Using tax money for abortions

In previous threads dealing with abortion, some people have said that they don’t want Medicare to pay for abortions because they think they have a God-given right to not have their tax dollars to pay for something they don’t approve of. Does anyone besides me find this just a bit illogical? Should we eliminate Medicare and Medicaid entirely because Christian Scientists don’t believe in medical treatment? Do pacifists have a right to not have their tax dollars pay for military operations not directly related to self-defense? How about eliminating all government funding for research that involves animal testing in order to please the animal-rights fanatics?

Besides, if a woman can’t scrape together enough money for an abortion, how can she afford to properly care for a child?

Many of them want as many restrictions to abortion as possible, and (as I have alleged in this thread) their motivation doesn’t always have diddly squat with protecting unborn children or establishing equitable and reasonable social policy; instead, they want to change the moral sexual climate by removing reproducive control from women as much as they can.

< am I really getting involved in this? >

Ah, you know the song and dance, I am a Libertarian so my thinking is, NO, abortions should not be supported by tax monies. I could go into the list of what other programs but rather than stretch the topic I wont.

First of all, I am pro-choice, have been all my adult life, witnessed friends, etc that have gone through it. But no, I don’t believe that abortions should be subsidized by the government. These are ingrained issues with regards to people’s beliefs.

My father knows I am pro-choice, and I know he is against abortion, for the most part, I think he believes that if a woman’s life is in jeopardy then it might be okay…anyhow, I don’t agree that his tax dollars are used to help women get abortions, something he is against.

If places like Planned Parenthood came to me and asked me for a yearly donation, would I do it? You bet. I believe in helping women who can’t help themselves let alone bring a child into this world. Am I against adoption? Not really, as an adoptee I know what it can be like, but that’s a different story. But I don’t think for a second that taxes should be used to fund abortions, and certainly not abortions in some other country.

What it comes down to is the government has become everyone’s big brother or big sister and those that are against a specific issue should be able to decide where and how their money is being spent. If my father is against abortion, he should be able to state that no part of his money should go towards abortions. If I state that I agree with a woman’s choice then let me have my money back to donate to those organizations I feel do the best for women in this particular issue. Besides, not every place is worthy of government money for such a procedure.

I must stress I am pro-choice, but I don’t think the government should have any role in abortions.

Really, guys, if we could scrap all the programs tax dollars went to if they upset someone then we might as well shit-can taxation all together.

aynrandlover,

Well said, much better than I did in a few paragraphs.

I am pro-abortion. Not only do I think abortion should be legal, but I think there should be free abortion clinics on every street corner paid for by tax dollars. Not only should we pay for abortions, but we should pay people $100 (and some cookies) each time they get an abortion. There are over 280 million people living in America (and those are the ones we could find to count). There is not much more room left. In this age of overpopulation and strained resources, the last thing we need are more unwanted kids. Ten thousand abortions are better than one child born to parents who don’t care about it. Not only should abortion be free, legal, and readily available… but there are some cases where it should be forced on people. If X is making $9k a year, already has 6 kids, and has a really bad drug habit… if X gets pregnant, it is the responsibility of a humane government to force her to obtian an abortion. Better to have no life than no chance at all.

All religions should be taxed (equally) to pay for the free abortions our country requires. And yes, we should provide free abortions, contraception, and education to foreign countries as well. We should also put some form of birth control in the food we airdrop on the starving countries… at our taxpayers’ expense. I would gladly pay for it. Then again, what I want my tax dollars to pay for and what I don’t want them to pay for shouldn’t mean diddly-squat. That’s not how things work in the “real world”…

I think the ultimate hypocrisy is that the churches sit there basking in their tax-free status… which basically means taxpayers (i.e. everyone) is paying for their stupid little church and Deacon Fred’s $80,000 Mercedes. But they don’t want THEIR tax money to go towards anything their little holy “god” book says is bad. How cute. The hypocrisy makes me want to vomit.

