TheEgoist Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 What do you think of it? I think it would do a lot of good things, for example eliminating restrictions on abortion on the federal level. Many states have passed anti-abortion measures all by themselves, and this would put an end to them. However, it's also got attachments that would use tax payer money to fund abortions. My argument against this is that any bill introduced and passed by congress is going to be relinquishing us of money. I would support a Republican bill that would eliminate federal spending for abortions too, but I think this bill should be put through congress immediately. It would be one of the few things Obama could do that would be any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) In essence, this act appears to confirm Roe v. Wade, making the rules from that case into something the legislature expressly enacts. The key paragraph appears tp be this one. ( Prohibition of Interference- A government may not-- (1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose-- (A) to bear a child; ( to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or © to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Assuming it confirms Roe v. Wade via legislation, it would be a good law. Otherwise, we always have the specter of a SCOTUS wanting to go back on Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure how states get away passing laws that are contrary to Roe v. Wade. Maybe a lawyer can explain. Perhaps it is because when they do, it has to go all the way back to the SCOTUS to confirm that it is indeed contrary. If Federal legislation makes it explicit, and in doing so stops states from violating individual rights, that can only be a good thing. As for spending tax-money on abortion, that is a red-herring. By that argument, the states may not spend tax-money on most things they do: schools, roads, and all sorts. All in all, it seems a very minimal law: doing no more than clarifying the current status. I'd like to see more. Edited March 3, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I would want government funding for abortions stopped first. A greater affect would be done there by first eliminating that force as "everyone" must provide for that "common good". Additionally, the objection to freedom of choice is easier if people's individual funds are not related to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted March 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 In essence, this act appears to confirm Roe v. Wade, making the rules from that case into something the legislature expressly enacts. The key paragraph appears tp be this one. Assuming it confirms Roe v. Wade via legislation, it would be a good law. Otherwise, we always have the specter of a SCOTUS wanting to go back on Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure how states get away passing laws that are contrary to Roe v. Wade. Maybe a lawyer can explain. Perhaps it is because when they do, it has to go all the way back to the SCOTUS to confirm that it is indeed contrary. If Federal legislation makes it explicit, and in doing so stops states from violating individual rights, that can only be a good thing. As for spending tax-money on abortion, that is a red-herring. By that argument, the states may not spend tax-money on most things they do: schools, roads, and all sorts. All in all, it seems a very minimal law: doing no more than clarifying the current status. I'd like to see more. Limits on abortions in states are normally based on parental consent or personhood bills and amendments. They don't really violate Roe V. Wade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaight Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I would want government funding for abortions stopped first. A greater affect would be done there by first eliminating that force as "everyone" must provide for that "common good". I wouldn't want funding for abortion stopped except as part of a general elimination of government subsidy of medical procedures. Abortion is a medical procedure and it should be treated as such by the government -- however the government treats them. Halting government funding of abortions while continuing funding of other medical procedures gives credence to religious objections, and I prefer erroneous secular government policy to concretely-superior religiously-motivated government policy. Putting the point differently, the only reason I see for treating abortion differently is a religious one and religious reasons should not influence government policy decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I would want government funding for abortions stopped first. A greater affect would be done there by first eliminating that force as "everyone" must provide for that "common good".What Khaight said. The only situation where government funding for abortions should be reduced is in the context of an overall reduction of government spending on medical procedures, and assuming that such reduction is not being used as a "back-door" way to reduce funding specifically on abortions. Additionally, the objection to freedom of choice is easier if people's individual funds are not related to it.it is not a question of money for the people who want abortions banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) I'm a big fan of individualism, in the sense that we should all be free to live or die by our own mind. That freedom should apply to the good guys and the bad guys, equally.