Do you support tax funded abortion?

Since I started this topic I guess I should jump in with my own opinions but to make my position as clear as possible I’ll try to categorize them.

What is Pro-Life?

A cradle to grave care argument is a non-starter. Equating being “pro-life” in giving a baby a chance to live, a baby who has never made a decision in their life and who cannot be held accountable for their actions is not the same as refusing to allow adults to be responsible for their own decisions. For example, I believe Abner made the argument that if we were so concerned about being pro-life we should exert great energies to either removing the temptation of smoking cigarettes through prohibition and/or treat every disease (cancer namely) of people who chose to smoke. This argument removes individual accountability for the choices we make and is not a very valid equivalency of morality argument. That said I would be willing to take any tax money put towards abortion to treating cancer any day of the week.

Simply put my opinion is that pro-life means everyone gets a chance at life to include any and all mistakes they might make to include their consequences or reap rewards for good decisions. Abortion is a legal vehicle whereby a woman may escape the consequences of her (and the father’s) choices. As pointed out earlier the rape and incest arguments are red herrings intended to distract from the overall moral issue at hand.

Is being Pro-Life religious?

I don’t think so. Though I am a Christian and cannot separate my religious beliefs from my value system any more than I can remove my own head, there is a valid legal pro-life argument as well and one that I believe is encapsulated within the Bill of Rights. First in Roe v Wade the Supreme Court held that the prohibition of abortion was a violation of the right to privacy (after a lower court’s ruling that it violated the 9th Amendment) using the 14th Amendment.
The problem is that the Court had the right Amendment (the 14th) but that they did not believe that an unborn fetus was in fact a human being with equal protections under the law with the same rights that have been extended to the mother. In other words they base victimization of a fetus under law based upon a loosely defined “viability” argument meaning that a person who cannot live apart from their mother biologically is not a person.
This is where I disagree. A fetus will not turn out to be a tumor, nor a squirrel, nor a volleyball after birth but instead would turn into what the Courts would rule as a person. I contend that a fetus is a person…and if we have to use a measure by which that event occurs then I would say it occurs at the time of a detectable heartbeat since that is 1 of 2 determining factors ruling an adult as “alive” legally (the presence of a heartbeat and/or brain activity).
The irony all of this is that under criminal law (which used to encapsulated antiabortion laws) any fetus killed by an actor who commits violence against it while in the mother’s womb such as an assault can be held for murder in some states(such as in Texas). So the courts seem to have no problem extending “personhood” to a fetus when the mother deems the fetus so, but will withdraw legal protections when she does not. To me this would also imply explicit ownership rights of a person to a mother. This logically is a violation of the 14th Amendment, the same Amendment. This is not a religious argument but a legal one.

The Economic Argument

The main reason for abortions given surround economics and the material wellbeing of the mother. This does not include psychological wellbeing since that is a separate debate. This despite the protections extended to the mothers in the form of welfare from the state and of course the biggest one…child support. If the mother is the sole person responsible for determining whether a child lives or dies then why, when the mother chooses the child shall live, should the father then be responsible for 18+ years of financial support for that child? The father had no legal say in the matter whatsoever. You cannot use the argument of individual accountability since a legal vehicle to escape that accountability was provided to the mother but not the father. This is not equity under law even assuming you do not believe the fetus is in fact a “person” as legally defined. Equity under law would be had if you either refused the legal escape vehicle to both parties or granted the decision to both parties. Of course that is not pragmatic since the mother is physically carrying the child but then we’re discussing law, not pragmatism.
Pragmatism would dictate that one person should not be able to infringe upon the life and liberty of another person simply to meet their own materialistic needs and desires. Otherwise armed robbery would be a perfectly acceptable profession. But again, I am assuming that a fetus is in fact a person (something the law does not recognize unless the mother says so).

Victim Class

The preponderance of abortions performed are performed on minority women. For example, Planned Parenthood’s own statistical gathering shows that over 30% of abortions are carried out on African Americans who account for 14% of the population. This trend is only made more disturbing in that the percentages are expected to increase, not decrease as history indicates. This is the main crux of the taxation for abortion issue where some believe that this procedure is not simply elective but instead an inherent right to the point that the state will pay for it if need be. The irony is that few if any other medical procedures get the same privilege but that’s another discussion. Again this comes back to the economic argument allowing that abortion is not simply a medical procedure, but a financial strategy and the people who are most impacted are those who remain in the poorest segments of our population. In short the life of those who are economically disadvantaged are simply not worth as much as those who are in a better financial situation.

 

Continuing...

Is the term “Nazi” out of Bounds?

