Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Since when is rape equitable to abortion?

I'm not sure that's a good argument for this.

Why not have insurance for this?

All right, let me put it this way.  I am so tired of arguing for control over what my body does that I'm going to let someone else fight with you.  If no one else chooses to argue, then too bad.  But I'm sick and tired of this argument, so for now, at least, I'm taking a rest.

[RF]

This may be off topic but why should my tax dollars pay for abortions?

Tax dollars pay for abortions.

Or tax dollars pay for any trouble that might be caused by a woman having an unwanted child she hates.

Or tax dollars pay for an orphan to be raised in a home.

Which would you rather pay for?

[Leafsnail]

...If you were attacked and seriously injured by someone, would you not expect treatment for it?

Tax dollars pay for abortions.

Or tax dollars pay for any trouble that might be caused by a woman having an unwanted child she hates.

Or tax dollars pay for an orphan to be raised in a home.

Or treating a woman who was forced to have a backstreet abortion... etc.

[Cuppsworth]

This may be off topic but why should my tax dollars pay for abortions?

Tax dollars pay for abortions.

Or tax dollars pay for any trouble that might be caused by a woman having an unwanted child she hates.

Or tax dollars pay for an orphan to be raised in a home.

Which would you rather pay for?

I choose none of the above. All are unnecessary to me, a Capitalist.

...If you were attacked and seriously injured by someone, would you not expect treatment for it?

Tax dollars pay for abortions.

Or tax dollars pay for any trouble that might be caused by a woman having an unwanted child she hates.

Or tax dollars pay for an orphan to be raised in a home.

Or treating a woman who was forced to have a backstreet abortion... etc.

No. I do not expect the government to fly to my aid. I do not like the federal government. I do not want anything to do with it. So tell me, why would I want it to help my when I'm hurt? I like to be consistent in my beliefs and especially so in this one.

[Leafsnail]

Well, the society you're suggesting would be pretty nightmarish to live in, but I guess at least it's a logically consistent hellhole.

[Ochita]

So, you would rather hold up your beliefs, even if it indirectly causes other people to suffer?

[Cuppsworth]

Well, the society you're suggesting would be pretty nightmarish to live in, but I guess at least it's a logically consistent hellhole.

The society I'm suggesting is a Capitalist society. Abortion clinics would just be certified by the government. This is the same with such services as child protection services. These would be private businesses with government certification. This would bring ease to the tax payers and shorten the government's arm.

Sounds pretty nice to me.

So, you would rather hold up your beliefs, even if it indirectly causes other people to suffer?

No, I would rather have the government get less power. Tell me, how would privatization of abortion clinics cause others harm?

[Vector]

No, I would rather have the government get less power. Tell me, how would privatization of abortion clinics cause others harm?

Let's see.  We've proven that abortion is an inelastic good.  Outlawing it doesn't make it happen less.  Furthermore, it's a medical procedure.  That means the oligarchical model.

What happens with stuff like that?

Ah-ha!  Make the suckers pay through the nose.

[Leafsnail]

Not to mention that there aren't many clinics offering it.  It would effectively be a monopoly, and privatised monopolies don't tend to be good for anyone.

[Cuppsworth]

Let's see.  We've proven that abortion is an inelastic good.  Outlawing it doesn't make it happen less.  Furthermore, it's a medical procedure.  That means the oligarchical model.

What happens with stuff like that?

Ah-ha!  Make the suckers pay through the nose.

Why not have insurance for it then?

Not to mention that there aren't many clinics offering it.  It would effectively be a monopoly, and privatised monopolies don't tend to be good for anyone.

So the only point for government funding would be to avoid a monopoly?

[Vector]

Why not have insurance for it then?

As though insurance isn't also an attempt to make suckers pay through the nose?

I mean, it's not like health insurance is really working right now in the US, either.

[Aqizzar]

Why not have insurance for it then?

As though insurance isn't also an attempt to make suckers pay through the nose?

Not to mention, y'know, paying money to insure yourself against something most women have no real expectation they would ever need, nor want to think they could ever need.  And it's an insurance plan no employer would ever dare provide, so it would be pretty expensive since you could could only buy it as an individual.  Heck, given the attitude in some states, I wouldn't be surprised if there's places in America where it's illegal for insurance providers to cover abortion.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Well, the society you're suggesting would be pretty nightmarish to live in, but I guess at least it's a logically consistent hellhole.

The society I'm suggesting is a Capitalist society. Abortion clinics would just be certified by the government. This is the same with such services as child protection services. These would be private businesses with government certification. This would bring ease to the tax payers and shorten the government's arm.

Sounds pretty nice to me.

So, you would rather hold up your beliefs, even if it indirectly causes other people to suffer?

No, I would rather have the government get less power. Tell me, how would privatization of abortion clinics cause others harm?

tell me, how would child protection services and orphanages work as a business? where would they get their income? i'm guessing your answer will be somewhere along the lines of "selling the children as slaves\involuntary organ donnors\meat for gourmet restaurants", but feel free to surprise me

[Bauglir]

If you're just consistently arguing that the government has no place funding anything but regulation, well.. this is not the thread for me to explain why I think you're wrong. I suggest digging up the Socialism thread, unless that got locked. I forget what happened to it. But, if you were to grant that there are services or goods the government ought to fund (just treat that as a given), would you believe abortion should or should not be one of those services?

Essentially, do you have an objection other than, "Taxation is wrong"? If so, we can argue with that one. If not, then I don't think that we have a problem on social progressive issues, though we could probably have many a multipage derail on economic principles, and those principles lead us to wildly different conclusions about how best to advance social progress. Unless I'm wrong about the scope of the thread, in which case I apologize to Vector.

Spoiler: Further rambling on essentially the same topic (click to show/hide)

Essentially, I'm saying that it's theoretically possible that Cuppsworth doesn't oppose women having a right to freedom with their bodies and thinks that privatization would actually enhance the ability of the market to provide women with fair and safe abortion services. While I don't agree with that reasoning, and think it'd probably a result of blind faith in the virtues of capitalism, if that is the root of his argument, then we're not going to get anywhere in this thread without a massive derail. While I fully support continuing to argue over that because I do believe the correct conclusion is that federal funding for these programs is the right choice, if his argument is actually economic and logically consistent, then it needs to be addressed appropriately and without crippling this thread's ability to discuss the social issues I think it's meant to.

Again, apologies if I'm wrong on that, or if I'm drawing an unnecessary divide between economic and social things.

EDIT: Oh, and it's also possible that he's using economics as a more palatable explanation for beliefs that actually originate in seeing women's rights as less important, and if that's the case, then I hope trying to get him to address the dichotomy between the two will make him realize that.

[Gamerlord]

Well, the society you're suggesting would be pretty nightmarish to live in, but I guess at least it's a logically consistent hellhole.

The society I'm suggesting is a Capitalist society. Abortion clinics would just be certified by the government. This is the same with such services as child protection services. These would be private businesses with government certification. This would bring ease to the tax payers and shorten the government's arm.

Sounds pretty nice to me.

So, you would rather hold up your beliefs, even if it indirectly causes other people to suffer?

No, I would rather have the government get less power. Tell me, how would privatization of abortion clinics cause others harm?

tell me, how would child protection services and orphanages work as a business? where would they get their income? i'm guessing your answer will be somewhere along the lines of "selling the children as slaves\involuntary organ donnors\meat for gourmet restaurants", but feel free to surprise me

Thats... thats just being an arsehole Askot.