Some argue that if U.S. taxation SHOULD NOT be allowed to fund abortion, it SHOULD NOT be allowed to Constitutionally fund the U.S. military since it kills innocent civilians...Is this a valid, rational comparison and/or argument?

by J.W. Howler Posted 2012/05/07 00:21:37

Related Topics: Abortion, Taxation, Military, U.s. Military, Comparison, Civilians

Read More

63 votes
Read all 174 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	YES	5 votes	8%
	PROBABLY	1 vote	2%
	PROBABLY NOT	4 votes	6%
	NO	53 votes	84%

Add a comment above

Red_Horse 2012/05/07 00:35:12

NO

+10
moderated...
>> See Replies

More polls by J.W. Howler

J.W. Ho... to Pm 2012/05/10 20:04:57 (edited)

If you don't like the info posted, no one is twisting your arm to participate or comment...That's simply your choice.

reply
Pm to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/10 20:33:21

YOu posted ZERO information in this thread. If you want a discussion then try to post some relevant info.

I am responding because it's my choice.

reply
J.W. Ho... to Pm 2012/05/10 20:48:17 (edited)

Good for you..lol

I posted the question as I saw fit...That's my choice.

It will be your last one on any post of mine.

Of course, you are welcome to post as much sarcasm as you like into any of the comment boxes you have already used.

Go for it, bud...And more power to ya.

reply
Technotrucker_exposingthetruth 2012/05/07 05:43:38

YES

+2
Since the army is not Constitutional during peace time, absolutely. A navy is all that is granted to support by the Constitution, not a standing army. It was intended that way so that the GOVT could not use it against it's own people.

reply
MCA to Technot... 2012/05/08 05:18:22

+1
Wrong. See above or look up US Army and when it was created then check its history.

reply
dominic garcia 2012/05/07 05:35:02 (edited)

NO

+3
Our enemies have the opportunity to defend themselves, but babies don't. When cilvilians are killed, it is very sad, but it is not intentional. We are the only ones who can help protect unborn babies.

reply
Charles E 2012/05/07 05:14:55

NO

+3
Probably one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard.

First and foremost, the Constitution requires the national government to defend the country, which naturally involves waging war. There is no requirement to kill unborn babies for any reason in the Constitution.

reply
J.W. Ho... to Charles E 2012/05/07 14:58:17

+1
Dumb IMO as well.

It has been repetitively used by another SH who deems himself to be among the higher- educated, "intellectual" types who supports the Obama admin after claiming to being a "lifelong" Republican whose party "left him".

reply
MCA to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/08 05:25:06

+1
I just can't imagine an educated person, who isn't being paid to support him, supporting the likes of Obama.
Have you ever read the Bible and felt that the Book written a couple of thousand years ago, was speaking to you today? Check out Ecclesiastes 10:2-3 ...

2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
3 Even as fools walk along the road, they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.

What are the chances that something written a few thousand years ago, applies today? Pretty good I would say! lol

reply
J.W. Ho... to MCA 2012/05/09 18:12:12

I agree totally with your commentary and thank you.

reply
teamrn 2012/05/07 04:26:50

NO

+3
I haven't looked it up in my Constitution handbook, but I do know that the Constitution gives Congress the power to fund the military. The Constitution makes NO mention of abortion; my tax dollars will NOT go to fund abortion, but I'll gladly fund a military.

reply
tlee 2012/05/07 04:13:58

NO

+3
The Enumerated Powers calls for the funding of a military,but there is no authority to fund abortion,much less 95% of what the government does.

