Joey1 - I would doubt that most Americans (myself included) have any idea how pro-life or pro-abortion Canadians are (though the inverse is probably less true), so there is little room for comment.

I doubt many women with unwanted pregnancies who have abortions wouldn't do so if the United States had more paternity leave laws and paid for the prenatal care. Most people wouldn't be so craven as to end their unborn child's life just because the process will cost them money.

Those who have abortions have them because they don't want the responsibility of a child, and throwing money at new mothers won't change how radically a baby would change their lives.

Nola,
I think if you read joey's followup post, it matters little your knowledge of Canadians. He isn't asking which anti-abortion protesters are louder.

Invictus, are you saying that there is no amount of money the government could give to newly pregnant women that wouldn't convince them to keep their baby? Surely you agree that at some point a couple would be swayed by the monetary benefits... It's just a matter of how much, no?

DingleberryJones - Well, I would say that my knowledge of Canada would be quite important. How can you compare two things when you don't much of anything about one of them? Also, I know nothing about the specifics of Canadian law regarding euthanasia, the death penalty, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, contraceptive funding/government support, or a host of other pro-life related issues. That is my point; most Americans don't know enough about Canada to comment.

@ Joey- 3) Care for newborns:
Not sure if this is what you were looking for. But I'm pretty sure there is a law in the states that allows the newborn baby to be dropped off at a hospital or police station, no questions asked kinda thing.

What I'm saying is that a woman would not decide to keep and raise the baby just because the government pays for ultrasounds and the delivery. There's still the whole raising the child thing that the government can never do for her, and if she wanted to give the child up for adoption from the start I know for a fact there are private charities which provide the prenatal care in these circumstances.

I suppose if the government started handing out the cash equivalent of what it costs to raise a child for 18 years upfront a lot of couples would be swayed, but that's just being silly, Chrispminis. Abortions happen not because the mother can't afford a couple hundred bucks on the pregnancy care, they happen because she's unable or unwilling to spend the exorbitant amount of time and money a child costs her. No amount of government spending in this area would make a big difference.

Invictus, what if governments handed out the cash equivalent of what it costs to raise a child for 6 years? Or 1 year? I mean, the principle is there, it's the amount that varies, and I'm sure that couples would also have varying amounts of what it takes. I don't think any pregnant mother consciously decides to weigh abortion against money, that's obviously absurd, but is it far fetched to say that on some level, more government support for new mothers would factor into the decision to keep the baby or not? The real question is how much money versus how many abortions.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.

Well, then we're getting into a naked welfare state. You don't have to look too hard to see how a system which pays people for having kids can be abused by the unscrupulous. The cure seems just as bad as the disease, since it'll create an even worse under-class of dependency.

A woman who wants an abortion is going to get an abortion. A woman who doesn't want one isn't. The individual's personal views on the subject would far outweigh the financial circumstances, since if a woman really believes that that fetus is already her child she can hardly justify killing it for a lack of funds, but rather might give it up for adoption. A woman who has a pro-choice outlook from the start would still have a rough time I'm sure, but her decision to terminate the pregnancy would probably not be affected too much by the government paying for a doctor and ultrasound and some welfare checks once the thing's born. It would have more to do with whether she wanted to deal with the responsibility of raising another human.

At any rate, I don't think more aid to women with unwanted pregnancies would do very much to prevent abortions. I can't say I disapprove, but I have to wonder how some token monies would sway such a grave decision.

Nola, I think that makes you a wuss. Forget about Canada. Call them country 1 and country 2. Using only the information that the OP gave in his first two posts, see if you can form a sentence.

Invictus, how many women do you actually know who have had abortions?

Invictus, I don't have stats to show that government benefits might dissuade abortion, but there is definitely plenty of evidence that government monetary incentives aimed at increasing the birth rate in many countries has been quite successful. There is a large portion of the population that probably has not given that much thought to the issue of abortion, nor might they identify with either pro-life, nor pro-choice. In addition, it can not be ignored that a significant part of the responsibility of raising a child is a heavy financial burden. It makes sense that government support would have some effect on the decision.