The Nazis practiced their own version of Social Darwinism through state imposed murder (logically as they viewed might makes right). Ironically the Nazis also refused to extend personhood to Jews (something I think I covered above) to justify their actions. So is abortion akin to Nazism? From a morality standpoint some might contend so (though really this is bomb throwing).
Social Darwinism could however be extended to self-imposed natural selection (see victim class above) even were you not to accept the argument that a fetus is a person. Reducing the population of a given socioeconomic group and/or a given race in a democratically controlled nation reduces the social impact of that people. This self-imposed population control retards a minority’s ability influence cultural factors that would lead to their collective gain. So whether this is or isn’t Social Darwinism there are strong parallels if not in theory than in effect.

Finally the Taxation Issue

Should people be required to pay taxes for services they believe to be immoral or reprehensible? For the sake of the preservation of our nation the answer has to be “yes”. Some people consider the military to be immoral, some believe that the IRS is immoral or that the Federal Reserve is reprehensible. If people were allowed to simply “opt out” of paying taxes for reasons of morality or disapproval our system would be starved in days…not weeks.
That said on demand abortion is an elective medical procedure and therefore should NOT be tax funded. Whether we believe it to be moral or immoral, legal or not legal, the argument cannot be made that abortion on demand is medically necessary. If an abortion is to be carried out for life threatening purposes, it should be performed in a hospital emergency room or operating room the same way we would handle any other life threatening procedure (and as such the ER should not be allowed to deny treatment based upon the party’s ability to pay). As it stands however abortion is espoused as a “right” (which it of course is not) and as Bruce mentioned is often viewed as a means of birth control (which also should not be tax funded but I digress). If it is to be elective and tax funded why not have state funded boob jobs or state funded dentistry? At what point do we stop footing the bill to remove the consequences from the decisions of others?

My Belief System

For the sake of full disclosure I believe abortion is murder. I believe state funded abortion is state funded murder. I cannot imagine many things in this world more reprehensible than abortion and it pains me to think that my tax dollars are used to financially support something so vile. Is this because I am a Christian? Maybe, but I think I’ve put more logic than emotion into my posting here but I cannot divorce myself from my belief system any more than you can yours. That does not mean however that the prohibition of abortion is a religious debate as it is not, is a legal debate on the recognition of personhood. Even if I were wrong, I’d rather error on the side of caution and grant the rights of personhood to someone than to be like the guy in the 1600’s who insisted black people were not “people”. Just my viewpoint.
I also have had this debate with friends but we seldom get this far, instead we chase the rape and incest red herrings and when those don’t work the “judge not” Bible verse gets turned on its head and finally the “what if it was your daughter” (almost as if advocates share a common playbook). But this post has forced me to really objectively look at the issue more closely and I have never put as much thought into the issue as I have in writing this post. So even though some of you may disagree with me I would like to thank you for providing a challenging enough discussion that would force me to really look into why I believe what I believe.

 

Cultural rot and killing off the next generation: Article | First Things

 

Killing Without Due Process

Regarding killing unborn children and killing Jews in concentration camps:

Abortionists and Nazis alike believe that it's justifiable to kill certain classes of people because the end allegedly justifies the means i.e. abortion allegedly lowers crime rates, killing Jews cleanses humanity, etc. It's all subjective to those without a moral compass. Their philosophy on killing without due process is extremely destructive.

There is a way that seems right unto man, but it leads to destruction (Proverbs 14:10).

 

The discussion re abortion & nazis brought to mind this recent short documentary called "180" ... 2 million youtube views so far:

"180" Movie - YouTube

I'm not always a fan of Way of the Master ministries ... and their approach sometimes makes me cringe ... but this film still contains a lot of value IMHO, and I certainly approve of their overall message and aims.

 

Actually the Nazis and abortion rights advocates have one critical thing in common, neither consider the personhood of their victims. In their viewpoint, why would you give due process to a rodent or a cow for slaughter? The irony is that in some states, specifically those that allow late term abortions, you could get more jail time for doing to an animal what they do to a newborn baby specifically the breech procedures or partial birth abortions. If you did that to a puppy there'd be mobs demanding your imprisonment.

 

I'm sorry but comparing abortionists to Nazis is just ridiculous. Yes, I understand that some see abortion as murder but, the Nazi regime and abortion clinics have VERY different objectives. I don't think that abortions should be funded by taxes but, I do believe that Roe v. Wade is constitutional and should not be overturned.

I am personally against abortions but, I do believe in a woman's right to choose. Just because my beliefs tell me not to do something does not mean I should judge others. I realize that this a the generic stand on the debate but, it is what I believe.

 

PETA is working to give animals due process....as we kill off the next generation of humans!!!!!!

 

Wow! I did not intend to cause such a big turn in the direction of the conversation! Certainly, yes, there are some parallels between the perceptions of the Nazis and the abortion advocates, as friendorfoe (and others) has pointed out. Nevertheless, I had simply intended to make a side remark about how tiresome it is to play the Nazi card. Hopefully, someone on here agrees with me on that!

Also, Maniac, you are hilarious!

 

I do agree and like I said it is "bomb throwing" because it incites rather than stimulates thinking or actual conversation. That doesn't mean that parallels do not exist, only that pointing that out does more harm than good. Truthfully I haven't seen the Nazi card played a whole lot here in Texas because...well...Nazis are pretty dang taboo and people here (at least where I live) are not really accustomed to hearing the term used very loosely. "Baby killer" and "murder" however have been used and are not uncommon. Even then name calling isn't very productive nor is it compelling. I think if people actually stopped and really had to think about it in depth and actually use logic and critical thinking to probe their belief system then things might change. Of course that could be said for a lot of things.

 

Re: taxpayer funded abortions myth

Just a point of clarification. Taxpayer dollars go to Title X(title 10) funding which covers birth control, exams, etc. for low income women, but not abortions.

Ref.

Hyde Amendment - What is the Hyde Amendment?

Ref. Recommended by Dick Chenney - Factcheck.org (non-partisan)

FactCheck.org : Planned Parenthood

Strict government auditing ensures taxpayer money is not used for abortions. To do so would be unlawful. Abortions are paid out of pocket by the patient.

Abner

 

OK, destroying big chunks of our future generations is not very smart...economically or morally!

“We are in the most democratic of economic crises, and it stems directly from the character of our people.”

“If capital markets derive from the cycle of human life, what happens if the cycle goes wrong? Investors may be unreasonably panicked about the future, and governments can allay this panic by guaranteeing bank deposits, increasing incentives to invest, and so forth. But something different is in play when investors are reasonably panicked. What if there really is something wrong with our future–if the next generation fails to appear in sufficient numbers? The answer is that we get poorer.”

“The declining demographics of the traditional American family raise a dismal possibility: Perhaps the world is poorer now because the present generation did not bother to rear a new generation. All else is bookkeeping and ultimately trivial.”
Article | First Things

 

Due Process

Parallels exist between killing unborn babies and killing Jews in Nazi concentration camps:
1. Neither unborn babies nor Jews in concentration camps are able to defend themselves.
2. Both abortionists and Nazis believe that their killing is morally and legally justified.

What is the next group to be selected for state sanctioned termination? How about those with Alzheimers or the infirm or the elderly who are no longer contributing members of society?

Due process should be granted to every American citizen before they are executed, to include unborn babies.

 

I don't believe that taxpayer money is actually paying for abortions but more paying for the other services that planned parenthood offers but even with that said this is tricky. I lost a baby at 23 weeks gestation, and yet I still don't take a stance against those who have abortions. Would I personally have an abortion absolutely not yet I don't judge those who do. It is up to the woman in what she chooses to do with her body and her baby and it is not my place to judge that decision. My feelings towards a pregnancy being life are irrelevant.

Personally I would much rather a woman have an abortion than have a child knowing full well she(they) can't provide the proper care, love, education, life etc that a child deserves and then taxpayers end of paying many times over what the abortion would have cost in the first place to care for that child over its lifetime. I would also prefer abortion over having a child and having it grow up in a home where it is beat, mistreated, etc. Adoption is an option yes but that option is not for everyone and I leave that choice up to the person.

Who are you to judge and speak for what is right for anyone other than yourself? The reality of it is it is not our place to judge which is what the majority do when it comes to abortion. My tax money pays for many things that I don't agree with and if we could all pick and choose what our money got applied to I fear for the state of this country.

 

Excellent points.

Abner

 

Finally…a viewpoint I can sink my teeth into. First let me say I am sorry you lost a baby at 23 weeks gestation, that’s horrible and it shouldn’t happen to anyone. That said I’d like to take this opportunity to reply if you don’t mind…

My question to you is this, if a woman decides to have an abortion, is it really just “her body” we’re talking about? See, I believe that the life of the fetus is just as valuable as the woman who carries the baby. One life is not inherently superior to the other and therefore one should not be able to terminate the existence of the other. This is not just immoral but if the law were truly objective it would be illegal.

Let’s flip the age groups using your exact logic… there are elderly who are under the care of their children who maintain power of attorney. What if these children decide that their parents are simply too much trouble and expense to deal with and they decide to have a doctor take them into a room and kill them. Should this be legal? Okay, then what about simply denying them necessary, life sustaining medication? Should that be legal? Is it wrong?

