[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact that you minimize what peter12 rightly points to as kinship barriers indicates to me that your view is very much in keeping with abortion opponents on the right, who a) oppose abortion and b) oppose government funding to give children born into poverty or difficult circumstances that may disadvantage them in life.

You're right.

It sounds brutal and callous to say that I oppose helping babies, but in actuality what you're suggesting is that society has a collective responsibility to support an individuals inalienable right to reproduce.
If you are in a situation where you can support having children, and/or are not in a stable relationship that will foster a healthy atmosphere for that child then effort to remedy your situation, don't have a kid and then consider if you can handle it.

If you are not able to properly raise the child then conceiving one is irresponsible - not everyone else's responsibility.

I also edited this to more accurately reflect my stance.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think opposing all abortions is a very legitimate point of view, though a private one and not one that the government should be involved in.

And I don't think the gov't should have loopholes for executions. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

But I think it goes hand in hand with the very pressing question of "what do you do with these children"? In North America there is no state-funded day care, which means that having a baby pushes a working mother into either unemployment (and thus welfare) or into a situation where she must spend in some cities upward of 1500 dollars a month to place her infant in full time care so she can work. To make matters worse, the only workplace protection she receives in the U.S. (Canada is slightly better in this regard) is that she can't be fired for having a baby and taking time off. She receives no compensation for that time off, no paid leave, and only the cold comfort of a tax break which if you are in the lower income brackets doesn't mean a whole lot.

The collective has NO right to control the individual's right about what she can or cannot do in this regard.

The individual has no right to compel the collective to aid them in their choice.

edit of a previous typo that confused everyone. Sorry!

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So how about this: I'll agree that abortions should be limited by the government if you agree to the obvious caveat: that raising children is a collective responsibility that we all share and that the state thus make having a child an easier financial burden to bear for working mothers by paying for day care, giving women subsidized maternity leave and requiring employers to offer the remainder as a mandatory benefit.

I do not agree.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Also, some winter jackets for the poorest families wouldn't hurt.

An irritating addition. If I'm opposing you're stance, I'm clearly some sort of heartless monster.

I believe in compassion, not compulsion.