Quantcast

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?

J.W. Howler 2012/05/07 00:21:37
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • J.W. Ho... Cyan9 2012/05/09 22:48:21 (edited)
    J.W. Howler
    +1
    "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."

    Do you have the proof sources to show the SPECIFIC stipulations that would have to be met to get a partial birth abortion in the way that it has been politically supported?

    The tired old "medical necessity" crap is and has been for some time used to get legislation for otherwise undesirable things.
  • Brad # ... J.W. Ho... 2012/05/10 11:41:16
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    Agreed. Read my response to Cyan9 above.
  • Brad # ... Cyan9 2012/05/10 11:40:45 (edited)
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    Howler is right. Some doctors could give permission for a late term abortion because the woman has bad headaches, or is emotionally disturbed about the pregnancy. Why is partial birth abortion even an option? If the baby is a danger to mother's life, why not do a C-section? There would be good chance that the baby would live, especially late in the second trimester and almost certainly in the third trimester. Partial birth abortion is a way to get rid of the unwanted child in a very barbaric method. Why not a C section?
  • Cyan9 Brad # ... 2012/05/10 20:53:52
    Cyan9
    I have no clue, ask a medical professional. The point is moot anyway considering it was a rare procedure before it was banned and is now outlawed.
  • Brad # ... J.W. Ho... 2012/05/10 11:29:58
    Brad # 2486547
    +1
    So very true.
  • les_gvt 2012/05/07 01:47:02
    NO
    les_gvt
    +3
    I will gladly change my opinon if anyone can point out to me where in the Constitution it says the fderal government should provide ANY medical services.

    And no- "general welfare" in the 1770's did not mean HUD housing and food stamps- it meant "Do no Harm"
  • DuncanONeil 2012/05/07 01:37:40
    NO
    DuncanONeil
    +5
    Defense is specifically mentioned as the responsibility of the Federal Government!
  • Sgt Major B 2012/05/07 01:33:10 (edited)
    NO
    Sgt Major B
    +6
    Totally spurious argument. The purpose of war is NOT to kill innocent civilians. The fact that civilians are frequently killed in time of war is an unfortunate and regrettable collateral issue.

    The power to tax, declare war, and support Land and Naval forces are specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution.

    The United States Constitution

    Article 1, Section 8...

    1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

    11: To declare War....
    12: To raise and support Armies....
    13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
    14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...

    18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and a...

    Totally spurious argument. The purpose of war is NOT to kill innocent civilians. The fact that civilians are frequently killed in time of war is an unfortunate and regrettable collateral issue.

    The power to tax, declare war, and support Land and Naval forces are specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution.

    The United States Constitution

    Article 1, Section 8...

    1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

    11: To declare War....
    12: To raise and support Armies....
    13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
    14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
    15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...

    18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    http://constitutionus.com/
    (more)
  • J.W. Ho... Sgt Maj... 2012/05/07 01:37:02
  • Red Branch 2012/05/07 01:32:17
    NO
    Red Branch
    +5
    Not Hardly!

    Not Valid nor Not Rational. Which means it is a Liberal aberration.
  • Cal 2012/05/07 01:29:03
  • LadyBGood 2012/05/07 01:17:53
    NO
    LadyBGood
    +5
    It's comparing apples to oranges..... if a foreign entity came here and tried to kill us I would expect our military to protect me and my countrymen/women. If a foreign entity made an attack on us... I would expect our military to "hit" back on that foreign soil! Leftie loonies are always so worried about US killing innocent civilians.... but remember 9/11? That worry didn't seem to bother those terrorists one bit!

    Terrorists want to kill us and obama wants to stop funding our military.... why? What is his gain?
  • Cyan9 2012/05/07 01:07:08
    PROBABLY
    Cyan9
    +1
    If it's a violation of the first amendment to fund abortions then it is probably a violation of the first amendment to fund war. However, I don't really think it's a violation in either case. There are some functions of society that one cannot realistic be able to conscientiously object from. I also don't think we should fund abortions, but that is because of economic reasons and not social.
  • les_gvt Cyan9 2012/05/07 01:42:33
    les_gvt
    +5
    can you find ANYWHERE in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to fund ANY medical services?
  • Cyan9 les_gvt 2012/05/07 01:51:33
    Cyan9
    I guess medicare, social security, medicaid and the like are unconstitutional too.
  • les_gvt Cyan9 2012/05/07 01:53:57
    les_gvt
    +7
    you are finally seeing the light, congratulations.