For the record,we were to keep a Navy at all times but only an Army for 2 years.Seems our founding parents knew that our owners would take advantage of the military and tried to stop it. Unfortunately, we live in a country where the poor have cell phones,22" rims on $500.00 cars,obesity and Lady Gaga is a star!. Our poorest in this country could go to 75% of the rest of the world and would be considered wealthy. We are a spoiled nation that lives on credit and worst of all,borrowed time.It is coming to a halt,hope the majority are prepared.It will be painful,we are broke!.

reply
wtw 2012/05/07 03:53:24

NO

+6
Apples and oranges!

reply
J.W. Ho... to wtw 2012/05/07 15:00:03

+1
..And "nuts" if you know what I mean.

reply
Charge 2012/05/07 03:48:39

NO

+3
The Constitution provides for the military to protect the people of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic; it does not provide for funds to be used to kill unborn US citizens. This is completely irrational and simply another manufactured Progressive Liberal deflection and deflection of what really is hurting this country.... NO JOBS...

reply
lcky9 2012/05/07 03:23:08

NO

+5
we all need to be protected from foreign enemy's we don't ALL need abortions..

reply
relic 2012/05/07 03:17:18

NO

+2
Did that argument come from these guys:

reply
TuringsChild 2012/05/07 03:17:17

NO

+7
That's stupid. The first responsibility of govt is to protect its people from outside threats. Killing unborn babies is the OPPOSITE of an outside threat.

reply
Bureauc 0webama 2012/05/07 03:05:07 (edited)

NO

+7
Protecting the citizenry and Country with a military is one of the few things the Constitution authorizes the Gov't to do.

Killing unborn babies? Not so much.

That being said, I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent to sterilize any liberal that wants it.

reply
shenendoah to Bureauc... 2012/05/08 16:34:27

+1
Good one. LOL

reply
Odinsown 2012/05/07 02:28:42

NO

+5
As much as I am anti-war funding the military is provided for in the constitution. Abortion is not provided for in the constitution, and I am fairly sure it doesn't qualify as the common welfare.

reply
Dave Sawyer ♥ Child of God ♥ 2012/05/07 02:20:51

NO

+7
Because National Defense is a legitimate function of our Federal government.

reply
J.W. Ho... to Dave Sa... 2012/05/07 15:02:58

+1
Dave I got this question as a result of a conversation you were having on another post with a very strange character IMO who steps all over himself with pseudo-intellectual arguments that he deems to be very "thought" provoking.

reply
shenendoah 2012/05/07 02:12:28

NO

+7
Some argue?... How totally ridiculous, I doubt if even some liberals are that stupid. I could be wrong.

reply
Charles E to shenendoah 2012/05/07 05:18:10

+1
You are wrong. But even most liberals see the idiocy of this comparison.

reply
shenendoah to Charles E 2012/05/07 23:42:46

+1
I disagree. I still say some, not most.

reply
Charles E to shenendoah 2012/05/08 12:56:21

+1
I stand corrected.

reply
shenendoah to Charles E 2012/05/08 16:32:37

LOL

reply
nverumind 2012/05/07 01:59:14 (edited)

NO

+6
Military to my knowlage does not "Legally" Order the killing of civilians. I will throw legally in there because, i think we all know not everything military or government does, is legal.
It is lunacy to compare the two. Military "Protects millions" from foreign threats that would seek to kill or harm americans. The number of civilians killed by war, in no way compares to the number of abortions performed in the US alone, (not world wide)
Abortion "kills millions" of innocent babies with the majority exuse being nothing other than inconvenience.

Abortions reported per year by Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics and Center for Disease Control Statistics.

AGI CDC

2003 1,250,000 848,163***
2004 1,222,100 839,226***
2005 1,206,200
2006-07 1,206,200
THE numbers speak for themselves..they do not get any better!

Civilians killed in war between march 2003/05

2003 = 12,087
2004 = 11,152
2005 = 15,49
2006 = 28,225
2007 = 25,063
2008 = 9,385
2009 = 4,713
2010 = 4,045
2011 = 4,087

reply
nverumind to nverumind 2012/05/07 02:14:38

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

reply
retiredingeorgia 2012/05/07 01:56:34

NO

+5
There happens to be a BIG difference here. Our military are fighting for our freedom and do not murder innocents. If they do kill them, in most cases, it's to save their own lives or an accident.
Abortion is the murder of a child that you were too stupid to prevent.
As usual, there are exceptions in either case. I leave that judgement up to God.

http://tarabarthel.com/v-web/...

