Republican Opposition to Tax Money-Saving Abortion = Taxpayer-Funded Religious Lunacy

[WhipperSnapper]

There's no such thing as "taxpayer-funded abortion" because "taxpayer-funded abortion" saves the government money!

In contrast, NOT funding abortion costs the government money. What we have is taxpayer funded religious lunacy.

How is that? Because whenever a child is born into poverty--guess who picks up the tab? Who do you think pays the costs of the delivery at the hospital? Who do you think pays the costs of the public schooling? Who do you think pays for the health care? Who do you think pays for any potential criminal justice costs? (Children born into poverty to parents who have no business having children are more likely to grow up to commit violent and non-white collar crimes.) Furthermore, it increases our nation's already exploding population, resulting in increased pollution and environmental costs and higher prices for food, land, and other natural resources.

Soup-prise! It's a shame that the national media won't pick that fact up and run with it. Anytime a Christian Taliban cries over taxpayer-funded abortion, he should be reminded that it isn't really taxpayer-funded because the end result is a huge net increase in the amount of tax dollars available. Therefore, failing to provide taxpayer-funded abortion costs the government money.

 

[soundforbjt]

Don't make them chose between "entitlements" vs abortion, it'll make their heads explode.

 

[Jaskalas]

There's no such thing as "taxpayer-funded abortion" because "taxpayer-funded abortion" saves the government money!

I dealt with this issue earlier last week. If cost effectiveness is the determination for killing children, then we have every authority to euthanize the poor, adult and child alike.

Ergo, this entire premise is evil. Drop the argument, or drop half the population.

 

[Engineer]

I dealt with this issue earlier last week. If cost effectiveness is the determination for killing children, then we have every authority to euthanize the poor, adult and child alike.

Ergo, this entire premise is evil. Drop the argument, or drop half the population.

Does the same go for dropping the argument on welfare for poor children then?

 

[nehalem256]

So obviously we should mandate abortions for all poor women to save the tax payer money.

Any one who disagrees is engaging in leftist lunacy

EDIT: And if we do this we can make them pay for their own abortions saving the taxpayer even more money! We can call it the Abortion Mandate. Which due to a certain recent SC decision is completely constitutional.

 

[glenn1]

Don't make them chose between "entitlements" vs abortion, it'll make their heads explode.

Or to make a liberal's head explode, how about the government doesn't pay for their abortions *or* the costs of raising their kids? I know that you don't expect anyone to possess even the slightest bit of self-responsibility, but that seems like a pretty realistic option to me.

 

[Incorruptible]

And people claim there is no war on Christianity

 

[Jhhnn]

And people claim there is no war on Christianity

Lameness. It's not like anybody other than Nehalem is advocating forced abortions for Christians or anybody else, or that the next phase is feeding Christians to the lions, either.

That was a war on Christianity.

 

[nehalem256]

Lameness. It's not like anybody other than Nehalem is advocating forced abortions for Christians or anybody else, or that the next phase is feeding Christians to the lions, either.

That was a war on Christianity.

Its the logical conclusion of the original post. Abortions to save money for the taxpayer.

 

[Jhhnn]

Or to make a liberal's head explode, how about the government doesn't pay for their abortions *or* the costs of raising their kids? I know that you don't expect anyone to possess even the slightest bit of self-responsibility, but that seems like a pretty realistic option to me.

"Compassionate conservatism" revealed as bunk.

I may not be much of a Christian, but I believe in Christian values-

http://preachersfiles.com/am-i-my-brothers-keeper/

And I believe in the kind of Karma that puts social Darwinists on the losing side of it all, too. So, uhh, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its the logical conclusion of the original post. Abortions to save money for the taxpayer.

Only in your twisted realm of non-logic.

Abortion must remain strictly voluntary for women who seek it, and the OP has not suggested anything to the contrary.

 

[nehalem256]

Only in your twisted realm of non-logic.

Abortion must remain strictly voluntary for women who seek it, and the OP has not suggested anything to the contrary.

Why do you hate taxpayers?

Please get you left-wing lunacy out of my wallet.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why do you hate taxpayers?

Please get you left-wing lunacy out of my wallet.

Why are you forced to resort to strawman arguments, continuously?

 

[Incorruptible]

Why do you hate taxpayers?

Please get you left-wing lunacy out of my wallet.

Well said, The taxpayer has been raped by these guys

 

[Throckmorton]

You're a dumbass. The issue isn't spending/saving money. It's that a significant portion of this country believes abortion amounts to murder and doesn't want their tax money paying for it, because that makes them responsible for murder.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I dealt with this issue earlier last week. If cost effectiveness is the determination for killing children, then we have every authority to euthanize the poor, adult and child alike.

The problem is that the only reason to believe that fetuses with developing brains and without human level consciousness possess conscious personalities is religious faith. Thus, the Christians are basically asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for their personal religious beliefs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You're a dumbass. The issue isn't spending/saving money. It's that a significant portion of this country believes abortion amounts to murder and doesn't want their tax money paying for it, because that makes them responsible for murder.

My point is that their taxpayer money would not be paying for it; the policy generates its own funding through tax dollar savings. What if I don't want my taxpayer dollars to be spent subsidizing their religious lunacy?

If the government won't fund abortion for poor women, can we impose a special tax on Christians who oppose abortion to pay for the costs of their beliefs?

