NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok here is a question

What do you people think about public money going towards abortion issues?

(everything from subsidization to you name it …) not saying all of it necessarily takes place right now but with the possibility of the funding going towards it in the future

(though possibly for the case of this question setting aside(not including) the funds for a regulatory agency to make sure that the procedure is safe )


One side-
There is a possibility that poor women will not be able to get the procedure through lack of funds … potentially making a bad situation worse. (also the chance of being driven to unsafe procedures)

The other-

Essentially forcing tax payers to fund a procedure they do not morally agree with



Just curious not taking one side or another for now

Edit: the question was more about application of taxes with abortion used as an example of something people may not agree with.
If you are pro choice try to imagine it is towards something you personally do not agree with … death penalty … whatever.

Totally despicable.

There is absolutely no moral justification whatsoever for forcing someone to subsidize an act he finds reprehensible.

Totally despicable.

There is absolutely no moral justification whatsoever for forcing someone to subsidize an act he finds reprehensible.

Like military invasions?

I know I posted this in the other thread, but it is probably more appropriate here.

Ah, now that is a sticky question!

I guess what it really comes down to, is the following questions:

Is healthcare a basic right which the government should ensure?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want tax dollars going to anyone's health care, as people should pay for themselves.

If the answer is yes,

Are elective procedures also covered under the basic right of healthcare?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want certain elective procedures covered, be it elective abortions, dental cleaning, or Viagra. However, necessary abortions *would* be covered. Also, this could lead to more healthcare being needed for women who attempt back-alley abortions, as the after-care if the job was botched would not be elective.

If the answer is yes, then tax dollars would go to elective abortions as well.

I suppose, however, that the only condition under which tax dollars would never go to abortion would be if health care is not a basic right which should be ensured to all people.

Totally despicable.

There is absolutely no moral justification whatsoever for forcing someone to subsidize an act he finds reprehensible.
My tax money goes towards arresting and jailing marijuana users.

I find that incredibly rephrehensible.

However, such is the nature of taxes. Once taxed, it is not your money, but the government's. We have NO influence on what the taxed money can or cannot go towards...what we have is power (through our representatives) over what general policies are followed by the government.

So instead of griping about your tax money being used on something you *gasp* don't personally approve of, focus more on changing the law that affects what you believe in.

Totally despicable.

There is absolutely no moral justification whatsoever for forcing someone to subsidize an act he finds reprehensible.Well, there's a reasonable and realistic reply ;)
Like military invasions?Slam-dunk! :D

Actually, I live where medicare covers the cost of abortion and I fully support it. Apart from everything else, the fewer unwanted/abused children in the world, the better.

My tax money goes towards arresting and jailing marijuana users.

I find that incredibly rephrehensible.

However, such is the nature of taxes. Once taxed, it is not your money, but the government's. We have NO influence on what the taxed money can or cannot go towards...what we have is power (through our representatives) over what general policies are followed by the government.

So instead of griping about your tax money being used on something you *gasp* don't personally approve of, focus more on changing the law that affects what you believe in.
I agree … but how does this affect your view of pro life people trying to get pro life laws enacted

Since you have stated that this is the appropriate method of controlling where your money goes

ohip covers abortions here.

and i don't mind that.

I know I posted this in the other thread, but it is probably more appropriate here.

Ah, now that is a sticky question!

I guess what it really comes down to, is the following questions:

Is healthcare a basic right which the government should ensure?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want tax dollars going to anyone's health care, as people should pay for themselves.

If the answer is yes,

Are elective procedures also covered under the basic right of healthcare?

If the answer is no, then the voters can certainly decide that they don't want certain elective procedures covered, be it elective abortions, dental cleaning, or Viagra. However, necessary abortions *would* be covered. Also, this could lead to more healthcare being needed for women who attempt back-alley abortions, as the after-care if the job was botched would not be elective.

If the answer is yes, then tax dollars would go to elective abortions as well.

I suppose, however, that the only condition under which tax dollars would never go to abortion would be if health care is not a basic right which should be ensured to all people.

And like I stated in the other thread

Personaly

Yes to heathcare

No to elective procedures (including dental and so on so forth) not saying that private medical insurance companies cant cover these things (you pay for what you get for in dues … or your employer does) but as for federal funding … I don’t think so


but again my personal opinion

I agree … but how does this affect your view of pro life people trying to get pro life laws enacted

Since you have stated that this is the appropriate method of controlling where your money goes
It is the appropriate method (however much I vehemently disagree with their stance on the actual issue of abortion).

The "my taxes shouldn't blah blah blah" is a non-issue. Just imagine if everyone started complaining about what their taxes went towards. Perhaps the hippies that don't think we should have a military decided they didn't want their taxes supporting said military? Maybe the 40% of America that supports full legalization of marijuana thinks their taxes shouldn't go to jailing pot-smokers?

Government is a big beaurocratic mess. Your taxes go towards everything.

