Oh - fair warning - 
If it's just about "reproduction regulation business" and money....
Pregnancies cost insurance companies a hell of a lot more money, "force" employers and taxpayers to provide maternity leave, add to taxpayer-subsidized "welfare" and supplimental programs as poor families increase and are less able to provide for their children.
If it was a matter of worrying about "who's gonna pay for it?" it would make more sense to require registration and a guarentee of the ability to provide a stable home and financially afford a pregnancy and raising children before allowing a woman to get pregnant so that she and her children are not a liability to the average taxpayer or employer - just providing contraception is so much cheaper in the long run to society in general than a struggling family requiring tax subisdies and community support.
Methinks too many in the right-wing and the cervix sniffers haven't figured out that pregnancy in iteslf is not a singular event that ends when the baby is born. It's not an assembly line to the showroom effort, with a net profit or loss margin that can be put on a quarterly spreadsheet.
It's a long term, lifetime event, and the responsibility it brings, and effect it has on society, does not ever really end - the pregnancy of a great-great-great grandmother has affected world events - for good or ill - in one way or another, no matter who you are or who's grandmother she was.
Haele
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read