Public Funding for Abortion

First explain how funding in your previous is an "Opportunity cost" - something you did not do. If at that point, you do not understand how feeding the poor fit's into your definition - I will explain it to you.

If one is paying rent on the property they "own" then they do not really own it.

This is a nonsensical suggestion. Just as society has a vested interest in police, it also has a vested interest in the consequences of children being born into poverty and/or disfunctional environment.

 

Moral objection to something is often not sufficient justification to claim "my tax dollars should not be used". In general we do not get to pick and choose as individuals based on individual preference.

I find the power of Gov't and Police morally reprehensible and a violation of the principles on which this nation was founded to the point where the Gov't is no longer legitimate - as per the DOI. As such one could argue that my tax dollars should not fund this entity. That is not going to happen.

For me it is a choice between not funding abortion, the consequences of which will lead to more children being raised in poverty and disfunctional environment - which will cost a whole lot of tax dollars, and funding abortion which will cost a whole lot less.

 

I have a pretty good understanding of the relationship between morals and law, and nothing I have said indicates otherwise. The cliché of "your right to swing your left arm ends at my nose" is NOT a moral distinction, and doesn't ameliorate or cancel out the role of morals in the law even remotely. In fact I whole heartedly agree with the notion that my rights end at your nose. I am all about personal freedom. You are pretending as if these two concepts are in conflict with each other when in fact they run concurrently. The law is quite complex, and we could probably have a discussion about 100 different aspects of the law, with morality and personal freedom being but two of those aspects. One does not cancel out the other. They work together in tandem. You are implying that personal freedom is the central argument at play, and it clearly is NOT.

When we are having a discussion specifically about abortion, personal freedom is NOT the central discussion. The central discussion is whether or not a fetus is conferred with the rights of a human being. Personal freedom of the mother is subservient in that discussion, because if society were to determine that a fetus has the full rights of a human being, that would dictate that the mothers personal freedom to terminate her pregnancy ends at terminating the life of another ( notice how those concepts work in tandem). The personal freedom aspect runs concurrently with the moral decision of whether or not a fetus is granted the rights of a human being, but it in no way defines whether or not a fetus is granted the rights of a human being. Collective morality is what makes that determination, with personal freedom and choice UNDENIABLY being secondary in that discussion.

We both believe that abortion should be legal. In that respect we are in complete agreement. Where we disagree is that you believe the prevailing legal justification is in personal freedom, and I believe that is a red herring to the central debate which is when does the life of a fetus legally begin.

 

I think we agree on the prevailing legal justification as well. My point in relation to morals was against a general implication that "morals" are always justification for law - as it seemed to me that that this is what you were implying.

The principle on which the law and constitution is supposed to be interpreted separates "morals" on the basis of the "cliche".

Obviously then - whether or not Abortion can be put into the basket of legitimate Gov't purview is based on whether the zygote is a person - as you state (sans arguments about whether or not this person- should it exist- is a citizen).

The point of separating out one moral argument from another is that some are valid- with respect to law - and some are not.

 

Fair enough.

 

ppen

Why are you assuming that women who have abortions are living in poverty? IIRC, the majority of abortions are to women from the middle class.

 

I do not assume this. The assumption is that some women who get pregnant are living in poverty and/or in a disfunctional environment.

 

More than a few women living in poverty or a disfunctional environment have babies and I would say the majority grow to adulthood just fine.

 

You could hire a private security guards and assuming you are able to pay only the federal minimum wage, then at 168 hours per week it would cost $63,336 annually, or you can pay a few thousand in property taxes.

You're not paying "rent" on the property, rather you're paying a tax to ensure the property retains its value and hopefully increases in value.

So are you going to hold people's hands and walk them through every second of their life to ensure they make the best decisions?

 

No, but death is always a possibility and a foreseen consequence to a set of actions.

Spree: a spell or sustained period of unrestrained activity of a particular kind

Woman Who Had Nine Abortions Sees Last Baby: 'She was absolutely hysterical'

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2017...-sees-last-baby-she-was-absolutely-hysterical

 

That is not the point

Who are you to say what a woman should decide? If she believes that her existing family will suffer if another child is brought into the house - who are you to deny her that choice?

 

And how often does this happen???

Although many women have more than one abortion 9 is very very rare and secondly it must have been a fairly advanced pregnancy - most abortions occur within the first 6-8 weeks. Finally what motivated the woman to have so many abortions - was it a partner who refused birth control but was willing to put her through surgical intervention because HE did not want to be a father?

 

Nope, consent to one act is not consent to any other, the law rules over your ramblings....


...and no one can go on an abortion spree, you can only have one at a time....and women are not rationed.....did you think they were? Did they need your approval to get a certain number of abortions? No, women get as many abortions as they want

 

Yes Murder/Rape are morals codified into law while smoking a joint is not.

 

It is in colorado

 

Why should it matter?

 

That does not change the fact that taking care of these children (and the mother) represents a high cost relative to an abortion.

 

You make a bunch of assumptions. First off - if no police existed not every house would need to pay for police services individually. A gated community with 100 households would reduce the above cost to 630 dollars. Not sure where you are living but in my neighborhood - property taxes are a whole lot more than a few thousand a year.

How does paying taxes make a piece of property maintain it's value ? ... why does it have to be property tax when other forms of taxes be implemented.

What does this comment have to do with OP Cost - or anything that is being discussed. You have wandered out into straw man la la land.

What does the above have to do with the fact that the cost of an abortion is a whole lot less than the cost of raising a child ?

 

Not that this is surprising but, yet again, your comment has nothing to do with the point.

 

Not surprising you dodge the point made.

FAW said: ↑
While I am pro choice, I have to take exception with your logic.

ALL laws are in fact codified moral beliefs. Codifying into law that murder, rape, stealing etc are wrong, is based solely on moral judgment.

You said:
There is a difference between .. Murder/Rape and smoking a joint.

Correct laws against murder are codified morals which we force on others.

 

So lets just kill them while their young because it is more palatable then? We can just pretend its not a human, a life, a baby that is killed.

 

I dont consider smoking pot a moral issue do you?

 

Yes. It is a moral good

 

No it's a human and yes we kill it

 

I fail to see any morality as to smoking pot but are you trying to force morality on others?