Continuing the earlier example….What if we begin to terminate lives based upon a financial or emotional need or merely for convenience. We could theoretically save hundreds of billions of dollars, untold sorrow and misery and prevent all kinds of abuse while emptying out the soon to be overcrowded nursing homes (and prisons for that matter). But would that be wrong? What if the elderly are living in a house where they are unwanted? Neglected? Unloved? What if they suffer from abuse? Maybe we should just kill them…it’s the merciful thing is it not? After all they cannot “self-sustain” and are dependent upon somebody for basic needs.

What about prisoners? Even murderers? They cost taxpayers billions. Should we just kill them and save the time and hassle it takes to care and pay for their needs? They live in a decisively hostile environment, are often victims of violence, will most likely never become productive citizens and can never have a “normal life”.

See the fact is when you terminate a pregnancy you are terminating a life, period. Even you understand that this child would otherwise have a future (for good bad or ugly). But you believe that someone should be able to use their individual judgment to predict the future to such an extent that they should be able to pull the trigger on whether this person lives or dies.

Life is expensive, can be difficult and often is harsh but everyone has a right to give it a go.

Let’s hope if you are ever attacked on the street bystanders are not as indifferent towards the relevance of your life as you seem to be towards unborn kids. There was even a time when African Americans were not really "human" nor even to this day in some countries...Jews.

If our forefathers used this line of logic there would still be slaves in the United States, there would be no Jewish people left in Europe, in fact the entire world would be a much different place. People have a moral and ethical obligation to get involved when innocent lives are being snuffed out, especially if it is their neighbors. In this country we have legal means to do something about it in our courts and legislature. Just because the Supreme Court ruled on it does not mean it is right, nor does it mean that it will never change (see Dred Scott). Our nation and people are not known for “minding their own business” and thank God for it (sometimes).

Individual liberty does not mean that one can enjoy that liberty at the expense of another to include termination of the life of another. If we could then what would stop someone (say an ex-husband, boyfriend, etc.) from simply killing you to enrich or otherwise improve the quality of their own lives? If that were to happen should someone do something about it? If someone could prevent that, should they? At what point exactly is it “okay” for someone to judge the actions of another as unjust, wrong, immoral or unethical? At what point is it okay to advocate for a legal means to stop the actions of that person?

 

The right to kill should be governed by "due process" and not by a woman's (or a man's) desire to abort an unborn baby.

There is a way that seems right unto man, but it leads to destruction (Proverbs 14:12).

How do you know that unborn children who are killed would have been beaten and mistreated if they had been allowed to live?

Killing humans, both unborn and born, should be governed by due process. That's judicial judgement.

There is no moral difference between infanticide and genocide.

 

So in other words, "I wouldn't personally kill this person, but I wouldn't judge someone who did." Is this really a viable view? Is this a view that works in law/ethics? Ex, "I wouldn't burn down this convent, but I wouldn't judge someone who did."

This is why the main question has to be: What is the unborn?

If a child came up behind me and asked "Can I kill this?" my first question would be "What is it?" If it's a bug, sure, go ahead. If it's a puppy, no, and perhaps I'd need to have a talk with them. If it's their little brother, no, and I'd need to have a SERIOUS talk with them!

If the unborn not a human being, no justification of abortion is even necessary. BUT if the unborn IS a human being, no justification of abortion is sufficient, because we do not arbitrarily kill people, even those who we find "inconvenient", and especially not those who are in most need of protection because they are unable to fend for themselves.

This doesn't mean abortion is an easy issue emotionally. Having an unplanned pregnancy, having to give up a child for adoption, these are no doubt very difficult experiences. If we are going to say (rightly, I think) that abortion is wrong, we as a society need to provide (1) proper education, and (2) as many support services as possible so that abortion becomes unnecessary. Ex, every state in the USA has an official "drop-off" policy for newborns that cannot be cared for by their mother/parents:
http://www.babydropoff.com/

 

d

Again see above- killing a human being who is able to live outside of a womb, has lived, has been living etc is completely different even though you don't believe it is. The fact is an infant is not viable outside of its mothers womb until it reaches 23 weeks gestation (this could have changed) and at the time frame when most women can have an abortion the baby would not survive outside the womb. Your view on abortion views the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg a baby a life and i would guess that you are religious and this plays some part in your feelings and I can understand that really I can.

My view is just different. While personally I feel the way you do, a fertilized egg is a life which is why I would never personally have an abortion, I do not think that is is my place to sit and pass judgement on those who choose to have their own beliefs about it.