Political Crossfire Forums

[imperatorxi]

Does anybody but me hold the belief that abortion should be allowed, but tax dollars should not go toward these ends? I mean maybe 1 abortion but when you get up to like your 7th abortion you are just using it as a form of birth control. In my opinion if the state is footing the bill then there should be some cut off point, and after that you should no longer have the right to reproduce. If this seems too totalitarian for you then state your critiques, but let me remind you that the cut off has to be fair and reviewed by a person not plastered to some law, though there shouldn't be extensive appeals say to the supreme court, since the state is providing a service they can make you agree to a terms of service. And by take away the right to reproduce I do in fact mean mandatory sterilization. It is harsh but like after your maybe 4th abortion and review by an agent? Number too high or low? I don't know this issue is to complex to sum up in a paragraph.

Edit: Alright the title is misleading since there is no separation in reality, but still I don't want to have to pay for it with tax dollars since I disagree with abortion on a personal level, but uphold the right to choose... since well I'm not a woman... and its not my body I therefore should have little or no say in the matter as it doesn't pertain to me. Taxes, though, do pertain to me.

[Selfish_Meme]

imperatorxi wrote: Does anybody but me hold the belief that abortion should be allowed, but tax dollars should not go toward these ends? I mean maybe 1 abortion but when you get up to like your 7th abortion you are just using it as a form of birth control. In my opinion if the state is footing the bill then there should be some cut off point, and after that you should no longer have the right to reproduce. If this seems too totalitarian for you then state your critiques, but let me remind you that the cut off has to be fair and reviewed by a person not plastered to some law, though there shouldn't be extensive appeals say to the supreme court, since the state is providing a service they can make you agree to a terms of service. And by take away the right to reproduce I do in fact mean mandatory sterilization. It is harsh but like after your maybe 4th abortion and review by an agent? Number too high or low? I don't know this issue is to complex to sum up in a paragraph.

Edit: Alright the title is misleading since there is no separation in reality, but still I don't want to have to pay for it with tax dollars since I disagree with abortion on a personal level, but uphold the right to choose... since well I'm not a woman... and its not my body I therefore should have little or no say in the matter as it doesn't pertain to me. Taxes, though, do pertain to me.
This is just another argument for responsibility, I can't see a problem with asking for people to pay for abortions, or at least some of the cost. Limiting the number of abortions is just a sneaky way of saying there is a moral being infringed. Since we havn't determined that a moral has been infringed then there should be no limit on the number of abortions a person can have.

That said the number of people having multiple abortions would be such a tiny minority. Anyone got any figures?

[Sailor Moon]

Heres my take on the issue:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50139

And NO. I find that medicare funded abortion is a 1st amendment infringement for those religiously opposed.

And furthermore, most women who have multiple abortions wont even have the ability to get pregnant after about 2 or 3, so "limiting" it is a ridiculous notion.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Heres my take on the issue:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50139

And NO. I find that medicare funded abortion is a 1st amendment infringement for those religiously opposed.

And furthermore, most women who have multiple abortions wont even have the ability to get pregnant after about 2 or 3, so "limiting" it is a ridiculous notion.
The first ammendment only covers the freedom to establish and practice religion. It doesn't give the religous any other rights over the law. Abortion cannot infringe your rights unless it is being done to you against your will.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Heres my take on the issue:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50139

And NO. I find that medicare funded abortion is a 1st amendment infringement for those religiously opposed.

And furthermore, most women who have multiple abortions wont even have the ability to get pregnant after about 2 or 3, so "limiting" it is a ridiculous notion.
The first ammendment only covers the freedom to establish and practice religion. It doesn't give the religous any other rights over the law. Abortion cannot infringe your rights unless it is being done to you against your will.

Paying medicaid goes against my will. Medicaid funds abortions, and abortion is against my religion. Thus, it infringes on my religion.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Women who can't afford abortions are the ones who need them most.