Ok I see the flaw in my original post (and I will suitably modify it so all the people posting afterwards will understand)
But I understand that some people are pro choice … that’s alright but how would it effect your choice if it was not a procedure you agreed with such as you funding the death penalty

It is the appropriate method (however much I vehemently disagree with their stance on the actual issue of abortion).

The "my taxes shouldn't blah blah blah" is a non-issue. Just imagine if everyone started complaining about what their taxes went towards. Perhaps the hippies that don't think we should have a military decided they didn't want their taxes supporting said military? Maybe the 40% of America that supports full legalization of marijuana thinks their taxes shouldn't go to jailing pot-smokers?

Government is a big beaurocratic mess. Your taxes go towards everything.
Fair enough :) (and always nice to see consistency with a belief even if it means admitting something you personally detest is alright) in this case modifying the law …

See consistency in application and stance so very rare

Like military invasions?
Precisely.

My tax money goes towards arresting and jailing marijuana users.

I find that incredibly rephrehensible.

Then you should not be forced to subsidize it.

In fact, such acts are not a legitimate purpose of government, so not only should you not be forced to subsidize it, but it should not be done in the first place.

However, such is the nature of taxes. Once taxed, it is not your money, but the government's.
False. Mere physical possession does not determine ownership--it must be LEGITIMATE possession. If an entity--any entity--takes from me what is mine without my consent, that entity's possession of what is rightfully mine is illegitimate.
So instead of griping about your tax money being used on something you *gasp* don't personally approve of, focus more on changing the law that affects what you believe in.
I shouldn't have to. Government should not be collecting taxes in the first place. There are other means of financing the extremely few proper functions of government (enforcing contracts, punishing violent offenders, and defending against foreign aggression) without resorting to violent theft. If those means prove to be insufficient, that's just tough. The end does not justify the means.

Precisely.
Lol fair enough … he/she made the mistake of thinking pro life people are pro war … :) everyone has to learn not to stereotype lol

Then you should not be forced to subsidize it.

In fact, such acts are not a legitimate purpose of government, so not only should you not be forced to subsidize it, but it should not be done in the first place.


False. Mere physical possession does not determine ownership--it must be LEGITIMATE possession. If an entity--any entity--takes from me what is mine without my consent, that entity's possession of what is rightfully mine is illegitimate.

I shouldn't have to. Government should not be collecting taxes in the first place. There are other means of financing the extremely few proper functions of government (enforcing contracts, punishing violent offenders, and defending against foreign aggression) without resorting to violent theft. If those means prove to be insufficient, that's just tough. The end does not justify the means.

Ohhh a true “Small government” POV … rare to see, nice to have someone with a differing opinion

Lol fair enough … he/she made the mistake of thinking pro life people are pro war … :) everyone has to learn not to stereotype lol

And you made the mistake of assuming I'm both opposed to abortion and anti-war in the abstract.

I'm neither.

The abortion issue is not very important to me. See my http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=377912 thread to see more about what I really want, COMPROMISE.

One suggestion I have made before has been that abortions may stay legal in private medical practices without government funding.

And you made the mistake of assuming I'm both opposed to abortion and anti-war in the abstract.

I'm neither.
Incorrect … I did not assume that you opposed the war merely pointed out the flaw in logic (did not make a comment that would potentially oppose yours)
Like I said pointing out not assuming (in this case … we are all guilty of assumption at one point in time or another anyways)

Ok I see the flaw in my original post (and I will suitably modify it so all the people posting afterwards will understand)
But I understand that some people are pro choice … that’s alright but how would it effect your choice if it was not a procedure you agreed with such as you funding the death penalty

Don't assume that anyone who is pro-choice agrees with public funding for elective procedures. =)

I'm kind of iffy on the whole thing myself. One *could* argue, I suppose, that funding abortion would be cheaper in the long run, of course. If the woman can not afford it, then the goverment is going to have to pick up the tab for her prenatal care and labor - as well as probable health care for the child born as well. I wonder if that changes anything, as both having an abortion and choosing to not have one are essentially *elective* and funding one area, but not the other, forces a decision upon someone.

Don't assume that anyone who is pro-choice agrees with public funding for elective procedures. =)

I'm kind of iffy on the whole thing myself. One *could* argue, I suppose, that funding abortion would be cheaper in the long run, of course. If the woman can not afford it, then the goverment is going to have to pick up the tab for her prenatal care and labor - as well as probable health care for the child born as well. I wonder if that changes anything, as both having an abortion and choosing to not have one are essentially *elective* and funding one area, but not the other, forces a decision upon someone.
True (and wasn’t assuming … trying to remove personal bias for this particular case by moving it more abstract) rather trying to force the issue more about elective procedures rather then a specific case

Or even farther abstract to supporting things you don’t agree with

In fact, such acts are not a legitimate purpose of government, so not only should you not be forced to subsidize it, but it should not be done in the first place.


