"Paying For Abortions"

[Seasanctuary]

I'm hearing a lot of complaints about how citizens will have to pay taxes which will go towards abortion, even if they have a moral objection against abortion. How is this different in principle from forcing citizens to pay taxes which will go towards war, even if those citizens have a moral objection against war.

I'm not asking how the morality of war vs. abortion differ. Rather, is it acceptable or not for the government to tax citizens for something they consider immoral?

[themuzicman]

I think both have the right to make their voices heard and use political hay to change policy.

[Faramir]

Another difference is that national defense is an express power of the Federal Government as listed in the Constitution, health care is not.

Of course it is also expressed that congress can declare war, which it has not done since Dec. 8, 1941 if memory serves me right.

I don't think my taxes should go to pay for either. If the current war(s) was declared by congress (i,e. a constitutional war), I would think I would have less ground to complain.

However, I have recently converted from a pretty hard line hawk to a moderate type dove when it comes to the current war. I have always been hard line against abortion.

[norwegen]

Another difference is that national defense is an express power of the Federal Government as listed in the Constitution, health care is not.

Of course it is also expressed that congress can declare war, which it has not done since Dec. 8, 1941 if memory serves me right.

I don't think my taxes should go to pay for either. If the current war(s) was declared by congress (i,e. a constitutional war), I would think I would have less ground to complain.

However, I have recently converted from a pretty hard line hawk to a moderate type dove when it comes to the current war. I have always been hard line against abortion.

The Congress declared war in Iraq (the Iraq Resolution). You helped pay for it thanks to the Progressive Era and the 16th Amendment.

I don't think citizens should pay for war, either (at least, not with a permanent income tax). Liberals, however - the pacifists that they are - do. But then, liberal logic is fuzzy logic.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

The Congress declared war in Iraq (the Iraq Resolution). You helped pay for it thanks to the Progressive Era and the 16th Amendment.

I don't think citizens should pay for war, either (at least, not with a permanent income tax). Liberals, however - the pacifists that they are - do. But then, liberal logic is fuzzy logic.

Oh, you mean GWB and the weapons of mass destruction don't you?

Back to the basic question. No government has ever limited it's taxing and spending to what any individual person believes is moral or not. The question is absurd.

[norwegen]

Oh, you mean GWB and the weapons of mass destruction don't you?

No.

Yes.

I'm not sure.

Please clarify.

Back to the basic question. No government has ever limited it's taxing and spending to what any individual person believes is moral or not. The question is absurd.

This answer is absurd. The question wasn't referring to any individual. It was referring to the citizenry.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

No.

Yes.

I'm not sure.

Please clarify.This answer is absurd. The question wasn't referring to any individual. It was referring to the citizenry.

We tried to get the government's attention during the Vietnam War. We demonstrated, published, did many things and raised such a ruckus that Johnson decided not to run again. The government imposed a war tax, called out the troops on its own citizens and threatened to jail anyone who did not pay the legislated lawful amount of their taxes. You want civics? Were you on the streets marching against the war? Did you march side by side with Blacks for their civil rights? The pansies who voice moral objections over a tiny amount of tax money that might fund some abortions don't have the stomach to stand up to their government and the elected officials know it. Is that the answer you wanted to hear?

[Darth Executor]

If the current war(s) was declared by congress (i,e. a constitutional war), I would think I would have less ground to complain.

They are constitutional. They were explicitly authorized by congress. I'm not sure where the silly argument that Iraq/Afghanistan are unconstitutional is coming from.

[Darth Executor]

I'm hearing a lot of complaints about how citizens will have to pay taxes which will go towards abortion, even if they have a moral objection against abortion. How is this different in principle from forcing citizens to pay taxes which will go towards war, even if those citizens have a moral objection against war.

I'm not asking how the morality of war vs. abortion differ. Rather, is it acceptable or not for the government to tax citizens for something they consider immoral?

It depends. If it's vital, yes. If it isn't, no.

[norwegen]

We tried to get the government's attention during the Vietnam War. We demonstrated, published, did many things and raised such a ruckus that Johnson decided not to run again. The government imposed a war tax, called out the troops on its own citizens and threatened to jail anyone who did not pay the legislated lawful amount of their taxes. You want civics? Were you on the streets marching against the war? Did you march side by side with Blacks for their civil rights? The pansies who voice moral objections over a tiny amount of tax money that might fund some abortions don't have the stomach to stand up to their government and the elected officials know it. Is that the answer you wanted to hear?

Johnson decided not to run again? Was he allowed to run again?

I'm not sure if this is the answer I wanted to hear. Let me try to make some connections with it, and then get back to you.

[Epoetker]

Hey eeset, so far talking about the whole no-tax-money-for-abortions thing actually HAS stopped the advance of such bills whenever they come up. Why alter a winning strategy?

[jordanriver]

I'm hearing a lot of complaints about how citizens will have to pay taxes which will go towards abortion, even if they have a moral objection against abortion. How is this different in principle from forcing citizens to pay taxes which will go towards war, even if those citizens have a moral objection against war.

I'm not asking how the morality of war vs. abortion differ. Rather, is it acceptable or not for the government to tax citizens for something they consider immoral?

That sounds like two different categories.
I try to think of a nation as an organism with immune and defense systems. The military would be in the category of the organism's external defense system, and possibly internal defense. If we're referring to a healthy organism, the military is a friendly system there to sustain the organism.
Abortion is an attack on the organism. Its about killing living cells of the greater organism. If the organism is unhealthy, that is, if its immune system is breaking down for some reason, it will allow its own destruction, the killing of its living parts.

There seems to be a virus that has gotten hold of the organism AKA the USA. The virus has fooled the system into thinking defense is bad, and abortion is good. Its almost as if the organism is at war with itself.

jr

[Conductor42]

Of course it is also expressed that congress can declare war, which it has not done since Dec. 8, 1941 if memory serves me right.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...107publ243.htm

"This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''."

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congressdeclares that this section is intended to constitute specificstatutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) ofthe War Powers Resolution."

It might be encased in legal mumbo jumbo, but that my friend is a declaration of war

[Faramir]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...107publ243.htm

"This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''."

"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congressdeclares that this section is intended to constitute specificstatutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) ofthe War Powers Resolution."

It might be encased in legal mumbo jumbo, but that my friend is a declaration of war

According the this article, it does not constitute a formal declaration of war. Now I know wiki is not the best source, but you are stating your opinion like it is settled science. It is not, as the very fist source I found says that the Iraq war is NOT a formally declared war.

[themuzicman]

The WPA is the law created to implement Congress' authority to declare ware.