Is abortion analogous to taxation?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 16, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Sorry, there is a mountain of data that disproves the claims made by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which grossly misrepresents the findings of the Gottmeir (sp) study, and cherry picks data to fit its narrative. Just look at which countries have the highest and lowest abortion rates -

“Switzerland had the lowest abortion rate at 5 per 1,000 women. The U.S. rate is 13 per 1,000 women, the same as Britain's, the report found. Colombia and Mexico had abortion rates of 34 per 1,000 women. Pakistan’s estimated abortion rate was the highest at 50 per 1,000 women.” - from NBC article I quoted below.

First, I should have been more specific in that I am not questioning the fact that access to conreaceptives reduce unwanted pregnancies. My issue is your claim that legalizing abortion results in less abortions. The only data provided is coincidental. There is evidence that legalizing abortion will result in less abortions. The study only shows that there are more abortions in developing countries in Africa and South America than in developed western countries. Poverty may be a more probable conclusion because people will choose to abort a baby they cannot afford. Additionally, almost all the sources you referenced used Guttmacher as their source. A organization who admits in their website that their mission is to push women's rights for abortion. Any source who openly admits to push an agenda is not a credible source.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 16, 2019

Allandavid said:
Now go back to the image I posted. No such laws have ever been framed. The only laws proposed have had the purpose of either forcing the woman to reproduce, or to punish her...

Child support laws?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · May 16, 2019

jayem said:
But a woman's uterus is part of her body. As is her heart, lungs, kidneys, and GI tract. All of which must work double-duty to support both her and a growing fetus. By what legal doctrine does the development of a fetus (which is not legally a person) override a woman's autonomy over her uterus and vital organs at all stages of pregnancy? I bolded that last phrase, because it segues to a reasonable solution. I don't support legal elective abortion at any time right up to delivery (meaning abortion not indicated for maternal or fetal health reasons.) I do support a compromise. Up to a certain point--let's say 24 weeks--abortion is left as a private medical decision between a pregnant woman and her doctor. After 24 weeks, states can restrict the procedure to life-threatening maternal health reasons only. This is a fair, reasonable, and workable compromise.

Legally, none. Because legally the unborn child is not a person. If legally the unborn received personhood, would that change your mind about abortion?

USincognito · May 16, 2019

No Username Found said:
So enlighten me. What is the "point" of the sex strike?

To get the men to realize what they have done to women. This is not new. There have been a bunch of successful sex strikes that gave stopped wars and changed policies in the 21st Century and the concept goes back to The Lysistrata in 400 BCE.

jardiniere · May 16, 2019

No Username Found said:
Throwing a puppy off a cliff isn't legally murder either. But you would probably call anyone who did such a thing to be cruel and immoral. Killing an innocent child in the womb is cruel and immoral at a much greater level.

Killing a human in the womb is the least cruel and immoral act of killing a human being that can occur. The human at that point hasn't enough development to be in pain, and no development of higher cognition.

What is cruel and immoral is our inability to see that our society condones killing of innocents, with a myriad of immoral excuses; unborn humans and adults alike. Until we can wrap our heads around the idea that such killing is wrong, regardless of the stage of human development, we will continue towards the path of humans as throwaway tools, not humans as valuable in their own right.

LoAmmi · May 16, 2019

No Username Found said:
Legally, none. Because legally the unborn child is not a person. If legally the unborn received personhood, would that change your mind about abortion?

No.

If I woke up tomorrow connected to another person through tubes in order to keep that other person alive, I feel I have the absolute right to disconnect those tubes. It would not be murder. I refuse to remove rights from people I would want to keep for myself.

Rubiks · May 16, 2019

well this thread got derailed rather quickly..

DaisyDay · May 16, 2019

David Cabrera said:
"Bodily autonomy" has always had a limit when dealing with harming others.

Pregnancy very often harms the woman, especially here in America (California being the exceptional state).

St_Worm2 said:
The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two premature babies hold the record for this.

However, this is well before the accepted age of viability.

The age of viability is 24 weeks. At 22 weeks, there’s a 0-10% chance of survival; at 24 weeks the survival rate is 40-70%.

--David

Yes, and?

Allandavid · May 16, 2019

tall73 said:
There are states who have used chemical castration to punish rapists or sexual abusers, usually in the case of repeat offenders. The efficacy of such is debated.

castration of sex offenders

That’s for punishing sex crimes, not abortion.

KCfromNC · May 16, 2019

Allandavid said:
They may not “keep it in their pants” any more than they have for hundreds of thousands of years. But, perhaps they might learn to “keep it in” a condom...!

But they'd still be having sex in ways which certain ancient books disagree with, which is just as bad as dropping puppies off cliffs. At least if you connect the dots from the anti-abortion rhetoric in this thread.

cow451 · May 16, 2019

I was 12 years old and pregnant. Alabama's abortion ban bill would punish girls like me.
Alabama: Forced pregnancy=forced childbirth.