False. Mere physical possession does not determine ownership--it must be LEGITIMATE possession. If an entity--any entity--takes from me what is mine without my consent, that entity's possession of what is rightfully mine is illegitimate.

I shouldn't have to. Government should not be collecting taxes in the first place. There are other means of financing the extremely few proper functions of government (enforcing contracts, punishing violent offenders, and defending against foreign aggression) without resorting to violent theft. If those means prove to be insufficient, that's just tough. The end does not justify the means.
let me guess... you're a libertarian.

UpwardThrust and Dempublicents...

You two just can't get enough of this abortion debate, can you? :p

UpwardThrust and Dempublicents...

You two just can't get enough of this abortion debate, can you? :p
I cant get enough of any debate honestly … why do you think the 1600 + count in like 3 months lol


I enjoy arguing/listening to this one peticularly because I am in a grey undecided state personaly leaves me able to argue either side

I enjoy arguing/listening to this one peticularly because I am in a grey undecided state personaly leaves me able to argue either side

hey, same :p

I'm somewhere in the middle. The unalienable right to life is important to me, though. To say that you can abort someone because it is "of your body" and therefore private seems too awkward to me. I don't like to think of myself as a former body function of my mother. Some abortion is okay, though. The mother's life certainly trumps the life of a baby with only the potential for life.

We should be focusing on ways to avoid a situation where someone might want an abortion in the first place. *cough* better sexual/contraception education *cough*

hey, same :p

I'm somewhere in the middle. The unalienable right to life is important to me, though. To say that you can abort someone because it is "of your body" and therefore private seems too awkward to me. I don't like to think of myself as a former body function of my mother. Some abortion is okay, though. The mother's life certainly trumps the life of a baby with only the potential for life.

We should be focusing on ways to avoid a situation where someone might want an abortion in the first place. *cough* better sexual/contraception education *cough*
Hear hear (dident want to bring it up cause different fight) but contraception for sure

Though that leads back to public funding of contraception ;) (should BC be covered)

Better education? What's the best way to avoid teen pregnancy? Abstinence.

Let's work on the whole unwanted pregnancy thing. Take away the child tax credit (which just may encourage birth for the sake of money) and pay all people of childbearing age who have an IQ of 99 or less to be sterilized.

Hear hear (dident want to bring it up cause different fight) but contraception for sure

Though that leads back to public funding of contraception ;) (should BC be covered)

new thread started on that one....

Better education? What's the best way to avoid teen pregnancy? Abstinence.

Let's work on the whole unwanted pregnancy thing. Take away the child tax credit (which just may encourage birth for the sake of money) and pay all people of childbearing age who have an IQ of 99 or less to be sterilized.

My IQ is well above 99, but that wouldn't keep me from having some fun in the bedroom. Sex will happen whether you like it or not. :rolleyes: :fluffle:

Better education? What's the best way to avoid teen pregnancy? Abstinence.

Let's work on the whole unwanted pregnancy thing. Take away the child tax credit (which just may encourage birth for the sake of money) and pay all people of childbearing age who have an IQ of 99 or less to be sterilized.
The funny thing is teaching abstinence only classes are about the worst thing for teen pregnancy (nothing against abstinence but only teaching that and not also contraceptive options and so on so forth)
But the class seems to have a very detrimental effect … I will try to find some sources quoted in the abstinence thread but I would recommend perusing though there too

Ok here is a question

What do you people think about public money going towards abortion issues?

(everything from subsidization to you name it …) not saying all of it necessarily takes place right now but with the possibility of the funding going towards it in the future

(though possibly for the case of this question setting aside(not including) the funds for a regulatory agency to make sure that the procedure is safe )


One side-
There is a possibility that poor women will not be able to get the procedure through lack of funds … potentially making a bad situation worse. (also the chance of being driven to unsafe procedures)

The other-

Essentially forcing tax payers to fund a procedure they do not morally agree with



Just curious not taking one side or another for now

Edit: the question was more about application of taxes with abortion used as an example of something people may not agree with.
If you are pro choice try to imagine it is towards something you personally do not agree with … death penalty … whatever.
all of us pay for things with our tax dollars that we might not agree with. for example, i am forced to support a police force that prosecutes "crimes" like consumption of drugs or curfew violations, which i believe represent gross miscarriages of justice. my tax dollars currently contribute to youth programs that teach abstinance-only education, something i believe is dangerously ignorant and destructive. given the number of faith-based programs that our nation's taxpayers must support, i think putting a little money into reproductive health care is a very small bone to throw to the nation's non-conservatives.

all of us pay for things with our tax dollars that we might not agree with. for example, i am forced to support a police force that prosecutes "crimes" like consumption of drugs or curfew violations, which i believe represent gross miscarriages of justice. my tax dollars currently contribute to youth programs that teach abstinance-only education, something i believe is dangerously ignorant and destructive. given the number of faith-based programs that our nation's taxpayers must support, i think putting a little money into reproductive health care is a very small bone to throw to the nation's non-conservatives.
Personally I am of the mind to decrease payment to a lot of the aforementioned programs (minus maybe the police force … as they are not the ones prosecuting those crimes just arresting those that break the law … if the law was not there they wouldn’t arrest them … more of the laws fault really) if we got rid of some of the silly ones maybe we would need less of them (not arguing that)

But anyways more for trimming special interests and going for what works … like normal sex-ed classes that actually teach you the info you need to know.

