@AverageJoe1
“My factual query did not mention taxes.”
Your factual query (after a bunch of preliminary clauses) actually begins with the words: “[S]hould any of [/i]my tax dollars[/i] be used for the payment of … ,” followed by a list of things pertaining to abortion. So, yes: your factual query did mention taxes. Why would you deny that?
@averagejoe1 saidOf course it mentioned taxes and you seemed to imply that individual taxpayers had some "right" to not pay a share of government expenditures they don't agree with. If that were so, the Feds would own me a big, fat check for all the wars and bloated military spending I have opposed throughout my adult life.
Well, certainly you agree that I have a right to own money that I make. Now, Marauder, one of your worst weaknesses, though it is rife throughout the libs on this Forum, is your effort to change the facts of an issue, presented by a person such as myself.
My factual query did not mention taxes. So, no sense going there for purposes of this post.
Please ...[text shortened]... n, I am asked to pay for it, should I. It is a yes or no, even a jmmmmperson would understand it.
But in a democratic Republic such as we have, such spending decisions are made by the People's elected representatives and individual taxpayers don't get a personal veto over them. And you have no "right" not to pay taxes at whatever levels the People deem proper (absent confiscatory taxation).
All of this is, of course, quite off the topic BTW.
@vistesd2 saidTouche', that was in error, I did not mean to mention taxes, as my question is obviously, 'should I pay for the abortion of some person'. So apologies to Marauder, and I hereby state the question with no regard for taxes, morality or anything eles other than the basic question. Why should someone be required to pay for the abortion of another? Why?
@AverageJoe1
“My factual query did not mention taxes.”
Your factual query (after a bunch of preliminary clauses) actually begins with the words: “[S]hould any of [/i]my tax dollars[/i] be used for the payment of … ,” followed by a list of things pertaining to abortion. So, yes: your factual query did mention taxes. Why would you deny that?
It is true of course that our representatives in government, usually state, have the power to tell us to pay taxes by law, and to dole it out to any and all entities, like abortion concerns. But that is not related to my 'revised'; question.
@averagejoe1 saidShould someone be required to pay for the abortion of another??
Touche', that was in error, I did not mean to mention taxes, as my question is obviously, 'should I pay for the abortion of some person'. So apologies to Marauder, and I hereby state the question with no regard for taxes, morality or anything eles other than the basic question. Why should someone be required to pay for the abortion of another? Why?
It is true of ...[text shortened]... o any and all entities, like abortion concerns. But that is not related to my 'revised'; question.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat kind of question is that? Did I miss something?
Should someone be required to pay for the abortion of another??
Oh, you're probably talking about tax dollars. My pet peeve is corporate welfare. Farmers literally get paid from tax coffers when their crop yields don't turn a profit. One would think the strategy would be for farmers to make the necessary adjustments in their businesses so their product could be profitable, but nope. The government pays them and says "we'll pay you even more next year from Wildgrass's salary"
Should someone be required to pay for businesses to be unprofitable?
Maybe, like a donation to a university, you should be able to designate specific things that your check to Uncle Sam can pay for?
@AverageJoe1
Thinking about it, I can come up with three scenarios under which that would happen:
1. Via taxes (which you have already said is not in play here);
2. In a group health insurance plan where the costs of abortion coverage are spread – as are other costs – across the whole group (and so would factor into your premium); and
3. Direct, out-of-pocket payments for someone’s abortion.
You have already said that 1. does not apply to your question. So, with that removed, which of the others are you concerned about? (Or have I missed one?)
@vistesd2 saidFrankly, I wouldn't have a problem with insurance policies covering abortions, but I would be vehemently opposed to requiring that policies cover it (like the ACA did with contraception).
@AverageJoe1
Thinking about it, I can come up with three scenarios under which that would happen:
1. Via taxes (which you have already said is not in play here);
2. In a group health insurance plan where the costs of abortion coverage are spread – as are other costs – across the whole group (and so would factor into your premium); and
3. Direct, out-of-pocket pay ...[text shortened]... uestion. So, with that removed, which of the others are you concerned about? (Or have I missed one?)
If you think you might want an abortion, shop to find a policy that covers it.
I'm also against Medicaid and other federally subsidized policies covering abortions.
As for states covering them (e.g., California), I think that's close enough to the local level that states can decide that for themselves (through their elected legislatures).
@sh76
Hi, Sh—
Why should only one group have to “shop” for policies that cover it – as opposed to shopping for policies that don’t?
I don’t understand your objection to, say, Medicaid coverage – except that you want the government to enforce your particular moral judgments. I’m against tax dollars supporting religious education of any kind. Is there a difference?
Please do not think that my response is intended to be in any way snarky.
@AverageJoe1
Don't worry, be happy, women are now going to die again like they did last century before Roe, going to shyster BS artists claiming to do abortions in the back alleys.
But don't you worry your zombie head about it.
@wildgrass saidNo, I am not talking about tax dollars. I am saying that in a normal setting a person comes up to me and asks would I pay for her abortion. Nothing to do with taxes. Should I pay for her abortion?
What kind of question is that? Did I miss something?
Oh, you're probably talking about tax dollars. My pet peeve is corporate welfare. Farmers literally get paid from tax coffers when their crop yields don't turn a profit. One would think the strategy would be for farmers to make the necessary adjustments in their businesses so their product could be profitable, but nope ...[text shortened]... niversity, you should be able to designate specific things that your check to Uncle Sam can pay for?
@AverageJoe1
I guess you get asked that question ten times a week.....A modification of your previous post "My tax dollars"...
@AverageJoe1
Assuming you’re not in any way connected (e.g., the impregnator), then – up to you, Bone. You may want to – out of a sense of compassion (and maybe you actually inquire into the particular case). You may refuse on the basis of some dogmatic moral stance.
Some people will say you should – others will say you should not. Some people will argue for compassion, others for moral judgment.
Having done away with options 1. (taxes) and 2. (group insurance) – what are you after? Some universal moral sanction?
@mott-the-hoople saidWrong on all counts... again.
“Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected ”
exactly what happened…and it was corrected to comply with the US constitution as written.
societal change does not play a part…the constitution doesnt change.
its funny you mention “unelected” officials”…with this ruling the “unelected officials” return the power to the people through “elected officials”
@averagejoe1 saidThey ARE outrageous.
There is a huge shadow over your pansy references to 'social change', which was not invented until all the libs on this forum were born. The shadow is that the Framers did not anticipate a lot of stuff that a president would do to ruin a country. Open a sovereign border!??!?!?!?!?!? Just open it up and turn his back on the goings-on there?
Instead of saying 'we ...[text shortened]... espect the decisions of the court', he said they are outrageous . You fellers and Biden are a mess.