Do you support tax funded abortion?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by friendorfoe, Jan 9, 2012.

Loading...
  1. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Yeah I know, I like stirring the pot but so far on this forum we've managed to stay mostly civil, so controversial topics are always fun here since we rarely devolve to the "stink face" or "poo poo head" comments.

    Anyhow I saw this article Planned Parenthood

    ...and saw that we are sending quite a bit of tax fuding to pay for abortions, which I personally think is wrong but I would like to hear your opinions on it and why or why not you think this is a good thing (or not).
     
  2. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Oh boy, talk about stirring the pot. I'm not religous at all, but I have taken enough science courses to know what happens in the womb. You cannot argue with science unless you have a big hamster in your head that can run around and round until you get to the conclusion that you want. I presonally would never have an abortion and neither would my wife.

    That being said, I support a woman's right to kill her unborn child (although it's bullshit that the man has no say in it) and please stowe the faux outrage about rape. It happens in less than 1% of abortions.

    Kill away ladies, kill away. Although I do not think it should be funded by taxes.

    Besides if you read Freakonomics, abortion keeps the crime rate down.

    Now the pot is boiling.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2012
  3. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    I am not well versed in said topic. However, I vaguely recall PPO's funding goes to about 1% of abortions. The rest of the services are toward teen awareness, and various types of medical sevices avaiaible to those without medical services. When I hear terms like abotion on demand, etc, I become turned off. If a women is violently raped, it should be her CHOICE whether or not to have the child. This is up to the woman, and her faith. We are a nation of laws. If someone doesn't like, too bad.

    For these that dimisss this argument so freely, how would you like to raise the child of one who raped your wife? Seriously! Come one now, come off the pulpit and don't claim you ae non religious. Please explain to me.

    To those who are so outraged. Abortion is legal. just like drinking alchohol is legal. Guns are legal. If you don't like it, move to another country.

    Sorry,

    Abner :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2012
  4. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    "Science" doesn't get to determine what is right and what is wrong.

    As for rape, the subject only comes up to vilify people who believe that abortion is wrong and as a red herring to circumvent the greater moral issue of abortion. Once the moral issue of abortion is resolved, then it becomes clear what the correct course of action is when the more difficult situations arise. In this case, the rapist is guilty of a horrific crime and deserves to be punished, but the unborn is entirely innocent and should not have to suffer the death penalty for someone else's actions. It has to be one of the most difficult things in the world to bear a child that was conceived unwillingly, but it is better than the alternative.

    As for taxpayer money going to abortion, I think the question raised is more general than that. The question is, should citizens of this country have their money taken by the government for purposes that they don't agree with because certain ones in the government believe it is for the greater good? I have a suspicion that such a discussion, in every case, becomes a labyrinth of contradictions and slippery slopes.
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    Or change the law?

    Legality doesn't determine ethics or morality. If this attitude were in place, we would still allow only landowning white men to vote, and we'd have a large segment of the population in change. If we went back far enough, we'd still be under a king.
     
  6. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Then go about do so. To date, it has not been done. Neither by the dems or the reps. I am am not concerned with others morality or salvation. People came here to escape religoius prosecution, a fact that man forget. I am concerned with my own morality,. I can only point the way, but in the way, only I can determine my own nirvana. For those who are so anxious to save all these babies, increase welfare after they are born. Don't forget them after they are born.

    Abner
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    And this is based on your personal religious beliefs. What makes yours more legitimate than others' beliefs?

    Regardless, while we cannot and should not base our laws on any particular religion, ethics and morality (at least in a civic sense) have always been essential to the legal system.

    My point was that simply asserting, "It's the law. Deal with it," doesn't deal with the issue at hand. It's not whether or not it is legal or funded but whether or not it should be.



    Statements like these play into the hands of the opposition. That's about a half-step away from eugenics-style logic.

    I don't like abortion, but I do recognize that it's a difficult issue. My preference is to double down our efforts on prevention of unwanted pregnancies. The best way to address abortion, IMO, is to reduce the number of people who even need to consider it as an option.
     
  8. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    This is based on my simple logic. People don't like tax funded funding cancer care for smokers. Should we ban smoking? Should we let cancer victims die like so much trash? The pro life stance must be carried from start to finish in my opinion.

    Furthermore, you do not know what my religious beliefs are. You talk about eugenics, to me, whatever. We should concentrate on how popping out children out of wedlock is wrong. If you assume you are christian, then sex out of wedockk is wrong, plain and simple . Man cannot pick and choose what if wrong. Why not teach to prevent, and to take the conception of a human life as something sacred? rather than some conceived after a night of partying, or a night of rape?

    As far as the law, many of us disagree for sure, yet, there they are.

    Abner
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2012
  9. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    While I'm generally very conservative politically, I'm not especially religious, so my views on abortion are probably strange to many.

    I hate that abortion is used as birth control by so many people, but I also think that the government paying for an abortion probably falls into the positive on a cost/benefit analysis, compared to what the government will spend on welfare, food stamps, education, health care, and incarceration time for many of the children born to single mothers.
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    This is different. A smoker has the choice to smoke. In abortion, the issue of personhood is paramount. Does the fetus have a right to life or not? Does the mother have the right to choose not to carry a conceived fetus? Is there a conflict in these rights? These are the central questions. People will answer them differently, but abortion isn't the same as cancer treatment.