Just don’t feel elective procedures should be subsidized in any form by the government

Totally despicable.

There is absolutely no moral justification whatsoever for forcing someone to subsidize an act he finds reprehensible.
Oooh, good. I'll ask the goverment for a refund for all the military spending they've made in my name for the last few decades.

Oooh, good. I'll ask the goverment for a refund for all the military spending they've made in my name for the last few decades.
Um you made the same mistake as the person RIGHT BELOW that post




Like military invasions?

In your comeback you are assuming that he is pro life anti war

Quit stereotyping he may be anti war pro life you assume (but we with through this already)

Better education? What's the best way to avoid teen pregnancy? Abstinence.

Let's work on the whole unwanted pregnancy thing. Take away the child tax credit (which just may encourage birth for the sake of money) and pay all people of childbearing age who have an IQ of 99 or less to be sterilized. Er, no one would EVER have birth for money under several mil., I am quite sure. I don't agree with abortion (I cannot either get enough of this debate…), as I do not see a foetus as an "extension" (reasoning?) and I believe killing it to therefore be unjustified… but you really should get some anti-abortion laws in - instead of bitching about taxes. Wouldn't you be happier then?

Totally despicable.

There is absolutely no moral justification whatsoever for forcing someone to subsidize an act he finds reprehensible.
Okay. I don't like tanks. I'll have 10% of my taxes back.

I like Congress even less. Lets have the other 90%.

Then you should not be forced to subsidize it.

In fact, such acts are not a legitimate purpose of government, so not only should you not be forced to subsidize it, but it should not be done in the first place.


False. Mere physical possession does not determine ownership--it must be LEGITIMATE possession. If an entity--any entity--takes from me what is mine without my consent, that entity's possession of what is rightfully mine is illegitimate.

I shouldn't have to. Government should not be collecting taxes in the first place. There are other means of financing the extremely few proper functions of government (enforcing contracts, punishing violent offenders, and defending against foreign aggression) without resorting to violent theft. If those means prove to be insufficient, that's just tough. The end does not justify the means.Is it not sorta super-obvious that no-one would pay taxes if they could get the benefits of them without paying, and that without it being paid for, no benefits could exist?

hey, same :p

I'm somewhere in the middle. The unalienable right to life is important to me, though. To say that you can abort someone because it is "of your body" and therefore private seems too awkward to me. I don't like to think of myself as a former body function of my mother. Some abortion is okay, though. The mother's life certainly trumps the life of a baby with only the potential for life.

We should be focusing on ways to avoid a situation where someone might want an abortion in the first place. *cough* better sexual/contraception education *cough*

Well... I think you're confused... no pro-choicer I've come across bases the majority of their stance on the idea that the *infant* is part of the mother (except in the very, very early stages)... usually the point is that the *womb* is part of the mother's body, and she has the right to refuse to share it with the infant.

So... rather than saying "I don't like to think of myself as a former body function of my mother", you should consider whether you feel you have the right to plug yourself into your mother and use her nutrients to support yourself. If you don't think so... well, you might want to reconsider the 'awkwardness' of the pro-choice notion that the mother has the right to her own body.

Other than that, I totally agree that better sex-education could seriously curb the problem (plus some changes in media and societal views)

Just don’t feel elective procedures should be subsidized in any form by the government
Elective procedure: needle exchange for drug users. Cost: $9000 per HIV case prevented.

Non-elective: Treatment for person with HIV. Cost: $200,000 per case.

This supposedly elective expenditures can reduce by 90% the cost of treatment.

Now imagine the same thing applied to abortions, and in addition, factor in the cost of enforcing anti abortion laws. If your arguement is fiscal, its a bad one.

Okay. I don't like tanks. I'll have 10% of my taxes back.

I like Congress even less. Lets have the other 90%.

If you were expecting me to disagree with you, then you're in for a big disappointment.

This has already been addressed twice in this thread--please read before you post.

Elective procedure: needle exchange for drug users. Cost: $9000 per HIV case prevented.

Non-elective: Treatment for person with HIV. Cost: $200,000 per case.

This supposedly elective expenditures can reduce by 90% the cost of treatment.

Now imagine the same thing applied to abortions, and in addition, factor in the cost of enforcing anti abortion laws. If your arguement is fiscal, its a bad one.