And, from a eugenic standpoint, they're the ones we'd least want to be breeding-- at least, statistically.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Heres my take on the issue:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50139

And NO. I find that medicare funded abortion is a 1st amendment infringement for those religiously opposed.

And furthermore, most women who have multiple abortions wont even have the ability to get pregnant after about 2 or 3, so "limiting" it is a ridiculous notion.
The first ammendment only covers the freedom to establish and practice religion. It doesn't give the religous any other rights over the law. Abortion cannot infringe your rights unless it is being done to you against your will.

Paying medicaid goes against my will. Medicaid funds abortions, and abortion is against my religion. Thus, it infringes on my religion.
My tax goes to pay soldiers in iraq, and fund petrol, neither of which I have any use for. Tax is taken from you to fund government activities. What the government spends it on you decide through your vote.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Heres my take on the issue:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50139

And NO. I find that medicare funded abortion is a 1st amendment infringement for those religiously opposed.

And furthermore, most women who have multiple abortions wont even have the ability to get pregnant after about 2 or 3, so "limiting" it is a ridiculous notion.
The first ammendment only covers the freedom to establish and practice religion. It doesn't give the religous any other rights over the law. Abortion cannot infringe your rights unless it is being done to you against your will.

Paying medicaid goes against my will. Medicaid funds abortions, and abortion is against my religion. Thus, it infringes on my religion.
My tax goes to pay soldiers in iraq, and fund petrol, neither of which I have any use for. Tax is taken from you to fund government activities. What the government spends it on you decide through your vote.

Unless it is unconstitutional, which funding abortions with monies taken from people of religion who do not agree with it (and how obvious is this, anyways) is.

Medicaid should not fund abortions, period.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Heres my take on the issue:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=50139

And NO. I find that medicare funded abortion is a 1st amendment infringement for those religiously opposed.

And furthermore, most women who have multiple abortions wont even have the ability to get pregnant after about 2 or 3, so "limiting" it is a ridiculous notion.
The first ammendment only covers the freedom to establish and practice religion. It doesn't give the religous any other rights over the law. Abortion cannot infringe your rights unless it is being done to you against your will.

Paying medicaid goes against my will. Medicaid funds abortions, and abortion is against my religion. Thus, it infringes on my religion.
My tax goes to pay soldiers in iraq, and fund petrol, neither of which I have any use for. Tax is taken from you to fund government activities. What the government spends it on you decide through your vote.

Unless it is unconstitutional, which funding abortions with monies taken from people of religion who do not agree with it (and how obvious is this, anyways) is.

Medicaid should not fund abortions, period.
It's not unconstitutional, otherwise it would have been succesfully overturned. The constitution permits killing as long as due process is done and YOU have the freedom to practice YOUR religion. What is done with your tax money is decided by the legally constituted Government. How obvious is that. Someone doesn't decide where your INDIVIDUAL tax dollars go, so they aren't infringing YOUR rights.

[Sailor Moon]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If they take my tax dollars, and force me to do something that is against my religion, by using my money to fund abortions, in other words, forcing me to pay for other people to have abortions, then that is unconstitutional.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If they take my tax dollars, and force me to do something that is against my religion, by using my money to fund abortions, in other words, forcing me to pay for other people to have abortions, then that is unconstitutional.
Go see your congressman, I'm sure if that was a valid argument the current law would never have been created.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: and force me
They have your tax dollar already, they are not forcing you to do anything at that stage.

[Selfish_Meme]

What you are really saying is that the Government should not be allowed to do anything I don't want. Well sweetheart thats what living in a society is. You live together in the best set of rules that suit as many as possible. Not every rule will fit every person.

Also there is no discrimination against religion, you are as free to vote the way you wish as any other person.

[Sailor Moon]

No thats not it. The government does not have the right to keep me from exercising my freedom of religion, by forcing me to pay for something that goes against my religion.

Took you 3 posts to vent, eh?

[Korimyr the Rat]

By Sailor Moon's logic, Satanists wouldn't have to pay taxes at all.

