Refusing to support public finding of abortion means that you'll pay the much higher cost of childbirth and removing the mother from the labor market and putting her in the social safety net.
Personal responsibility has become a buzzword an excuse to avoid social responsibility. The result is high taxes and a diminished culture. Among other reasons, social responsibility exists to save the individual money.
Karl Marx would be proud of you but it stands in stark contrast to what made the US great. One could use your argument for euthanasia as well. Too old or incapable to be a contributing member of the collective? Sorry, your time is up.
Religion and abortion.
Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions were completely tolerant of abortion until relatively recently.
It wasn't until the early to mid-1800's that abortion became stigmatized. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800's that abortion was outlawed in the United States.
Today all religions are divided on the issue of abortion, just as the general population is.
Given the evidence that Old Testament priests performed abortions, an Abrahamic justification to oppose abortions is tenuous.
Would you care to support that pile of bovine excrement? I can show you writings from 2,000+ years ago where Christian church leaders condemned this pagan practice, including what is translated as "exposure".
The baby was left at the side of the road, exposed to the elements. Hopefully to be picked up by someone. I haven't read specifically about the OT Jewish priests but given that they believed God knew you in the womb and their strict law of conduct against murder, (let alone a priest!)it would be hard to believe. Did you just make it up or read that somewhere?
Science for sciences sake.
The largest scientific organization that deals directly with abortion is the AMA. That organization does not consider life to begin at conception and it doesn't consider abortion to be murder.
You have a gift for the obvious but since when did the AMA or any group decide national moral values?
So you say you're anti-abortion.
Another of life's little ironies is that in those nations where women have the greatest access to women's sexual health care, including abortion, the lower the rate of abortion per 1000 pregnancies. The less women have access to woman's health services, including abortion, the higher the abortion rate per 1000 pregnancies.
Odd how you marry it with 'sexual health care' but your conclusion is based on a personal bias one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. I'm skeptical of your "facts" anyway.
Now that's not the irony. The irony is that the same people that are most vocally against abortion are also amongst the most vocal against allowing women unfettered access to woman's sexual health services.
In effect they are promoting abortion.
That they tend to be against sex education and birth control, is just frosting on the irony cake.
The irony is that you use the term abortion interchangeably with sexual health care, sex ed and probably mom's apple pie.
So whose got the time.
One of the reasons I support abortion being a decision made solely by the woman and her doctor is because having the government set arbitrary limits is a recipe for dead women.
The vast majority of late term abortions directly deal with the health of the mother or because the fetus is non-viable.
Having people who don't have medical degree and who often have a political motive decide that abortions shouldn't happen after a certain trimester or that a certain procedure is just too icky, is simply medieval.