Christ Centered Gamer

ArcticFox wrote:

Sstavix wrote:The Nazis did it to millions.

BOOM. Godwin.
-Broamir

(Not that I disagree, I just like to watch for Godwins almost as if it were a drinking game.)

I know. I tried to refrain for as long as I could.

ArcticFox wrote:I can understand the Libertarian approach to keeping the Government back. This is one of those issues though, that divides the Libertarian crowd. I too regard myself as Libertarian and I'm pro-life. I think the two separate Libertarian approaches are these: (Correct me if I misrepresent your stance, Brozilla.)

Pro-choice Libertarians regard restrictions as Government control and thus to be avoided as much as possible. Any spiritual implications are between the individual woman and her deity when applicable.

Pro-life Libertarians regard abortion as the unjust killing of a human being, which is murder and therefore should be illegal. (Exceptions are, of course, acknowledged, such as medical necessity.)

If I understand correctly, Brozilla is the former type while I am the latter.

That seems like a fairly accurate assessment. My approach is twofold - 1) I don't like government involvement over the individual (of course) and 2) I don't really want to see the return to back-alley abortions.

However, at the same time, I don't think the government should be paying for abortions (or any form of birth control or, on the flip side, birth aids either, like Viagra), because the majority of the taxpayers in this nation are opposed to it. Lack of government involvement works both ways and puts more of the burden on the individual - where it belongs.

That last I definitely agree with. It breaks my heart to know my tax dollars are being used to pay for abortions, which I'm morally opposed to (I won't rehash that bit, since we're talking about Government vs. individual morals in another thread already)

And yep, I also agree that birth control and things like Viagra aren't my responsibility as a taxpayer either. It comes uncomfortably close to the notion that consequence free sex is a right the Government is supposed to take financial responsibility for, and I find that ridiculous.

ArcticFox wrote:That last I definitely agree with. It breaks my heart to know my tax dollars are being used to pay for abortions, which I'm morally opposed to (I won't rehash that bit, since we're talking about Government vs. individual morals in another thread already)

And yep, I also agree that birth control and things like Viagra aren't my responsibility as a taxpayer either. It comes uncomfortably close to the notion that consequence free sex is a right the Government is supposed to take financial responsibility for, and I find that ridiculous.

For the longest time (well, at least since Obamacare was "legalized" through various shenanigans) I've had a Thomas Jefferson quote as my e-mail signature.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Whether we're talking about abortion, or Obamacare, or declaring war on Whereareweagainistan, or bank bailouts, or whatever issue you could name, I think the quote applies on so many levels. There is a LOT that the Federal government is involved in that, really, it never should have gotten started in the first place.

Amen to that.

Sstavix wrote:

Lazarus wrote:It's a good argument, but you're talking to people whose views on abortion are more regressive than Iranian law.

Classic Alinskyite tactic here; if you're losing the argument - even if the opposition is right - resort to insults and belittling the opponent to try to bully a win. Thing is, I think most of us here are too intelligent to fall for this. If you have nothing intelligent to contribute, feel free to sit down.

I could say that regressive is not an insult, it's a statement of fact that modern people including Iranians are willing to allow abortions, whereas that wasn't the case in the past.
The comparison to Iranian law is because many(not all) Americans tend to view Iranians(or at least their government) as ignorant religious terrorists, so it's shocking to think that they have more modern(not to say more ethical, or superior, just more modern) views on abortion than American Christians.

I could also say that telling someone they're losing the argument, that you're right and they're wrong, that they're bullying you and that you're not only too intelligent to fall for it but that they're too stupid to even be arguing about the subject at hand - is incredibly condescending and rude and quite frankly takes my breath away!

My delicate feelings are hurt, and I'm done with this topic. Good day, sir!

However, at the same time, I don't think the government should be paying for abortions (or any form of birth control or, on the flip side, birth aids either, like Viagra), because the majority of the taxpayers in this nation are opposed to it. Lack of government involvement works both ways and puts more of the burden on the individual - where it belongs.

I mean, regardless of whether or not it's actually the case that most people disagree with it (especially outside the Bible Belt) because I'm not familiar with the actual stats, I'd be interested in seeing the effect of BC (not abortion--just BC) on poverty and stress on welfare systems.

I think of it like this: someone slips up, or isn't careful, or can't afford BC (or the trip to the doctor to get the pill) and has a kid, and this happens multiple times. That puts strains on poorer families. Whether or not you think food stamps or welfare should be a thing, they rely more on those systems. Maybe the kids end up unemployed or in minimum wage jobs indefinitely with supplementary welfare or, should they work their way out of poverty through higher education, use government grants (taxpayer money) to pay for their education. No matter what, they cost the government money. Had their parents had access to birth control, they could have better managed--well, popping out kids

It's like at my university. At the nurse's station in the campus clinic, you can get free condoms. It's a public university, so in a roundabout way you could say that public funds are going to encouraging college kids to fornicate. I would argue that not only are condoms cheap (and effective when used properly) but it also saves the system money in the long term by preventing STD spread and unwanted pregnancies in a population that can't support children. I don't really care that Bible-thumpers disagree (perhaps more than any other thing) that you should be able to do the sweaty horizontal cha-cha before marriage and spend 80% of their time telling us why that's the case. The fact of the matter is that people are going to boink each other and you can make a small investment to spare healthcare, welfare, and other systems a lot of burden by stopping it at its source.

