From: rohwerwd@netcom.com (W. David Rohwer)
Subject: Re: PRES DEBATE
Organization: Netcom - San Jose, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct31.010220.11880@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>alvin@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Kenneth Alvin) writes:
>>tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>>>
>
>>I find Bush and his RNC more than passably disgusting, and I wonder what
>>would be next once he had a little more power....pre-natal review boards
>>to decide which women should be force to carry their pregnancies to term
>>against their will?  God forbid, a *legal* system where gays are denied
>>equal protection under the law.  I have seen the Republican convention
>>and read their platform, and it was the biggest load of hate and
>>scare-tactic tripe it has ever been my displeasure to read.
>
>Then you need to learn how to read. Personally, I think a little more control 
>over abortions is *just* what is needed. Not abolition, certainly, but I
>know many girls for whom that is their preferred method of birth control
>because they can go to Planned Parenthood and have it done free, which is
>de facto cheaper than however much condoms are going for, or the 20$/month
>for the Pill. This is, simply put, bullshit. If for no other reason, I 
>wish there were more controls over it because I don't see why I should 
>subsidise someone else's carelessness.
>

     I believe that there are a couple of ways to look at this, allow the
government to fund abortions or not allow the government to fund abortions.
From my viewpoint, you say that you would not allow the government to fund
abortions.  I believe that one must ask this question, "Overall, of the two
choices, which will cost society the most money?"  I believe that you have
not taken into account that question into your reasoning.  If you do, I
believe that you will change your mind.

     Of the two choices, I think that if the government funds abortions,
then the overall cost to society will be less than if the government does
not fund abortions.  If the government does not fund abortions, then
initially the government will save the abortion cost.  If the mother and
child requires usage of welfare and/or food stamps, then the cost to the
government will be a lot more compared to the initial savings.  In
contrast, if the government funds abortion, then the government will
spend the abortion cost initially and not spend anything else to
support the mother and child.  In the long run, the overall cost to
society when the government funds abortions is a lot less than when
government does not fund abortion.

>
>Basing your vote on the abortion issue and the gay rights issue is all very
>well and good, but there are some other things that you seem to be happy
>to ignore that are just as important, if not more so.

     For president, I based my decision primarily on whether a
candidate's budget plan would reduce the debt and deficit and secondarily
on abortion, gay rights, etc.  Out of the three candidates, I voted for
Perot because he had the most realistic plan to get rid of the deficit and
reduce the debt and as a bonus he was pro-choice.  For the rest of my
choices for lower offices, I based my decisions primarily on abortion and 
gay rights.

>
>>>David, you should know that I, at least, of the Bush supporters am not stupid.
>>>I just don't think that Clinton or Perot will get the job done that will need
>>>to be done in the next four years to bring America back.
>

     I believe that Bush or Clinton will bankrupt the USA and I do not
want to be here in the USA when that happens.

-- 
       +----------------------------------------------------------------+
      /  Keep Abortion Legal and Safe.  Reduce the Deficit.            /
  +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
 /   //  W. David Rohwer   // Amiga       UUCP: apple!netcom.com!rohwerwd |
|  \X/       Go A's!     \X/ 3000UX   Internet: rohwerwd@netcom.COM      /
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: soc.singles