CMV: Anybody who is pro-choice but against universal healthcare is completely delusional

For years I identified as pro-life. I think the way in which abortion is used at present is disgusting. A form of birth control, killing babies (the number varies, but approximately 60% of abortions occur after 9 weeks) that could feel pain, and murder of the innocent. <br><br>However, I was also a fervent supporter of planned parenthood. Why the paradox? No woman should be forced to carry a child to term, but why are they getting pregnant in the first place? I think the best argument against abortion (aside from the obvious anti-choice arguments) is that with proper sex education and free access to contraception, the need for abortion is a completely avoidable issue. <br><br>So, if we can educate women and provide access to prevent pregnancy, surely we should be able to provide medical care in the event that the birth control fails, and the pregnancy is not wanted, right? It seems completely contradictory to me that somebody can be pro-choice, and against government run healthcare, when it would prevent the need for abortions in the first place. <br><br>I can already hear the echos of "I should not have to pay for YOUR poor decisions" Comments like these completely ignore the underlying problem. Many women cannot afford healthcare in the first place. Healthcare is very expensive, and without proper healthcare, women may not be able to get the birth control they so desperately need to prevent the pregnancy. If these women (who are most likely low income) get pregnant, it is even LESS likely they will be able to afford the proper pre-natal care. In this case, the tax payer will be paying for their hospital bills anyway. On the off chance that these women cannot afford to have an abortion, they will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term anyway, and there is a good chance that their child will have defects due to their mothers inability to receive proper pre-natal care. <br><br>To make a long story short, if a woman is given proper sex education, and has adequate access to affordable birth control, the likelihood of her being in a situation that abortion would have to be considered is greatly reduced. The only reasons (at least that I've heard) against universal healthcare are that you don't want to pay for somebody else's mistakes. However, the lack of access to affordable healthcare IS the underlying problem in the first place. <br><br>If you can change my view, I'll virtually tip you my student loan money.<br><br>EDIT: Thank you all for your interest! I wasn't expecting there to be so many responses. I will do my best to respond to each of you in a fair and timely manner. <br><br><br>Guys, if you do not have anything to add to the discussion, PLEASE do not comment. The amount of irrelevant comments and insults is making it difficult for me to keep up and has the potential to derail the discussion. To clarify, what I am saying is that the government should not pay for the abortion, but they should pay for access to birth control to prevent the need for abortion. In the event that the birth control fails, and a woman must get an abortion, it is her choice to pay for it, or she can seek financial assistance from an organization like planned parenthood. <br><br><br>Also, I see many of you are under the assumption that I am an American. I am Canadian, and this is how ours system functions. I believe that any developed country should work in a similar manner. <br><br>I am also hearing that a tax increase will be too difficult on the middle class. I understand that any tax increase will be a burden. But I will repeat again, if this plan is implemented properly, there would be LESS unplanned pregnancies, which is a win-win for everybody. In the long run paying for birth control will be cheaper than paying for the birth and the hospital bills of the mother and child. Less unplanned pregnancies also means less burden on the taxpayer overall. <br><br>If you feel that I have not responded to some sort of pro-life or libertarian argument, please let me know and I will do my best to respond. <br><br><br>EDIT 2: Thank you all for your continued interest. I will no longer be replying to comments directly, as the sheer number is making it difficult to keep up with, and there is a lot of repetition on both sides. <br><br>If you think you can change my view, I urge you to continue posting. I am currently under the impression that the majority (if not all) of you making pro-life arguments have added nothing substantial, and are simply restating your personal view, and reasons why you think abortion is wrong, without addressing the argument at hand. In other words, you have expressed your contempt for the act of abortion, but have not expressed why the government should not pay for birth control to prevent the need for abortion. <br><br>I am also under the impression that the majority (if not all) of you making your libertarian arguments have been completely trumped by those on my side making economic arguments. In other words, you believe the government should not pay for birth control because you don't want to pay for somebody else's mistake. However, we have expressed that the government paying for birth control would actually be cheaper in the long run. <br><br>I should also note that this is not some sort of pipe dream. As a Canadian, this is the way our society functions, and we are much better for it. <br><br>Thanks for your interest and participation, and I look forward to reading your arguments.