wrote in message
...


dykerider wrote:

"Helen Crames" wrote in message
newsgBUc.276159$%_6.32608@attbi_s01...

Isn't abortion much more expensive than birth control?

Helen

Not if the government pays for it.

Why should the government pay for it?


Its a red herring argument. It appeals to people who want to denigrate
what
they perceive as a "welfare class." While most people on public
assistance
are white, "welfare queen" (i.e., "the government pays for it") is code
for
"unmarried, black woman with children." While I know that OP will
strongly
protest, that statement has racist as well as classist overtones. It
also
tries to assert that the government SHOULDN'T" pay for a legal medical
procedure because it is against a particular religious point of view.
The
neo-conservative agenda doesn't accept the role of government in any way
that doesn't involve the defense industry or war. Therefore, this is a
trifecta of insults.

So, are you saying the Helen Crames was insulting dykerider?

You haven't answered the question, 'Why should the government pay for
it?'

For the same reason the government pays for other medical procedures, like
hip replacements, or medication for childrens' ear infections. However, I'll
add this: The same government should also pay for health education which
would help minimize some health disorders, and said education should be
completely factual & not influenced by church committees.

My ex-wife's Unitarian church ran a series of sex ed classes which were very
explicit. They honored parents' wishes through a real high tech scheme which
involved typing and printing things on paper - quite revolutionary. All
parents were given VERY detailed copies of each week's lesson plan so they
could keep their kids out of certain classes if they wished to do so. Why
couldn't public schools do this, rather than have the typical all-or-nothing
wars which seem to be the hobby of the fundamentalists?