Geez…and I’ve been lectured countless times that nobody is really “pro abortion”…only pro “the right to choose”… I certainly hope I’ve heard the last of “that” lecture…

:rolleyes:

techchick, I can’t quite follow your logic. Are you against taxpayer-funded abortions b/c you’re against taxpayer-funded anything or are you against taxpayer-funded abortions b/c abortion is particularly controversial? You seem to be saying both things at the same time. I think aynrandlover was trying to point out that since lots of things are controversial, one cannot simply reason that no controversial thing can be funded through taxes. If that’s what he meant, I’d have to agree. I, for one, don’t want to see a penny of my taxes spent on unworkable “star wars” defense initiatives, on Dick Cheney’s salary, on bail-outs for rich people’s hedge funds, or on “charitable choice” (which I happen to believe is unconstitutional). But I recognize that modern civilization would be impossible without taxes and government so that I must use the political process to argue against expenditures with which I disagree.

Kalt, I agree that safe abortions should be free for anyone who needs one (or at least to those who can’t afford them on a means-tested basis). But I hope you don’t seriously want to force anyone to have an abortion. The US is not an especially overpopulated country. Even if it were I don’t even want to think about what it would mean to decide who qualifies for mandatory abortion.

When?

About ten or so years ago, there was an absolutely fantastic “Modest Proposal” in the Washington City Paper in which the author said he was “pro-death” and suggested the following:

  1. Abortions be absolutely banned;
  2. Anytime a woman wants an abortion, we instead kill a member of Operation Rescue;
  3. Hi Opal!

The results would be the following:

  1. The fetus lives, and a trust fund is set up to care for the child from the assets of the killed member of Operation Rescue;
  2. The member of Operation Rescue is a martyr,and thus gets to go immediately to Heaven; and
  3. The abortion doctors don’t lose any money, because they can switch over to performing pain-free euthanisia of the members of Operation Rescue.

Personally, I’ve never run into such a completely logical solution since. :smiley:

Sua

Sua, I’m dying! That was hilarious.

Kalt, I’m not sure if you are serious, but if you want to control population growth (and you’ll have a hard time convincing me that America is running out of room) perhaps abortion is not the issue to take.

Abortion should be used, IMO, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy due to emotional/financial reasons.

I’ve always liked the idea of tax-supported sterilization, however, to address the population growth issue. This might make STDs more prevalent, however, because BC devices like condoms which would normally be might be abandoned by many. :shrug:

Oh I’m completely serious. Obviously, forced-abortions should only be done in very limited circumstances. But if a crack mother gets pregnant… and the baby will be born with all sorts of problems… mandatory abortion. And no, adoption is not the answer… nobody wants to adopt a crack baby. Oh, and yes… the US is not overpopulated … yet. Only a matter of time. We may as well not have kids born that nobody wants. What’s the point of allowing that?

Would you have a problem with doing this in a place that IS overpopulated? Do you think what china does is wrong? Something isn’t wrong if it is necessary.

SuaSponte, that’s awesome! :slight_smile: I gotta find that article.

Government funded (i.e. tax funded) sterilization is something else I am a big proponent of. People should be eligible for a tax break if they volunteer for sterilization. Also, sterilization should be a condition of parole. All the free abortion clinics should provide free sterilization as well. You should get $500, milk, cookies, and a T-shirt for volunteering for sterilization (plus a tax break if you make over X amount per year).

I have one thing to say to any jesus-lover who tells me that their tax dollars shouldn’t be paying for abortions. I am against the death penalty (actually, I’m not), so I don’t want my tax dollars paying for executions. Therefore we shouldn’t have them.

So, as soon as I am paroled on my contempt of court charge, I am STERILIZED?!?

Darling, what are they smoking on campus these days?

Please tell me that you have already earned your $500, drank your milk, ate your cookies and worn your t-shirt!

oh come on… you know what I meant. I should have been more specific though. Not for contempt of court. Only for violent crimes and certain drug-related crimes. Or another way to do it would be only for sentences longer than X number of years. Also, I don’t think one is “paroled” from a contempt of court charge. You are in jail for x number of days because of your disrespect for the court, or you are in jail indefinitely until you reveal some info. I could be wrong though.

…abortions AND eugenics…hey at least the dude is honest…

This probably wouldn’t work, because neither side wants a compromise; neither side will settle for anything less then total victory. But if we were a more compromising species, one way to settle the never ending abortion debate would be –

Abortion stays legal, but NO tax dollars are spent for it. Government does not underwrite abortions in any way, for anyone.