Not at all. Your argument makes the mistake of assuming that government should fund non-elective procedures, too, when in fact it shouldn't.

Elective procedure: needle exchange for drug users. Cost: $9000 per HIV case prevented.

Non-elective: Treatment for person with HIV. Cost: $200,000 per case.

This supposedly elective expenditures can reduce by 90% the cost of treatment.

Now imagine the same thing applied to abortions, and in addition, factor in the cost of enforcing anti abortion laws. If your arguement is fiscal, its a bad one.
Sorry I should have been more specific elective medical procedure (needle exchange it not under that category … really … its medical equipment but not a procedure)

Thinks like elective dental(like whitening … not sure about needed things like fillings) … plastic surgery any other elective procedures (sorry tired and brain not working so well)

If you were expecting me to disagree with you, then you're in for a big disappointment.

This has already been addressed twice in this thread--please read before you post.
I don't think it was directed at you so much as it was using what you wrote to give his opinion on the matter. It's a forum, after all. Other people read the thread and they could be pro-life and pro-war.

Not at all. Your argument makes the mistake of assuming that government should fund non-elective procedures, too, when in fact it shouldn't.
why?

Simple. Government has an objectively-defined proper role: punishing real (violent) criminals, enforcing contracts, and defending against foreign aggression--and even funding those coercively is wrong, too.

The end does not justify the means. That is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not.

Is it not sorta super-obvious that no-one would pay taxes if they could get the benefits of them without paying, and that without it being paid for, no benefits could exist?

Once again, the end does not justify the means. Practical arguments for or against "X" are base, meaningless, and irrelevant when X is morally unjustified.

There are other means of financing the extremely few proper functions of government (enforcing contracts, punishing violent offenders, and defending against foreign aggression) without resorting to violent theft.
That means being exactly what?

Ok here is a question

What do you people think about public money going towards abortion issues?

(everything from subsidization to you name it …) not saying all of it necessarily takes place right now but with the possibility of the funding going towards it in the future

(though possibly for the case of this question setting aside(not including) the funds for a regulatory agency to make sure that the procedure is safe )


One side-
There is a possibility that poor women will not be able to get the procedure through lack of funds … potentially making a bad situation worse. (also the chance of being driven to unsafe procedures)

The other-

Essentially forcing tax payers to fund a procedure they do not morally agree with



Just curious not taking one side or another for now

Edit: the question was more about application of taxes with abortion used as an example of something people may not agree with.
If you are pro choice try to imagine it is towards something you personally do not agree with … death penalty … whatever.

Because, for me murder is already illegal and abortion is murder (the willful taking of a human life) using tax money to fund it would/in be an egredious use of my taxes.

Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions even when it is against their conscience, constitutes a clear violation of the seperation of church and state.

all of us pay for things with our tax dollars that we might not agree with. for example, i am forced to support a police force that prosecutes "crimes" like consumption of drugs or curfew violations, which i believe represent gross miscarriages of justice. my tax dollars currently contribute to youth programs that teach abstinance-only education, something i believe is dangerously ignorant and destructive. given the number of faith-based programs that our nation's taxpayers must support, i think putting a little money into reproductive health care is a very small bone to throw to the nation's non-conservatives.
none of those violate your religious freedom or your right to free conscience to the same extent as taxpayer funded abortions do.

Elective procedure: needle exchange for drug users. Cost: $9000 per HIV case prevented.

Non-elective: Treatment for person with HIV. Cost: $200,000 per case.

This supposedly elective expenditures can reduce by 90% the cost of treatment.

Now imagine the same thing applied to abortions, and in addition, factor in the cost of enforcing anti abortion laws. If your arguement is fiscal, its a bad one.
Just because you have the right to something, does not mean the government is obligated to pay for it.
To say that anyone has a "right" to government funded abortion, is the equivalent of saying people have the right to government funded healthcare or free welfare without having to get off their butts and work.

Simple. Government has an objectively-defined proper role: punishing real (violent) criminals, enforcing contracts, and defending against foreign aggression--and even funding those coercively is wrong, too.

The end does not justify the means. That is a fact, whether you choose to accept it or not.
Well, I guess we have a different definiton of the government then.

Thinks like elective dental(like whitening … not sure about needed things like fillings) … plastic surgery any other elective procedures (sorry tired and brain not working so well)

THe only non-elective dental work is removal of an impacted tooth. Also, if you get hit in the face and your teeth get knocked out, I think the repair might be considered non-elective.

Well, I guess we have a different definiton of the government then.
Yes, that seems to be the case. Furthermore, it appears that your definition is incorrect--therefore, you need to change it to comply with the objectively correct definition.

That means being exactly what?

Completely irrelevant, for one, since we're discussing objective moral principle.

If tax money is forced to go to military invasions, etc., even though people do not find it morally right, then the tax money should also be forced to fund abortions. Simple as that.