    I'm going off of your own statements pertaining to morality and nirvana.

    When one talks in utilitarian terms about life itself, then that raises issues. Perhaps we should look at it in a utilitarian sense, but it's also very understandable to see why people with a non-utilitarian outlook would recoil strongly at the suggestion.

    Furthermore, if the goal is to convince people, the utilitarian approach doesn't really work on what is a clearly emotionally-charged issue. We aren't talking about widgets here.

    People do all the time. It may not be legitimate, but it happens. Also, Christianity is much more diverse than your statement indicates.

    I'm not sure I follow you here.
     
  11. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    We should concentrate on how popping out children out of wedlock is wrong. If you assume you are christian, then sex out of wedockk is wrong, plain and simple . Man cannot pick and choose what if wrong. People do all the time. It may not be legitimate, but it happens. Also, Christianity is much more diverse than your statement indicates.

    Why not teach to prevent? and to take the contracption of a human life as something sacred? rather than some conceived after a night of partying, or a night of rape? I'm not sure I follow you here.

    So please explain? Also, plesae explain whether o not your woudl freely accept the child of a man who wildily and freely penetrarated your wife daughterer? Would you encourgatgep parental visits? Come one now, don't bs me.

    Abnert
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM New Member

    I'll be honest. I would probably consider an abortion in those circumstances. And I'm not sure that there would be a need for parental rights because I might not be able to restrain homicidal rage.

    I would not presume to judge a rape victim for having an abortion. I would think that it was only a sad chapter of a very tragic set of events, and it would be a choice that the victim should never have been forced to make.

    I recognize that this is a complicated issue, and people come at the topic from different angles. I just think that both sides end up talking past each other most of the time.
     
  13. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

    I agree that we as a society need to do a better job of providing for both expectant women and children after they are born. That said ... say for the sake of argument we granted that abortion would be acceptable in the less than 1% of current abortions that occur due to the terrible crimes of rape or incest. (That figure is according to Planned Parenthood's own research.) Would you then agree that the other 99% should be banned?

    Abortion is a complex issue, but mainly because any moral issue is necessarily complex due to so many intervening emotionally charged factors. There really is only one question: What is the unborn? If it's not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. If it is, no justification for abortion is sufficient. (This is not a religious argument, btw.)
     
  14. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Due Process

    Killing unborn babies (or older people) is immoral and should not be done without due process, which is granted in every other capital offense.

    It's difficult to believe that state sanctioned killing of unborn babies is now happening in the United States, similar to the state sanctioned killing that happened in concentration camps in Nazi Germany during WWII.
     
  15. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member

    I agree with that position. Killing unborn babies is immoral. If an unborn baby is not a human being, why the ban on late term abortions?
     
  16. BobbyJim

    BobbyJim New Member


    My taxes go toward many things I do not agree with, and abortion is something we should not be paying for. Adoption is an alternative that our taxes should support.

    Since birth control became readily available and the stigma of unmarried pregnancy went away years ago, we have steadily slid down the moral slippery slope to our current state of affairs.
     
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I'm always surprised that so many people can be so sure of themselves on this issue. As far as I go, I'm sure that a zygote isn't a baby, and just as sure that a third term trimester fetus is. Where's the magic line beyond which, congratulations, you're human? I don't know for sure. And neither does anyone else, I think. I believe that external viability, even heavily assisted, is a pretty clear sign of humanity, and that happens, what, halfway through? When is the nervous system developed enough that there's a There there?

    Personally, I think this absence of certainty is a great reason to err on the side of caution. Just knowing that you might be killing a baby in a horrifically gruesome way, I mean, isn't that enough reason not to do so? To me that immediately takes anything after the first trimester off the table.

    As for tax money, that's an easy call. Forcing people to pay for something they see as murder is unconscionable. I don't think tax money should go to much of anything, and this sure as sunshine isn't on the list.
     
  18. truckie270

    truckie270 New Member

    Point 1 - Adoption.

    Point 2 - Lots of things are legal that are not funded by taxpayers. The government does not subsidize my alcohol consumption nor my gun purchases.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2012
  19. Messdiener

    Messdiener Member

    With so many of my posts asking about religious (read: Catholic and Orthodox) degree/certificate programs, perhaps it does not come as a surprise to many here that I am not [/B ]in favor of using tax dollars to fund abortions.

    With that said (and, please, do not see this as a personal attack, me again), I am not in favour of using the Nazi card in...any argument. It really does not get us anywhere. It can be used in all sorts of silly situations, and it doesn't ever really seem valid in my eyes. As one example, could we not all agree that many Nazis ate meat. If that is accepted as true, should vegetarians start using the Nazi line to promote their cause? Oh, how I love argumentation ad absurdum! */sarcasm*

    Messdiener
     
  20. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Argumentum ad Hitlerum.
     

Share This Page