"Why not a 'sin tax' on abortion"?

[Asimov]

How about stop legislating stupid things and let people live their lives?

 

[Pepperoni]

How about stop legislating stupid things and let people live their lives?

Because there's no money in that.

 

[quatona]

Since this is a christian forum and I figure it safe to assume that no one is for abortion - why don't we handle it the way we do so many other things everyone knows is bad? Like taxing cigarettes and alcohol? I mean it IS an elective procedure right?

Because how you handle abortions here on your christian forum is not really the issue in question?

 

[Leanna]

Since this is a christian forum and I figure it safe to assume that no one is for abortion -

She posts this in the open section .... classic!

 

[SallyNow]

Since this is a christian forum and I figure it safe to assume that no one is for abortion

Well, this is an open area for anyone to post in...

- why don't we handle it the way we do so many other things everyone knows is bad? Like taxing cigarettes and alcohol? I mean it IS an elective procedure right?

No. Abortions can be done for a number of reasons. Some are elective, some are medically necessary.

Why not tax the abortion procedure AND the abortionists? As well as increase their insurance premiums (not doctors who don't perform this procedure) since doctors who perform abortions are taking life not saving lives - as their hippocratic oath proclaims they shouldn't?

There is no such thing as an "abortionist". What there is are doctors who perform abortions. Any doctor in an ER, in a surgical ward, in an OBGYN practice or ward may have to perform an abortion. In countries where there is no basic universal coverage an increase in doctor's insurance may prevent those of lower incomes from being able to afford any medical care. This would cause more miscarriages from women not recieving proper prenatal care.

Not only would it reduce the number of abortions, but it would encourage medical doctors to work in their usual field--saving lives. We could use the money raised to care for mothers and children who need help.

Or women of lesser means will be forced to get less prenatal care and more back-alley abortions (and miscarriages) and the rich will find a way to get around the tax.

 

[invisible trousers]

This is a phenomenally bad idea.

Also add another SOROS non sequitur to the list...

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Is, like, indulgences for the modern age?

 

[kopilo]

She posts this in the open section .... classic!

I didn't even see that! xD

Seriously though... I wonder if there is anyone who is for abortions to be carried out and thus thinks that it should be mandated upon all those who happen to fall pregnant....

 

[Harpuia]

Why don't you just get a woman's tubes tied after 2 non-emergency abortions? Much easier, and less controversial.

 

[Savage78]

ent posts and point

Yeah, but who do you end up harming? Just the poor folks. Can you tell me why it makes sense to force a poor woman to have a kid and not a middle class or rich one?

An excellent post and point.

The poor people that cant fford another child woud suffer, and they and the child would be forced further or closer into poverty, while the rich that dont want the child but can surely afford it will not have a problem.

 

[HumanisticJones]

Why don't you just get a woman's tubes tied after 2 non-emergency abortions? Much easier, and less controversial.

Less controversial? You're proposing a law in which the government gets to mandate your physiology. In my opinion that's way over the line of what I'll allow my government to do. How about we require men to get a vasectomy after a certain number of ejaculations that fail to conceive a child? If they're just going to waste all those millions of potential children they might as well, just have the snip so they don't do it anymore.

 

[Nithavela]

Im not against abortion in general, there are sometimes days when I'm for abortion of everyone, even.

This idea has, even from a christian point of view, a few problems.

The first is that you are proposing a sin tax, which means you are judging someone for a crime against god. God made it pretty clear that he will be the one punishing all the sinners who don't repent, so you are taking something from him and advance yourself to a God-like state. This would be like a murder-tax, a working on sabbath-tax or a woman preaching in church tax.

Second, you are taking away rights of the poor while only making the rich ones pay, so you are encouraging rich people to sin.

Third, and I think this is the most important one, you are making the decision about wheter someone has a child or not a financial one. Instead of think about if they can give enough time for their child, if they should give birth to it while they know it has a terminal disease which will kill it in 2 years or of they can justify this action before themself, other people or religious authority figures in the sky, they now have to think if they can afford it. Don't you think this makes all the other questions somewhat less important and therefore encourages abortion as long as the money is not an issue? And in the long run, a child costs always more then an abortion.

 

[Phred]

Then we should cut taxes on doctors across the board. They get hit with the highest tax rates and the poor are hurt.

That's not exactly true. They get hit with high income taxes because they make high incomes.

Abortionists make good money. The clinics do well. Why can't they give up a little to help reduce the number of abortions?

That's not the way to do it. YOu reduce abortions by reducing the demand, not by pinching the supply.

Aside from them, what about Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily's List, George Soros and others? They spend tens of millions a year lobbying for the pro-choice side. Surely they could pick up the tax part of what an abortion costs. Having to ask them for help would certainly make abortions less common. We can see from the former Soviet Block, where abortions were often free, that the cost does influence how many abortions are performed.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... and all those churches aren't taxed at all... you know, the ones who pay for the freaks to stand in my way when I'm going home with the 8-foot tall pictures of aborted fetuses. Surely they could be taxed as well. We should tax any church that gets involved in political actions. When you want to shove your belief down our throats there's no reason we should subsidize you with tax-exempt status.

And everyone wants the number of abortions reduced, right? No one is for abortion. We all know that. Since nothing else seems to have worked, why not try this?

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

 

[Pepperoni]

A SIN TAX? What are you basing this sin on?

I suppose it would be along the same lines on which we're basing cigarette and alcohol taxes.

 

[Asimov]

Why not a stupid tax? Everytime I have to read someone trying legislate their own religion, they should have to pay me.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Since this is a christian forum and I figure it safe to assume that no one is for abortion - why don't we handle it the way we do so many other things everyone knows is bad? Like taxing cigarettes and alcohol? I mean it IS an elective procedure right?

Why not tax the abortion procedure AND the abortionists? As well as increase their insurance premiums (not doctors who don't perform this procedure) since doctors who perform abortions are taking life not saving lives - as their hippocratic oath proclaims they shouldn't?

Not only would it reduce the number of abortions, but it would encourage medical doctors to work in their usual field--saving lives. We could use the money raised to care for mothers and children who need help.

Rather than taxing people with little or no alternative, and less means to afford it... why not reduce abortio rates the easy way?

Universally offered implanon implants for all 16 year old girls, with replacement offered every 3 years.

 

[peepnklown]

Since this is a Christian forum and I figure it safe to assume that no one is for abortion

A bigger problem would be forcing a tax on non-religious people and this surely would hinder freedom of religion (or the right to not have a religion).

 

[MelissaShae]

Oh yeah we need more taxes. Not everyone shares the same religious beliefs as us Christians and if we are going to tax sins then lets start with lying and some other sins. You can't tax one without taxing the others.

A little forgiveness, understanding and love is what people need not another tax to pay.

 

[HumanisticJones]

I'm of the opinon that it made perfect sense. It seems that this is the only case where a peice of living tissue attached to a woman's Cardio-vascular system and relies on said system to remain living tissue is considered not a part of the woman's body.

The only time I start to at all feel the slippery moral slope is at the point where the fetus can realistically survive outside of the woman's body without said support system. But even then, I still feel that the opinion's and health of the fully formed, fully consious woman are more important than those of the fetus.