cbostrum (02/13/83)
Larry Kaufman claims that states not funding abortions is an implicit
admission on their part that it is okay for the rich to have abortions
but not "those who need it most" (contentious), the poor.
This is obviously not so. To give another example, the fact that a state
does not make people rich by giving them huge gifts of money
("money on demand" rather than "abortion on demand") does not mean that
it is not okay to be rich. It just means you have to do it under your
own steam. Sheesh!dkw (02/15/83)
The argument for state funding for abortion is not that the states should do everything anyone wants as watmath!cbostrum claims (in arguing that it is equivalent to "money on demand". Once the state agrees to pay for some group's (poor, old, or whatever) medical care it should pay for all such care. It is beyond me why (since abortion is legal) the state should be willing to pay for the costs of childbirth and not those of abortion. The only conceivable reason for this would be to increase the population, and the time when that was reasonable is long gone. ~v (oh well, the bad grammar stays) David Wittenberg Brown University Computer Science decvax!brunix!dkw