After all, it was Jesus who said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"...

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: No thats not it. The government does not have the right to keep me from exercising my freedom of religion, by forcing me to pay for something that goes against my religion.

Took you 3 posts to vent, eh?
No not venting, I know the concept I want to get across, just having a hard time formulating it. Basically you are not oppressed because you can vote. Voting determines the type of representation, the representation decides the laws. There you have it. Thats how representative democracy works. The government is not stopping you practising your religion. You can go to church, you can make little crosses whatever.

I guess your religion could be the church of stopping of abortion, in which case you should get a lawyer and ordain a preist.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: No thats not it. The government does not have the right to keep me from exercising my freedom of religion, by forcing me to pay for something that goes against my religion.

Took you 3 posts to vent, eh?
No not venting, I know the concept I want to get across, just having a hard time formulating it. Basically you are not oppressed because you can vote. Voting determines the type of representation, the representation decides the laws. There you have it. Thats how representative democracy works. The government is not stopping you practising your religion. You can go to church, you can make little crosses whatever.

I guess your religion could be the church of stopping of abortion, in which case you should get a lawyer and ordain a preist.

We live in a republic, not a democracy, sorry, buddy.

And.. just because I voted for the person in office, does not give him or her the right to force me to pay for something that goes against my religious beliefs.

If a poor girl doesnt want to be pregnant, she oughta learn some restraint, rather than expect everyone else to pay for her own problems.

[Enoch]

Sailor Moon wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: No thats not it. The government does not have the right to keep me from exercising my freedom of religion, by forcing me to pay for something that goes against my religion.

Took you 3 posts to vent, eh?
No not venting, I know the concept I want to get across, just having a hard time formulating it. Basically you are not oppressed because you can vote. Voting determines the type of representation, the representation decides the laws. There you have it. Thats how representative democracy works. The government is not stopping you practising your religion. You can go to church, you can make little crosses whatever.

I guess your religion could be the church of stopping of abortion, in which case you should get a lawyer and ordain a preist.

We live in a republic, not a democracy, sorry, buddy.

And.. just because I voted for the person in office, does not give him or her the right to force me to pay for something that goes against my religious beliefs.

If a poor girl doesnt want to be pregnant, she oughta learn some restraint, rather than expect everyone else to pay for her own problems.

First, if you are going to be condescending about what form of government we live in, at least make it over an issue that is worth the attitude. Republic or representative democracy, what differences there are are small enough to not make a big difference in the terms of the debate.

Second, if the poor girl gets raped and ends up pregnant, what then?

[imperatorxi]

Can't anything be done without appealling to religion or morality? I mean seriously I just don't want to pay for it because it does me no service. And you are right I do not want to have to pay for all the other crap that our state just gives away. I'm a libertarian, but agree somethings are necessary like a military to protect citizens not to make war... unless we are talking about wars of absorbtion, don't get all high and mighty I find nothing practically wrong with Empire.

I do not want to have to pay for abortion, not on religious grounds or moral ones. I don't wanna have to pay because it provides me with no benefit. My universe of obligation does not extend to the stranger who had sex too early. As for the woman who gets raped... that is too bad but there should be concessions made by insurance companies to cover those kinds, and if you don't have insurance then something should be set up but ONLY in the case of forced pregnancy, not just ooo i forgot to use birth control.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: We live in a republic, not a democracy, sorry, buddy.

And.. just because I voted for the person in office, does not give him or her the right to force me to pay for something that goes against my religious beliefs.

If a poor girl doesnt want to be pregnant, she oughta learn some restraint, rather than expect everyone else to pay for her own problems.
lol...you do live in a democracy. Thats what all the voting stuff is. Republic in your case just means you don't have a hereditary monarchy.

Yes, when you vote for someone to represent you that is exactly the right you give them. Thats what the 'representative' part of democracy is about.

So we come back to your opinion that sex is a sin.