Someone (on this site) who is supportive of the freedom to abortion asserts "abortion is none of the government's business". That SAME someone argues in support of taxpayer funding of abortion. Do these two opinions contradict each other?

No I do not want to pay for your abortion. I do support the death penalty for people that have killed for thier greed.

I like to explain it this way....

Remember when you were a kid and you would ask mom for money... mom would say "what's it for?" and you would say "So I can buy X" and mom would say "No you can not have money for that or yes you can have money for that" then you got a job and you got your own money so mon didn't have a say as to what you did with your money and if you were stupid with it then too bad....

Its like taht with government. When you ask the tax payers to give you money you have to answer to them about what you will be spending it on teh same way you answered to mom...

You have a choice, be dependant and be subject to having your life scretunized and dictated to you or be independant and don't ask "mom" for cash

It's Obama Speak.

Obama says taxpayers should tighten their belts, yet he can jet and vacation all over the place at the expense of the skinny taxpayer.

Ha, none of government's business, yet we the taxpayer should shell out. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for killing babies, anyhow?
IT WAS ALIVE, TAXPAYERS FIXED THAT!

If you accept public money, then by the very nature of public money you have surrendered some of your privacy. Mind you I am not saying it should be a press release for public consumption, but if insurance picks it up they know all about it, and if the government picks it up they also know all about it.

Liberals are full of hypocrisy they can't explain. Why can't they explain it? They aren't smart enough to realize their own contradictions.

Let pay for their own abortions.

Why don't we just abort them, and save our wasted taxes that it takes to abort their innocent unwanted babies then

Great Idea!

How does "SOMEONE" defend that position?

The particular "someone" has me blocked, and he did not defend it to whom he was directing it possibly because he was not challenged specifically on it by the receiver of such opinions.

However, on other issues this someone usually defends his opinions via his idea of his own level of "intellectualism" and deep thought.

Uh oh Howler, sounds like 'one of them' - you know who.

So what we have here, basically, is a self-anointed Rhodes Scholar, close?

I didn't know ole Kris Kristofferson was one - how cool is that? Bill Clinton was also.

Ole Kris might have a high IQ, and I liked some of his acting way back, but I never thought he could sing well enough to be recorded or perform..He sounded worse than Clinton playing his saxophone.

I never cared for his singing either, but as a lyricist, he's hard to beat. He wrote songs for other artist to record for many years. Has a real poet's heart.

I couldn't agree more.

I surely wish he could find room in his heart for a little conservatism....Correction - a LOT of conservatism...lol

The same SH with whom you have recently had a discussion as a result of another post of mine is the one who opines this...Remember him?..lol

The storyteller?

Agreed.

Periodically checking out their idiocy in their commentary does seem to give me some ideas for poll questions...lol

Once you have government funding then you have regulations which means the government is involved.

Those against the dealth penalty still pay for the executions through taxes so no, it wouldn't be contradictory according to the U.S. Government.

You are mixing crminal activty with sexual habits.

Actually, I'm not. It's a matter of opinion and that was my point. Some support the death penalty and some don't and yet taxes payers as a whole must provide for the service. So the government providing abortions via tax payers money isn't much of a stretch. There will always be those who oppose and those who don't but all will have to foot the bill.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The criminal justice/judicial system is mandated by the Constitution, abortions are not.

The death penalty is not covered by the constitution and clearly my point is lost so nvm.

I didn't say it was, I said the crimnal justice/judicial system. The death penalty is not the law of the land. Most states don't have it.

k'

?

Can you point out to me where someone has stated that " the death penalty (which MUST be carried out by the government, otherwise it is a crime itself), is NONE of the government's business"?

The government is responsible for administering LEGAL capital punishment for crime -- NO ONE else can do that without committing a crime of vigilante murder themselves.

-see above-

I did.

There is a BIG difference in my opinion - still.

Not only is it ONLY the government which can LEGALIZE - make lawful - the death penalty, it is also ONLY the government that can USE it on a human being who has been LEGALLY CONVICTED -- even if not ACTUALLY guilty -- of a crime that allows for such punishment.

Government is the SOLE vehicle through which the death penalty can be LEGALLY carried out...NO EXCEPTIONS.

It is a form of PUNISHMENT.

Abortion has been legalized by the government to be performed by the PRIVATE SECTOR, thus with PRIVATE FUNDING.

It is NOT administered as a form of PUNISHMENT.

Sadly, it is a LEGAL, CONDITIONAL CHOICE most frequently made by the mother.

If there were PRIVATE SECTOR OPTIONS to administering and FUNDING ANY PUNISHMENT for CRIME, then the comparison you are making would have some foundation to it.

But, unless the government LEGALIZED punishment to be administered in the private sector, it would be a CRIME WITHIN ITSELF to even, jail someone -- much less KILL them.

And, even if the government did legalize punishment to be administered in the private sector, the government would STILL have to FUND and ADMINISTER the COURT process that would convict and sentence the criminal.

again, my point has been missed.....

In Canada the Provincial Governments cover the cost of abortion if the woman wants it. Its part of basic medical coverage. The government doesn't tell you whether you can have an abortion or not its just covered if YOU want it. Basically those two opinions are not contradictory.

If abortion is none of the government's business, then the government doesn't need to pay for it.

Abortion is murder anyway.

Subsidization is government intervention.

Not arguing the morality or immorality of abortions at all, but it appears to me that if you say the government has no business meddling with the abortion issue, then it stands to reason that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund or support abortion in any way. Just arguing logic here.

Taxpayers funding abortion that the government isn't allowed to have ANY input on is a most asinine expectation ever proposed.

If it's "none of my business" if someone gets an abortion, then it should stand to reason that I shouldn't have to pay for it either. YOU want it, YOU pay for it, period!!!