MipsyKitten
I don't enjoy dumbing down my answers, so listen up. First, I can't prove her right with all the statistics in the world, due to the fact that no one would know what the USA would be like with universal healthcare. You can make all the assupmtions you want, but no one can be 100% sure. I provided evidence as to why I thought her 'theory' was unlikely, because women said they often aborted due to not being able to afford to raise a child.
Raising a child isn't just having to deal with medical costs. What good is universal healthcare if you can't afford rent, food, or clothing? Cost of raising a child is the cost of everything for 18+ years, as well as having everything you as a parent needs to do the job. How the hell does the absence of the $3000 medical bill suddenly make someone more able to do that?
As I said, if the us had universal healthcare, there probably won't be a significant decrease in abortions, unless someone changed the welfare systems aswell.
Mipsy I respect you as a debator which is why I must point out that I never stated universal health care would for sure lower abortion rates in US. I was saying that perhaps it might. I think it's rather silly that you wasted all that time debating against my statement when you were merely going against a statement I never made. You seemed to have twisted my words around. Of course, I take less offense to a simple misunderstanding than someone blatantly putting words into my mouth, *cough*Kata*cough* but it still bothers me.
I'm going to repost my statement, highlighting some key words to help simplify the sentence for better understanding and comprehension, and allow you an Kata to rethink what you read and responded to.
Perhaps if universal health care where available in the U.S.
we'd have less women feeling the need to abort, because they'll actually be able to afford the medical expenses of being pregnant, and giving birth.
Now. Did I state ANYWHERE that universal health care in the US would DEFINITELY reduce abortion rates? Did I EVER say it would DEFINITELY even remotely reduce the rates enough for the numbers to be significant? I didn't, because I don't know the answer. Such a situation would actually have to take place in order for me to make such claims. From now on I'm going to put my little theories and thoughts into actual thought bubbles to make things more clear.
Thank you Incendia for having my back, but let's just drop this argument now, because it's really silly to argue about a misunderstanding like this.