Well... I think you're confused... no pro-choicer I've come across bases the majority of their stance on the idea that the *infant* is part of the mother (except in the very, very early stages)... usually the point is that the *womb* is part of the mother's body, and she has the right to refuse to share it with the infant.

So... rather than saying "I don't like to think of myself as a former body function of my mother", you should consider whether you feel you have the right to plug yourself into your mother and use her nutrients to support yourself. If you don't think so... well, you might want to reconsider the 'awkwardness' of the pro-choice notion that the mother has the right to her own body.

Hmm... I know many who are of that opinion... those who say, "It's my body, so I can do what I want with it."

I was really recollecting an Ayn Rand quote I saw on http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_faq#obj_q5, reproduced below:

What was Ayn Rand's view on abortion?
Excerpt from "Of Living Death" in The Objectivist, October 1968:
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

This topic brings up the question of whether abortion should be legal or not at all. Personally, I believe that it should only be legal if the pregnancy endangers the mother or if the mother was raped. It should not be used as just a form of birth control. And it should absolutely not be government subsidised. In fact, most things (mainly healthcare) should not be government subsidised, it undermines our capitalist society and turns us towards Socialism.

all of us pay for things with our tax dollars that we might not agree with. for example, i am forced to support a police force that prosecutes "crimes" like consumption of drugs or curfew violations, which i believe represent gross miscarriages of justice. my tax dollars currently contribute to youth programs that teach abstinance-only education, something i believe is dangerously ignorant and destructive. given the number of faith-based programs that our nation's taxpayers must support, i think putting a little money into reproductive health care is a very small bone to throw to the nation's non-conservatives.
How is consumption of drugs not a crime? It needs to be stopped, and this is one of the things that should be supported by the government.

Lol fair enough … he/she made the mistake of thinking pro life people are pro war … :) everyone has to learn not to stereotype lol


No, I am saying that I am against war...and hate that my tax dollars go to fund invasions.

all of us pay for things with our tax dollars that we might not agree with. for example, i am forced to support a police force that prosecutes "crimes" like consumption of drugs or curfew violations, which i believe represent gross miscarriages of justice. my tax dollars currently contribute to youth programs that teach abstinance-only education, something i believe is dangerously ignorant and destructive. given the number of faith-based programs that our nation's taxpayers must support, i think putting a little money into reproductive health care is a very small bone to throw to the nation's non-conservatives.
Another thing that I forgot to add: Abstinance is a good thing. That way we don't have all of these people that want abortions, and it also cuts down on STD's. Those programs should also be supported by the government.

Personally, I believe that it should only be legal if the pregnancy endangers the mother or if the mother was raped.

Then you should definitely only get one if one of the above happens to you.

It should not be used as just a form of birth control.

Birth control prevents pregnancy, therefore abortion cannot be used as birth control.

In fact, most things (mainly healthcare) should not be government subsidised, it undermines our capitalist society and turns us towards Socialism.

How old are you?

Another thing that I forgot to add: Abstinance is a good thing. That way we don't have all of these people that want abortions, and it also cuts down on STD's. Those programs should also be supported by the government.

You *do* realize the difference between teaching abstinence and having *abstinence-only* programs?

One is a good idea, the other *increases* teen pregnancies and STDs due to teens being un/misinformed.

If tax money is forced to go to military invasions, etc., even though people do not find it morally right, then the tax money should also be forced to fund abortions. Simple as that.
They're not the same. So the comparison is invalid.

Completely irrelevant, for one, since we're discussing objective moral principle.

You made a bold statement, so support it. Dont weasel out, the discussion is about a concrete example of real world tax spending and not a theory how a government should be. Otherwise i must come to the conclusion that you dont have a clue how it should work.

I'm not weaselling out--I'm simply pointing out the fact that practical results are totally meaningless and irrelevant in the face of objective moral principle.

You *do* realize the difference between teaching abstinence and having *abstinence-only* programs?

One is a good idea, the other *increases* teen pregnancies and STDs due to teens being un/misinformed.

Not exactly. Teens having sex increases teen pregnancies, not any program. Programs have an impact on the rates, but they are not the cause. You might do a little reading on the philosophy of causality. There is a correlation between programs and pregnancy rates, but there is not causality.

Not exactly. Teens having sex increases teen pregnancies, not any program. Programs have an impact on the rates, but they are not the cause. You might do a little reading on the philosophy of causality. There is a correlation between programs and pregnancy rates, but there is not causality.
She didn’t say causes (not in that quote)

She said increases … last time I checked aggravating factors was valid even in the causality philosophy circles


The initial cause is sex drive … but mis-information is an aggravating factor

She didn’t say causes (not in that quote)

She said increases … last time I checked aggravating factors was valid even in the causality philosophy circles


The initial cause is sex drive … but mis-information is an aggravating factor


The word "increases" denotes a direct causal relationship. Aggravating factors impact the causal factor/factors and are not the causal factor themselves. Although sex drive is a an aggravating factor, to use your words, but it is again not a causal factor or at least not the primary one. Lots of people have sex drives, but not all of them get pregnant, in fact not all of them even act on that drive. The causal factor in pregnancy is sperm meeting egg, sperm meeting egg is the result of sexual activity in most cases (invetro-fertalization and artificial insemination being the primary exceptions).