Allandavid · May 16, 2019

No Username Found said:
Child support laws?

Not a punishment for abortion.

tall73 · May 16, 2019

Allandavid said:
That’s for punishing sex crimes, not abortion.

In the post I quoted you were quoting the poster speaking of castration for forced sex in the case of rape.

Here is the chain again:

Allandavid said:
Yes, forced. The new laws proposed in Alabama, for example, force a girl who is raped to reproduce...

No Username Found said:
And I think that the man who forced her into that position could be forced to castrate themselves.

Allandavid said:
Now go back to the image I posted. No such laws have ever been framed. The only laws proposed have had the purpose of either forcing the woman to reproduce, or to punish her...

tall73 said:
There are states who have used chemical castration to punish rapists or sexual abusers, usually in the case of repeat offenders. The efficacy of such is debated.

castration of sex offenders

tall73 · May 16, 2019

Rubiks said:
well this thread got derailed rather quickly..

Was your goal more to discuss getting out of taxes?

a. Once you introduce abortion folks are likely to talk about it.

b. If you are calling for a conclusion from a premise then folks will often challenge the premise.

tall73 · May 16, 2019

Rubiks said:
I've been thinking about the "my body; my choice" argument. If bodily autonomy is a right, can financial autonomy be a right as well? (as in "my money; my choice")

Or perhaps taxation is a necessary evil in which there is no viable alternative?

Your thoughts? Where do you draw the line?

From a philosophical perspective, if people truly accepted the notion of bodily autonomy, then that may extend to the value of labor produced by your body, per folks such as anarcho-capitalist libertarian types.

But since this is the American Politics section, and you indicated earlier in the thread we were discussing public policy, then it should also be pointed out, and often is by such anarcho-capitalist libertarian types, that if you decide to carry out this philosophy eventually men with guns will show up to enforce the will of the state.

Rubiks · May 16, 2019

tall73 said:
Was your goal more to discuss getting out of taxes?

I was just noticing how the topic of bodily autonomy relates to financial autonomy. If it is a violation of rights to force a woman to hook up their organs to a fetus, would it not also be a violation of rights to force someone to pay taxes for something?

I don't really have a strong opinion either way, its just an amusing observation I made. I just wanted to bring up a discussion.

RichardY · May 16, 2019

@Rubiks

Matthew 22
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

--------
Taxation is often general contribution to Evil. It's not even referred to as tribute anymore. Paul's epistle(The powers that be), applied to the early roman authorities and religious priests.

Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word, that proceeds out of the mouth of God. If there is response to the word, or touch. It is murder. Abortion within the second trimester is definitely murder. Within the first trimester a grey area, to me.

How is not selling them to foster parents worse? pay £20 per week. To the mother after they are born.

tall73 · May 16, 2019

Rubiks said:
I was just noticing how the topic of bodily autonomy relates to financial autonomy. If it is a violation of rights to force a woman to hook up their organs to a fetus, would it not also be a violation of rights to force someone to pay taxes for something?

I don't really have a strong opinion either way, its just an amusing observation I made. I just wanted to bring up a discussion.

Probably belongs more in the ethics section for that discussion!

But on the American Politics side, here is an article regarding a "sovereign citizen" who claimed the state had no right to tax him. He was arrested, convicted of tax evasion, skipped sentencing and re-arrested:

Man who says he's not subject to Utah laws after tax evasion conviction is arrested

jayem · May 16, 2019

No Username Found said:
Legally, none. Because legally the unborn child is not a person. If legally the unborn received personhood, would that change your mind about abortion?

I'm fine if a fetus is considered a legal person at 24 weeks. But it would still be a person* (the asterisk referring to the exception that it could be legally sacrificed in the unlikely event that the mother's life was critically endangered by the pregnancy, and live delivery was impossible.)

cow451 · May 16, 2019

No Username Found said:
First, I should have been more specific in that I am not questioning the fact that access to conreaceptives reduce unwanted pregnancies. My issue is your claim that legalizing abortion results in less abortions. The only data provided is coincidental. There is evidence that legalizing abortion will result in less abortions. The study only shows that there are more abortions in developing countries in Africa and South America than in developed western countries. Poverty may be a more probable conclusion because people will choose to abort a baby they cannot afford. Additionally, almost all the sources you referenced used Guttmacher as their source. A organization who admits in their website that their mission is to push women's rights for abortion. Any source who openly admits to push an agenda is not a credible source.

Countries that have fewer abortions typically have legal access to abortion along with liberal access to contraceptives. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions.

What a concept.

Is abortion analogous to taxation?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

proud libtard

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Standing with Ukraine.

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

proud libtard

Holotheist. Whig. Monarchical Modalism.

Sophia7's husband

Naturalist

Standing with Ukraine.

Similar threads