I won't even get into why abstinence-only education in public schools is perhaps one of the most ineffective and poorly implemented ideas of the 20th and 21st centuries


tl;dr I don't really care that some of the population disagrees with it, a small investment in the rubber and pharmaceutical industries will likely prevent strain and burden on numerous systems within the government without harming anyone (and likely lowering how much is spent on poverty programs and welfare, a system which conservatives also are generally opposed to). At least, that's my theory, and I'd be interested to see if other countries have implemented similar policies and what the effect was

I don't have a problem with the existence of birth control. In fact, I think it could be used more often - I'm sure that most of us can think of people who really shouldn't have children (and if we can't think of anyone, spend an afternoon in Walmart and you'll probably find a few examples...).

As indicated above, I do have a problem with the federal government forcing taxpayers to pay for it. Because, eventually someone will complain "I don't want to pay for that because it's against my beliefs." (Also as I indicated above, you could apply this to nearly everything the government pokes their fingers into with our money, not just providing birth control.) There are plenty of companies and non-profit organizations that would be willing to pick up the slack if the government stopped spending taxpayer money on it (you pointed out a program on college campuses yourself, actually - and they're more than welcome to do it, in my opinion!)

And again, my issue lies on the federal level. Whatever individual states want to do, they're more than welcome to do it. If a resident of a state doesn't like what the state government is doing, they can move to a state which more closely reflects their beliefs. (That's one reason I'm living in Idaho, rather than Washington, where I grew up. Similarly, I don't think I'll ever live in California or New York, for similar reasons. I don't want my tax dollars to back what those state governments view as priorities.)

But what about kinds of birth control that are used for health reasons such as the pill? Should people be denied treatment because someone somewhere doesn't believe in birth control, even if it's not used for that purpose?

And what about health in general? Christian Science (Really an awful name for these people) doesn't believe in Medicine and doctors (generalizing here). Should we abolish healthcare and medicine in general?


My question is: At what point do you stop that line of reasoning because it is harmful to others?

Deepfreeze32 wrote:But what about kinds of birth control that are used for health reasons such as the pill? Should people be denied treatment because someone somewhere doesn't believe in birth control, even if it's not used for that purpose?

And what about health in general? Christian Science (Really an awful name for these people) doesn't believe in Medicine and doctors (generalizing here). Should we abolish healthcare and medicine in general?


My question is: At what point do you stop that line of reasoning because it is harmful to others?

Of course not. I'm not calling for a ban on anything. I just don't think the federal government or the U.S. taxpayers need to be the ones footing the bill.

There are plenty of companies and non-profit organizations that would be willing to pick up the slack if the government stopped spending taxpayer money on it (you pointed out a program on college campuses yourself, actually - and they're more than welcome to do it, in my opinion!)

Well, it was provided by a public university, so in this case it wasn't a private organization, haha.

ChickenSoup wrote:

There are plenty of companies and non-profit organizations that would be willing to pick up the slack if the government stopped spending taxpayer money on it (you pointed out a program on college campuses yourself, actually - and they're more than welcome to do it, in my opinion!)

Well, it was provided by a public university, so in this case it wasn't a private organization, haha.

Do the students pay tuition there? That might be a factor. But state-funded universities are different entities from the Federal government. Whether or not public universities should receive federal funding is a different debate entirely, but once the public university gets their money, they can do with it whatever they wish.

Well, to some extent. There's administration, laws, student resources and programs, and those silly, bothersome classes that teachers insist the students attend, too... but that will only further completely derail this thread. In any case, if the university wants to use school money to hand out condoms, I don't see a problem with that. To tell you the truth, I'd rather see the money go to that kind of thing than dumb sports programs....

I'm cool with sports programs so long as they generate revenue for the college/university. I'm not sure the profit always goes to the best places, but, meh. But as someone who's spent... well, too much time in college now, haha, I'm cool with my tax dollars going to universities. It's one of the contributions to society I'm not against paying into, especially when the money goes to important research.

Except, tuition and textbooks rates are through the flippin' roof. I'd rather pay less to go to school

Considering the myriad services they offer in terms of women's health across the nation, I'm not really surprised

ChickenSoup wrote:Considering the myriad services they offer in terms of women's health across the nation, I'm not really surprised

Yep, they like helping out women all over the country.

Like this lady! I bet she's happy after her treatment!

(OK, so she's not coming out of a Planned Parenthood clinic itself. But it doesn't take too long to find other information about Planned Parenthood - like the fact that they made $127 million in 2012. I wonder if that is factoring in the money they received from us taxpayers?)