( the rational and the irrational) Forcing someone to indirectly commit an act which they consider murder is an act far more barbaric than forcing you and me to pay for a medical procedure of the same cost. It's almost as barbaric as forcing someone to have a child against their will. So I for one would be all in favor of a ban on taxpayer money going to abortions, even if it's only an exception, and we're still paying for everything else. One thing I disagree with in "I would want government funding for abortions stopped first." is the first part. I want it stopped second, almost as badly as I want the bill upholding Roe v. Wade. P.S. An even bigger priority should be getting rid of that thing Bush past a few months ago, forcing clinics to keep employing doctors who refuse to perform abortions. Edited March 3, 2009 by Jake_Ellison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Forcing someone to indirectly commit an act which they consider murder is an act far more barbaric than forcing you and me to pay for a medical procedure of the same cost. It's almost as barbaric as forcing someone to have a child against their will.Sorry, I won't accept their standards of barbarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Sorry, I won't accept their standards of barbarity. I have to clarify: what I'm saying is that these are my standards. I'm sure their standards are very different (they would have very little consideration for other people's thoughts and rights). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I would want government funding for abortions stopped first. A greater affect would be done there by first eliminating that force as "everyone" must provide for that "common good".That is the wrong priority. Denying a woman's right to choose what to do with her very life is a far greater moral evil than spending tax money in this way rather than that. A woman's right to abortion is not logically dependent on a prior end to taxation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) I have to clarify: ...Okay, then I don't think I understand your post. Are you saying you would support the act as written, if you had to give a yes/no, without the option of adding other sections to it? Edited March 3, 2009 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Okay, then I don't think I understand your post. Are you saying you would support the act as written, if you had to give a yes/no, without the option of adding other sections to it? Yes. But once that's done, I would advocate getting rid of the money the government spends to actually provide abortions, because I consider it a far greater violation of rights(not mine, but other people's) than just taking money from people and spending it on regular healthcare. (precisely because this violation of rights would hurt Christians beyond just in taking away their property, but also in their right to choose their own morality-it would basically force them to participate in what they consider the biggest transgression of all) And of course, I'm not a member of Congress, so I have the option to just advocate for legislation mandating abortion rights, without any spending attached to it. But if I were in Congress, I would vote for the legislation as it is, and then worry about the Christians and their rights. (precisely because women's rights are coming under threat across the country already, so it is urgent to pass this law, [there's really no time for haggling-as Mr. Medvedev so eloquently put it just today -Was he speaking in English or did the translator actually pick the most insulting word he could think of?]) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Yes.Okay. I understand we're close...but still... But once that's done, I would advocate getting rid of the money the government spends to actually provide abortions, ...Would you also advocate getting rid of money the government spends on any scientific research that involves the killing of animals, since people from PETA think this is just as murderous as killing human beings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Okay. I understand we're close...but still... Would you also advocate getting rid of money the government spends on any scientific research that involves the killing of animals, since people from PETA think this is just as murderous as killing human beings? The reason why I don't, to be honest, is because I don't believe them when they say that they think that. (I think the second in command in PETA is using insuline daily for instance-I doubt Sarah Palin would support her daughter's decision to commit abortion, under any circumstances, and she's not even the biggest fanatic in the Jesus camp) If they did all mean it, and there was just as many of them paying taxes as there are anti-abortion people, I would have to say yes, stopping this violation of rights would have exactly the same priority. (both higher than stopping a similar ammount of taxation, for the purpose of making ... sorry, can't seem to find any product no one would protest against, actually , but any product fewer people consider a deadly sin will do) I'll be honest, I never thought of this implication before you mentioned it, but it doesn't phase me in the least-I don't find the animal people any more ridiculous than the Jesus people, so I don't find this instance of the application of the principle any more absurd than the previous one. If we look at individual rights objectively (as we do), forcing any two X and Y to act against their dearest held beliefs is equally bad, no matter what the beliefs are. (as long as those beliefs only affect them and their respective properties, of course) Would you disagree with that? P.S. I'm not so much advocating for activism on our part to get rid of these specific taxes, I'm instead simply stating that they are bigger violations than merely taking the same ammount of money for some neutral cause. That doesn't mean that we should start fighting for these people's rights, rather than continue our fight for a LFC society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.