Not all blacks are bad people!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

•No woman has the right to have an abortion using other people's money.
•A woman only has the right to have such services on fair and equal grounds. Be it monetary earnings or whatever health services she has available.

Fortunately, part of living in a representative democracy is that you - personally - do not get to choose how your tax monies are spent.

Why don't women have the right to publically-funded abortion? The notion that a woman can't avail herself of this procedure unless she has the cash on hand is simply nutty (for the record, if she has private insurance that covers the procedure, she is paying for it with 'other people's money', at least partly).

I doubt very much that you would prohibit someone from driving on a road unless they paid for it themselves, or hooking into the power grid unless they built it themselves - why the exception for this particular medical procedure?

Boru

[Mermaid]

These two sentences directly contradict each other.

I don't think we agree fundamentally on what "restricting women's rights" means.

Of course "you righties" want to restrict women's rights. A very long history of this is plain evidence of it.

Obviously not the philosophical type.

I am referring to political rights and human rights. 

• No woman has the right to have an abortion using other people's money.
  
• A woman only has the right to have such services on fair and equal grounds. Be it monetary earnings or whatever health services she has available. 
  

This is an extremely simple concept. Contraception is available and it is not expensive. If you cannot make the right decisions in life, I refuse to correct the faults of thousands of strangers and promote their lack of discipline. 

Without even addressing the philosophical part and your fundamental beliefs that women should just keep their legs closed, where would a woman use other peoples' money to get an abortion? Because if you are thinking Planned Parenthood, you need to read more and understand the actual facts before posting about it. You are entitled to your opinion, but for fucks sake, get the actual facts right before you voice it. You also might want to actually think about the cost of birth control from the perspective of the average or low-income American woman. Are you sure it's easy to get and inexpensive? Are you really, really sure?

---

And in the vein of philosophy, why should my money go to things I am vehemently opposed to?
Churches, for instance, do not pay taxes. And a very significant portion of "my" money goes to military spending, something I am quite fundamentally and philosophically opposed to.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

And what if a woman is raped? Would you seriously try to charge someone to get an abortion based off of that?

I'm not quite following why you think the public should pay in this scenario? The public didn't rape the woman. The criminal with get punished and the women will get justice. The criminal can be forced to pay the fees. Right? I just don't see the reason to get the public involved, unless I'm missing something?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, you are doing your work better than I am, I haven't paid the OP much attention honestly. Feeling lazy 

Would you argue with my critique of For Whom the Bell Tolls if you haven't yourself read the book?

Also I apologize that I wrote preposition and was probably confusing the shit out of you   . The look on your face must have been epic. 

Nah, I'm fairly well-versed at interpolation. I don't mind simple words, though. I really don't. They're also easier to look up.

But my point is that a little research into what I am referring to reveals why you cannot be too quick to declare racism. 

Many of those facts are facts I knew before he opened his pie-hole. Again, and I won't belabor you with this point any more, it is his emphasis on one possible cause which reveals his agenda.

I am still in no way shape or form saying an agenda is something political. I am only referring to the alleged agenda of Republicans and Righties for passing legislation to somehow creep racism into the American way of life. I hear this a lot by Lefties so I thought you were using this same argument. 

And I am using the word deregulation in opposition to regulation. I was trying to make it a positive action vs a negative action. Most people tend to view it that way I though it would work for you. I didn't have intention on getting politically specific just yet. 

Okay, to me, words like "regulation" and "deregulation" have a specific political denotation.

As for what the conservative political elements in America have done about racism, I don't believe they've done shit ... except drag their feet on any proposed solution. All it takes for evil to prosper is good men to do nothing. Far too many conservatives in this country seem terribly unfamiliar with that adage and its application. I believe equality under the law, and equality of opportunity no matter one's race, are far more important than my preference for a small government. I am comfortable letting the government grow in order to deal with this injustice, because the human rights of minorities are more important than my political philosophy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

And what if a woman is raped? Would you seriously try to charge someone to get an abortion based off of that?

I'm not quite following why you think the public should pay in this scenario? The public didn't rape the woman.  The criminal with get punished and the women will get justice. The criminal can be forced to pay the fees. Right? I just don't see the reason to get the public involved, unless I'm missing something?

So, the criminal should also foot the fees for his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment? Virtually all democratic societies have accepted the idea of the social contract, wherein contributions to the public coffers are used for what has been deemed the public good. If part of my tax bill is used to imprison a rapist, I have no qualms about another part of my taxes going to free the victim of an unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of whether she can afford the procedure herself.

Boru

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'm not quite following why you think the public should pay in this scenario? The public didn't rape the woman.  The criminal with get punished and the women will get justice. The criminal can be forced to pay the fees. Right? I just don't see the reason to get the public involved, unless I'm missing something?

So, the criminal should also foot the fees for his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment? Virtually all democratic societies have accepted the idea of the social contract, wherein contributions to the public coffers are used for what has been deemed the public good. If part of my tax bill is used to imprison a rapist, I have no qualms about another part of my taxes going to free the victim of an unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of whether she can afford the procedure herself.

Boru

No, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for the woman (in this scenario). My view is that people shouldn't be forced into paying. If you want to then great, if not, no sweat! It should generally be something people can opt out of, anyway that's my opinion.

[Mermaid]

Public funding does not go to abortion services.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, the criminal should also foot the fees for his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment?  Virtually all democratic societies have accepted the idea of the social contract, wherein contributions to the public coffers are used for what has been deemed the public good.  If part of my tax bill is used to imprison a rapist, I have no qualms about another part of my taxes going to free the victim of an unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of whether she can afford the procedure herself.

Boru

No, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for the woman (in this scenario). My view is that people shouldn't be forced into paying. If you want to then great, if not, no sweat! It should generally be something people can opt out of, anyway that's my opinion.

So, people with no children shouldn't have their tax money spent on schools and people who don't drive shouldn't have to help keep up the roads?

I'm anti-war. How far do you think I'd get if I were to sent a notice along with my next tax payment reading, 'To all the fine men, women and attack dogs at Inland Revenue: Please make sure that none of this money goes to pay for ships, tanks, planes, bombs, bullets or guns. Hugs and kisses' ?

Boru

[Mermaid]

And what if a woman is raped? Would you seriously try to charge someone to get an abortion based off of that?

I'm not quite following why you think the public should pay in this scenario? The public didn't rape the woman.  The criminal with get punished and the women will get justice. The criminal can be forced to pay the fees. Right? I just don't see the reason to get the public involved, unless I'm missing something?

So, the criminal should also foot the fees for his arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment?  Virtually all democratic societies have accepted the idea of the social contract, wherein contributions to the public coffers are used for what has been deemed the public good.  If part of my tax bill is used to imprison a rapist, I have no qualms about another part of my taxes going to free the victim of an unwanted pregnancy, irrespective of whether she can afford the procedure herself.

Boru

No, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for the woman (in this scenario). My view is that people shouldn't be forced into paying. If you want to then great, if not, no sweat! It should generally be something people can opt out of, anyway that's my opinion.

Should public funds go to any sort of medical care?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Should public funds go to any sort of medical care?

You'll have to be way more specific than that. What kind of medical care do you mean, who would be receiving this privilege and why do you think they deserve this?