🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20sj04$et5@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Acquiescence) writes:
> In article <20sarqINN4rd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>
 [stuff deleted]
>>You can find a phone number for your congressperson in the 
>>front of the white pages phone book, under US Government Offices,
>>Congress of the United States.
> 
> 
> 	Indeed, I'm going to call and raise hell about publicly funding
> 	a purely private medical procedure, despite being pro-abortion.
> 
> 	Will we be publicly funding nose-jobs next?
> 
> -- 
-- 

In theory, I agree with you.  I'm anti-big-government and in general don't
think the government should be doing much more than building roads, parks,
libraries, defense systems, and protecting old-growth forests from any further
logging.

However, I recently heard an argument FOR funding abortions that made sense.
Those who need government-funded abortions more than likely aren't in a
position to support a child very well.  It costs us taxpayers FAR more to
support a child with all of the government's social programs that it would have
cost to give the woman an abortion.

Ideally, there would be no welfare or other social programs that are currently
bankrupting our economy and creating a class of citizens incapable of caring
for themselves - at which point I'd say no funded abortions either.  But I'm
afraid that day is a long way off (particularly with Mr Tax-and-Spend in the
White House).  So I guess I might be more inclined at this point to take the
lesser of two evils and pay a little now than pay a lot more later. 

-Bob Longo
=======================================+======================================
Bob Longo (longo@sfpp.com)             | "I am not gonna raise taxes on the
Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines             | middle class to pay for these
Los Angeles, CA                        | programs." - Bill Clinton