As I don't want the Gov. involved in putting morality in the school system, I believe that it should discuss the issue of birth control as an option, but that the best option to ensure you don't get pregnant is abstinance. Whether or not birth control should be provided to a minor should be soully the decision of that minor's guardian/guardians unless said guardian has been determined legally incompetent via due process as a guardian.

The word "increases" denotes a direct causal relationship. Aggravating factors impact the causal factor/factors and are not the causal factor themselves. Although sex drive is a an aggravating factor, to use your words, but it is again not a causal factor or at least not the primary one. Lots of people have sex drives, but not all of them get pregnant, in fact not all of them even act on that drive. The causal factor in pregnancy is sperm meeting egg, sperm meeting egg is the result of sexual activity in most cases (invetro-fertalization and artificial insemination being the primary exceptions).

As I don't want the Gov. involved in putting morality in the school system, I believe that it should discuss the issue of birth control as an option, but that the best option to ensure you don't get pregnant is abstinance. Whether or not birth control should be provided to a minor should be soully the decision of that minor's guardian/guardians unless said guardian has been determined legally incompetent via due process as a guardian.


Don’t see how “Increases” is implying a causal relationship
Words like *creates or the like implies a direct causal relationship
(if you want to be technical she was implying a rate change not the original cause of the pregnancy but that was implied so we wont argue that)

And in the end you are arguing the same thing she is … abstinence only classes are an aggravating factor in teen pregnancy rates. Better to teach complete info.

Don’t see how “Increases” is implying a causal relationship
Words like *creates or the like implies a direct causal relationship
(if you want to be technical she was implying a rate change not the original cause of the pregnancy but that was implied so we wont argue that)

And in the end you are arguing the same thing she is … abstinence only classes are an aggravating factor in teen pregnancy rates. Better to teach complete info.

The problem is that the original cause of pregnancy is sexual activity. To say any program increases pregnancy it has to be from a baseline that rules out other factors. The only thing that would perhaps be a valid statement in regard to this specific issue would be something along the lines of, "The rate of pregnancy is not decreased as much by abstinance only programs as it is by abstinance programs combined with education on the use of contrecptive devices." The reality is that both decrease the rate of pregnancy and neither increases it.

Not exactly. Teens having sex increases teen pregnancies, not any program. Programs have an impact on the rates, but they are not the cause. You might do a little reading on the philosophy of causality. There is a correlation between programs and pregnancy rates, but there is not causality.

Actually, there is causality.

You see, teens are *going* to have sex. This we know for a fact. It has always and will always be a fact.

If we teach them about protective measures, they are likely to use them - and teen pregnancy rates have been *shown* to go down as a result. If we don't, they are not likely to use protective measures that they have either been told don't work or simply haven't been told about.

Therefore, not teaching them about protective meaures *directly* leads the teen pregnancy rates to go up. The sex rate isn't that much different - it is the rate of condom/birth control/etc. use that is decreased.

The problem is that the original cause of pregnancy is sexual activity. To say any program increases pregnancy it has to be from a baseline that rules out other factors. The only thing that would perhaps be a valid statement in regard to this specific issue would be something along the lines of, "The rate of pregnancy is not decreased as much by abstinance only programs as it is by abstinance programs combined with education on the use of contrecptive devices." The reality is that both decrease the rate of pregnancy and neither increases it.

This isn't really true. Full sex education and an increase in contraceptive use has already cased the teen pregnancy rate to go down significantly. Because it has already gone down, abstinence-only programs cause it to go back up.

I'm not weaselling out--I'm simply pointing out the fact that practical results are totally meaningless and irrelevant in the face of objective moral principle.

Is it really that hard to answer a straight question? I guess it is when you dont have any idea how it should work. And the thread already derailed, so this is no excuse. Maybe you should rename yourself to Wishfull Thinking. :p

This isn't really true. Full sex education and an increase in contraceptive use has already cased the teen pregnancy rate to go down significantly. Because it has already gone down, abstinence-only programs cause it to go back up.
Well technically you could say it didn’t CAUSE it to go up … taking away full sex ed takes away one of the limiting factors (keeping teen pregnancy down) in this case knowledge. So it was removal of a limiting factor rather then an application of an aggravating factor.

(though I understand what you mean) its just not so much it causing it as it is just not as effective as full sex ed at lowering the rate

personally i think that anyone who can't afford to pay for an abortion on private healthcare, probably can't afford to pay for the child to be born fed educated clothed etc. and as such won't be able to give them as decent a life as they deserve.