Currently, people both sides of the debate are giving $$$ to organizations that promote and lobby for their point of view. Once we make up our minds that abortion will stay legal, but NO tax dollars will be spent for it, we all start spending our $$$ differently. The prochoice people donate to a fund to provide financial assistance to women and girls who can’t afford abortions, and loans for those who can’t come up with the money quickly enough. The prolife people can donate to efforts to help provide the support that might encourage some women to carry their pregnancies to term, or to efforts to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (better contraception, better access to contraception, better sex ed, etc).

no matter what you stance is on anything… abortion, medicare, or playdough…

you have two choices, you can pay one time and deal with a couple hundred bucks, or you can deal with a several thousand dollar annuity for atleast 18 years

this is just an economist speaking… why not pay the couple hundred bucks to end the problem than pay a few thousand a year for 18 years…

Mandelstam said:

Pretty much what I was getting at was, I am against any taxpayer funded anything. I am a Libertarian so that should scream to you how I feel about taxes, government involvement, etc. If it were a controversial issue I wouldn’t be involved because it involves politics in the DemoPublican/RepubloCrat realm. But when it comes to funding services for this, that and the other I am pretty much against it.

Does it matter if it’s abortion, medicare, education or anything else? Nope, pretty much if the federal government is involved (other than protecting our borders) then sucking the American public out of their liberty and money I am against. Abortion is not a governmental issue, it’s an issue with a woman, her God/Goddess and her doctor. If she can’t afford it now then there are ways around that. But you and I should not be funding her abortion, that is a very private issue, if a person like me believes in pro-choice and I have the extra cash then I will donate to help poorer women.

I would comment on Kalt, but that’s too much there for me to even comment on other than “that’s a socialist view and the socialist meteor musta hit your home cuz the views you have are so far out there.” Other than that I will end up in Pit-like material…don’t wanna go there.

Kalt, I think I know exactly what you meant. Although I woke up this morning thinking I couldn’t have read your posts correctly last night, it appears that I did.

Your views are staggering, truly. I’m not even sure where to start. I hope that this turns out to be a joke or something.

What’s the point of “allowing” people freedom over their own bodies? Come on now, you can’t be serious. The idea of preventing a certain class or group of individuals from reproducing is not new. Do I even have to mention which world leader thought it was a good idea, and implemented it in at least one instance?

People get upset when you talk about the disenfranchisement of certain felons. I can’t wait to hear the spirited debate about whether or not to throw in sterilization on top of it.

Except that your views may not be taken seriously enough for that kind of debate.

Do you realize that for the first time in the history of evolution, negative traits are a reproductive advantage? The stupid people are having the most sex. The intelligent people are busy working, getting educated, etc. The dumbest people are sitting at home boinking all day and all night, and are thus having the most offspring. What are we gonna do with all these stupid people? :slight_smile:

EJsGirl, i’m not talking about exterminating a group of people because I don’t like them or their beliefs. Nor am I saying I (or some superior race) should take over the world. However, I think it is a darn good idea to reward those people who are most susceptible to dumbing down the gene pool for volunteering themselves for sterilization.

It doesn’t have to be permanent sterilization (in the case of rapists and murderers I think it should be, though). There are already groups offering homeless and drug addicted women $500 if they get Norplant or an IUD. I’m sure something similar can be devised for men that is not permanent like a vasectomy (that can be reversed sometimes).

Many people are more than happy to not have to worry about unwanted kids (it’s not like they are going to stop having sex) and have $500 cash in their pocket to blow on some nice crack. Then they can go home and screw.

This has nothing to do with race, religion, etc. I think right now all female college students should be given $500 for getting Norplant. When they have a similar contraceptive for males, then that should by all means be available too.

Give people a financial incentive to not pollute the earth (or at least the country) with unwanted children? Sounds brilliant to me… and yes, there are certain situations where it is in the best interests of not only the nation as a whole, but of the gene pool as well, to force certain people to be sterilized. Breeding is a privilege, NOT a right.

Oh, and only Democrats get upset when you talk about the disfranchisement of felons.