reply
Cyan9 to retired... 2012/05/07 02:07:40

Good thing no one gets abortions at 36 weeks or your post might not sound so absurd.

reply
Turings... to Cyan9 2012/05/07 03:20:28 (edited)

+2
Maybe not here, but in Australia and Canada they DO. And they did here too until D&X; abortions were recently made illegal.

reply
Brad # ... to Cyan9 2012/05/07 12:54:06

+2
Many democrats in this country want late term abortions to be legal.

reply
Cyan9 to Brad # ... 2012/05/07 20:45:17

Like who?

reply
Brad # ... to Cyan9 2012/05/08 12:30:02

+2
Bill Clinton - vetoed the bill to eliminate partial birth abortions in this country in 1995.

John Edwards-D
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Representative and Party State
Joe Baca (D)
Xavier Becerra (D)
Timothy Bishop (D)
Robert Brady (D)
Michael Capuano (D)
Dennis Cardoza (D)
William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D)
Peter DeFazio (D)
William D. Delahunt (D)
Rosa DeLauro (D)
Charlie Gonzalez (D)
Raul Grijalva (D)
Luis Gutierrez (D)
Maurice D. Hinchey (D)
Dennis Kucinich (D)
John Larson (D)
Edward Markey (D)
Karen McCarthy (D)
Carolyn McCarthy (D)
Betty McCollum (D)
James McGovern (D)
Martin T. Meehan (D)
Robert Menendez (D)
George Miller (D)
James P. Moran (D)
Grace Napolitano (D)
Frank E. Pallone (D)
Ed Pastor (D)
Nancy Pelosi (D)
Charles Rangel (D)
Ciro Rodriguez (D)
Lucille R...

Bill Clinton - vetoed the bill to eliminate partial birth abortions in this country in 1995.

John Edwards-D
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Representative and Party State
Joe Baca (D)
Xavier Becerra (D)
Timothy Bishop (D)
Robert Brady (D)
Michael Capuano (D)
Dennis Cardoza (D)
William Lacy Clay, Jr. (D)
Peter DeFazio (D)
William D. Delahunt (D)
Rosa DeLauro (D)
Charlie Gonzalez (D)
Raul Grijalva (D)
Luis Gutierrez (D)
Maurice D. Hinchey (D)
Dennis Kucinich (D)
John Larson (D)
Edward Markey (D)
Karen McCarthy (D)
Carolyn McCarthy (D)
Betty McCollum (D)
James McGovern (D)
Martin T. Meehan (D)
Robert Menendez (D)
George Miller (D)
James P. Moran (D)
Grace Napolitano (D)
Frank E. Pallone (D)
Ed Pastor (D)
Nancy Pelosi (D)
Charles Rangel (D)
Ciro Rodriguez (D)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
Linda Sanchez (D)
Loretta Sanchez (D)
Jose Serrano (D)
Hilda Solis (D)
Ellen Tauscher (D)
Mike Thompson (D)
Nydia Velazquez (D)
Diane Watson (D) CA

This is a partial list of liberals who did not support the ban on partial birth abortions, which can occur in the second and third trimesters.
(more)

reply
Cyan9 to Brad # ... 2012/05/08 17:29:18

That's a separate issue. Thanks for the false equivalence though.

reply
Brad # ... to Cyan9 2012/05/09 11:27:25

+2
What are you talking about? Partial birth abortion is mid to late term abortion. Not false at all. Many democrats in this country want abortion on demand to be completely legal, including late term abortions. I have proven my point. Good day.

reply
J.W. Ho... to Brad # ... 2012/05/09 18:17:17 (edited)

+1
"False equivalency", he says?....Some people will deny anything i order to allow themselves to think of themselves as right.

reply
Cyan9 to J.W. Ho... 2012/05/09 20:26:21

You're saying on medical practice used in late term abortions is the same as supporting non-emergancy late term abortions. Those two are not the same. Late term abortions are done out of medical necessity. Supporting that is far different from saying everyone should get an abortion up to birth. No one is wishes to make that public policy and the partial birth abortion is not equivalent to universal abortion.

reply