I would like every person who morally disagrees with the idea of having an abortion to first have experienced that situation before passing judgement on anyone else who makes what is one of the most difficult decisions a woman would ever have to make.

in this country we have a national health service that provides abortions as well as family planning, contraception, advice. we also get it in schools, and it's not the religious crap that appears to be rammed down your throats. It's about the practicality and experiences of having to bring up a child with no money, no home, no support. if it's going to live in misery why have it in the first place.

Then you should not be forced to subsidize it.

In fact, such acts are not a legitimate purpose of government, so not only should you not be forced to subsidize it, but it should not be done in the first place.


False. Mere physical possession does not determine ownership--it must be LEGITIMATE possession. If an entity--any entity--takes from me what is mine without my consent, that entity's possession of what is rightfully mine is illegitimate.

I shouldn't have to. Government should not be collecting taxes in the first place. There are other means of financing the extremely few proper functions of government (enforcing contracts, punishing violent offenders, and defending against foreign aggression) without resorting to violent theft. If those means prove to be insufficient, that's just tough. The end does not justify the means.

We tried that. It failed. Please, listen, It Failed.

Without taxes our government could not fund the army. Or anything else for that matter.

Look it up in history, its a fact.

So seeing as taxes are agreed upon upon choosing to stay in America...you kinda have to pay them. Once you got a ID you agreed to pay them.

We tried that. It failed. Please, listen, It Failed.

Without taxes our government could not fund the army. Or anything else for that matter.

Look it up in history, its a fact.

So seeing as taxes are agreed upon upon choosing to stay in America...you kinda have to pay them. Once you got a ID you agreed to pay them.
But taxes are not paid blindly there is some control … congressional funding and such … I guess to an extent through representation the people do decide how much and to what cause money is going

We tried that. It failed. Please, listen, It Failed.

That is irrelevant. Practical results are meaningless in the face of objective moral principle. The end does not justify the means--if the only way to achieve practical results is through morally illegitimate means, then too bad for the practical results. Doing the morally right thing trumps any base pragmatic concerns.

Without taxes our government could not fund the army. Or anything else for that matter.

You are wrong, but even if you're not, so what? As I explained above, practical results do not matter.
Look it up in history, its a fact.
Still not true, but still irrelevant as well.

So seeing as taxes are agreed upon upon choosing to stay in America
Nope. Government owns neither me nor the land on which I live--therefore, it has no moral authority to compel me to fund its actions.
Once you got a ID you agreed to pay them.
Also false, both the statement itself and also the implication that some sort of ID is required before government starts worrying about taxes.

Is it really that hard to answer a straight question?

Not at all. But I do not intend to introduce base pragmatics into a discussion on objective moral principle, where they are totally irrelevant and an utter waste of time.

Not at all. But I do not intend to introduce base pragmatics into a discussion on objective moral principle, where they are totally irrelevant and an utter waste of time.

Nice dodging and hiding behind big words. But i daresay that you are not able to give an answer. Once again, this was a thread about how morality should or should not influence spending of taxes. Not in the least about why taxes are raised at all. You pushed for that direction, making a statement that makes my reality check warning go off and you are obviously not able to support it. So, excuse my french, i call bullshit. The fact that 99+% of all people accept taxes as a necessary evil seem to support my point of view that there are no "other means", or at least not practicable ones. So, stand and deliver or hang your head in shame. :p

I am against abortion but I realize a law banning it will backfire. HOWEVER, the government needs to stop funding it (although with a million other things). If they fund something it should be nonviolent alternatives like adoption.

Well technically you could say it didn’t CAUSE it to go up … taking away full sex ed takes away one of the limiting factors (keeping teen pregnancy down) in this case knowledge. So it was removal of a limiting factor rather then an application of an aggravating factor.

(though I understand what you mean) its just not so much it causing it as it is just not as effective as full sex ed at lowering the rate

We are coming at it from different angles.

You are arguing on the basis of some "baseline" rate that would occur in a world with no schools.

I am arguing on the basis of the *current* rate which will rise with abstinence-only education.

Nice dodging and hiding behind big words. But i daresay that you are not able to give an answer. Once again, this was a thread about how morality should or should not influence spending of taxes. Not in the least about why taxes are raised at all. You pushed for that direction, making a statement that makes my reality check warning go off and you are obviously not able to support it. So, excuse my french, i call bullshit. The fact that 99+% of all people accept taxes as a necessary evil seem to support my point of view that there are no "other means", or at least not practicable ones. So, stand and deliver or hang your head in shame. :p

Nope. This is a discussion of objective moral principle, so pragmatics have no place. If you want to discuss pragmatics, by all means, start another thread--and you might well see my response there. But not here.

Nope. This is a discussion of objective moral principle, so pragmatics have no place. If you want to discuss pragmatics, by all means, start another thread--and you might well see my response there. But not here.

Morals can never be objective. But i made a new thread.