 

[ericlp]

If the government won't fund abortion for poor women, can we impose a special tax on Christians who oppose abortion to pay for the costs of their beliefs?

Maybe we should start by making them pay property tax. But let's not just stop for christains, we can include all religions in the pile. That would be a lot of money!

 

[boomerang]

There's no such thing as "taxpayer-funded abortion" because "taxpayer-funded abortion" saves the government money!

In contrast, NOT funding abortion costs the government money. What we have is taxpayer funded religious lunacy.

How is that? Because whenever a child is born into poverty--guess who picks up the tab? Who do you think pays the costs of the delivery at the hospital? Who do you think pays the costs of the public schooling? Who do you think pays for the health care? Who do you think pays for any potential criminal justice costs? (Children born into poverty to parents who have no business having children are more likely to grow up to commit violent and non-white collar crimes.) Furthermore, it increases our nation's already exploding population, resulting in increased pollution and environmental costs and higher prices for food, land, and other natural resources.

Soup-prise! It's a shame that the national media won't pick that fact up and run with it. Anytime a Christian Taliban cries over taxpayer-funded abortion, he should be reminded that it isn't really taxpayer-funded because the end result is a huge net increase in the amount of tax dollars available. Therefore, failing to provide taxpayer-funded abortion costs the government money.

Your upbringing has brought you to a place where the talking points surrounding the abortion issue, which have been so honed finely through the years, are so deeply embedded in your psyche that you may not be able to understand the real issue.

It comes down to this. Should abortion be used as a form of birth control? Should all responsibility, should whatever is left that could be termed as morals, be cast aside because Uncle will pay to make a pregnancy go away? Should abortion be used as a means of birth control because the mother knows that she won't have to pay for it? Is it cheaper to prevent pregnancy than to end one? If your concern does truly revolve around costs, which would you embrace more dearly. Abortion or birth control?

It may appear that I have just opened a can of worms. We've all seen Ms. Fluke and the sideshow that has surrounded her. But, you say, Republicans don't want to pay for her birth control! You're right we don't. We don't want to pay for hers because she can damned well afford it. Personally, I would very much be willing to pay for birth control for those that would choose a taxpayer funded abortion (multiple times in many cases) over taking a pill.

The bigger issue is this. The abortion issue is trotted out every presidential election. It's an issue with which both parties know they can potentially further divide the nation. What changes in regards to the abortion issue after the elections? Nothing.

Think about it. You're being played. You're babbling out the talking points of your party like a good little soldier and they're sitting back smirking. It's a non-issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My point is that their taxpayer money would not be paying for it; the policy generates its own funding through tax dollar savings. What if I don't want my taxpayer dollars to be spent subsidizing their religious lunacy?

If the government won't fund abortion for poor women, can we impose a special tax on Christians who oppose abortion to pay for the costs of their beliefs?

Since we're saving money we can do better than that. Let's prevent the abortion issue entirely. Every woman of childbearing age has to get a depo shot if she goes on medicaid. That solves the issue of costs and abortion. In fact we can use the power of the state for the general welfare of the people and say that anyone below a level where they cannot be useful contributors as defined by their ability to pay income tax has to do so. The money saved would tremendous, self perpetuating poverty is eliminating and we can be more "green".

There you go.

See? Your problem is solved.

 

[nehalem256]

The problem is that the only reason to believe that fetuses with developing brains and without human level consciousness possess conscious personalities is religious faith. Thus, the Christians are basically asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for their personal religious beliefs.

Well said. The only reason not to have mandatory abortions for the poor is religious faith.

Why are Democrats so in favor of letting women force their religious beliefs on the taxpayer?

 

[soulcougher73]

I think we should tax churches to specifically fund abortions

 

[TerryMathews]

My point is that their taxpayer money would not be paying for it; the policy generates its own funding through tax dollar savings. What if I don't want my taxpayer dollars to be spent subsidizing their religious lunacy?

If the government won't fund abortion for poor women, can we impose a special tax on Christians who oppose abortion to pay for the costs of their beliefs?

Your point is absurd, and you can't account for money in the manner you claim. Spending less does not generate funding.

If you truly want to remove the religious argument against abortion funding, you need to find a way to make it self sufficient. Stem cell research, maybe?

 

[nehalem256]

Since we're saving money we can do better than that. Let's prevent the abortion issue entirely. Every woman of childbearing age has to get a depo shot if she goes on medicaid. That solves the issue of costs and abortion. In fact we can use the power of the state for the general welfare of the people and say that anyone below a level where they cannot be useful contributors as defined by their ability to pay income tax has to do so. The money saved would tremendous, self perpetuating poverty is eliminating and we can be more "green".

There you go.

See? Your problem is solved.

Sounds solved to me. I guess if Democrats are unwilling to support your plan they really do not care about ending poverty.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Since we're saving money we can do better than that. Let's prevent the abortion issue entirely. Every woman of childbearing age has to get a depo shot if she goes on medicaid. That solves the issue of costs and abortion. In fact we can use the power of the state for the general welfare of the people and say that anyone below a level where they cannot be useful contributors as defined by their ability to pay income tax has to do so. The money saved would tremendous, self perpetuating poverty is eliminating and we can be more "green".

There you go.

See? Your problem is solved.

/thread