    If anything they should be STATE programs, not FEDERAL. Each state has under the 10th Ameendment the right to set up these programs
  • Blinky Cyan9 2012/05/07 02:02:27
  • MCA Cyan9 2012/05/08 05:37:51
    MCA
    +1
    It is not a violation to fund war, as well as a Supreme Court case backing it up. It is not in the constitution for the govt to force healthcare on everyone, nor is it in the constitution that taxpayers pay for abortions.
  • Cyan9 MCA 2012/05/08 07:02:03
    Cyan9
    I'm aware. Many of the proponents of the Hyde Amendment say make their arguments on grounds of religious freedom. Which I think is a flawed argument on both sides. I'm quite aware that no clause in the Constitution explicitly authorizes Medicare or Social Security. Try explaining that to the general population and the Supreme Court though.
  • MCA Cyan9 2012/05/08 08:41:45 (edited)
    MCA
    +1
    The Hyde Amendment is a joke, not really a law, just a tag along with anything else that might pass. I don't know why you brought up Social Security, but since you did take a look at how it came to be, ssa.gov/history/eliot2.html
    It's an interesting read, especially the part about health care!
  • keeper 2012/05/07 01:00:55
    NO
    keeper
    +6
    National defense is the primary task of the federal government.
    We are not China, so we should not promote and pay for abortions.
  • J.W. Ho... keeper 2012/05/07 01:16:07
    J.W. Howler
    +5
    What a simple and truthful answer IMO.
  • keeper J.W. Ho... 2012/05/07 16:03:48
    keeper
    +2
    Thank you~~
  • les_gvt keeper 2012/05/07 01:43:11
    les_gvt
    +4
    yet- but some are working towards that very dilligently
  • keeper les_gvt 2012/05/07 16:05:18
    keeper
    +3
    Unfortunately, you are right...
    How do you think France's election for a socialist will affect America? BHO has a "brother" there now!
  • Z 2012/05/07 00:56:58
    NO
    Z
    +3
    The argument is that (at least when I have heard it) we should not fund wars because innocent civilians are killed. That is true. One cannot justify abortion and being anti-war or anti-death penalty, but one also cannot justify being "pro-life" and being pro-war.
  • MCA Z 2012/05/08 06:33:01
    MCA
    +1
    Z you are thinking so black and white when the world is full of gray. There is a HUGE difference between taking a life by choice and going to war to protect self or others. No one is pro war, but as long as there is greed, there will be war. You can't say the same about abortion. Getting pregnant and not wanting the child to the point of abortion is just downright irresponsible. Less than 10% of abortions are done for health reasons. That means over 90% is just plain killing an innocent child, and for what, personal satisfaction. HUGE difference between that and going to war to protect innocent people.
  • Z MCA 2012/05/08 10:12:19
    Z
    I'm not opposing war to protect innocent people. I am opposing every war we have fought for the past 2 decades, none of which have been to protect anyone, and all of which have killed untold numbers of innocent people.
  • Cyan9 Z 2012/05/08 07:03:53
    Cyan9
    It depends if you believe fetuses are persons yet are not. I like siding with biology so I don't believe a fetus is the same as an infant or should legally be treated as one.
  • Z Cyan9 2012/05/08 10:10:53
    Z
    Actually, most biological scientist disagree with that assertion.
  • EliteAmongOutcasts 2012/05/07 00:46:43 (edited)
  • J.W. Ho... EliteAm... 2012/05/07 00:49:20
    J.W. Howler
    +5
    I am not kidding with the question.

    However, I do not see it as a valid argument or comparison whatsoever.

    Sadly, a particular left-leaning liberal on this site does.
  • America... J.W. Ho... 2012/05/07 14:49:35
  • JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/07 00:45:12
    PROBABLY NOT
    JoeBtfsplk
    +2
    But it does raise the question;

    Should America boycott the IRS?
  • LadyBGood JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/07 01:09:30
    LadyBGood
    +3
    boycott it and march against it
  • JoeBtfsplk LadyBGood 2012/05/07 01:13:23
    JoeBtfsplk
    +3
    It would scare the crap out of the politicians!
  • LadyBGood JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/07 02:28:05
    LadyBGood
    +5
    Right on.... serve them right. They are doing their damnest to bring the USA to her knees...it would be justice to scare the crap out of them and make them afraid they would lose their lush life styles.
  • JoeBtfsplk LadyBGood 2012/05/07 02:29:34
    JoeBtfsplk
    +4
    I agree wholeheartedly!
  • LadyBGood JoeBtfsplk 2012/05/07 02:30:37
    LadyBGood
    +2
    Wanna demonstrate? You can burn your draft card and I'll burn my bra...that ought to show 'em!
  • JoeBtfsplk LadyBGood 2012/05/07 02:33:02
    JoeBtfsplk
    +3
    Sounds good to me! I wonder what the IRS would do if there was a sit-in on their doorsteps in DC?

    Too bad it's after April 17(2 day extension this year) - most everyone has already paid their taxes.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/25 13:57:21

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals