It seems to me that as a general rule, the pro-life crowd tends to be pro-war, and the pro-choice crowd seems to be anti-war. Besides the obvious irony of pro-lifers being pro war, and pro-abortion/choice being against war, don't these two issues war and abortion, cancel each other out from a taxpayer point of view?
Do large enough voting blocks of people truly believe that their tax dollars should not go abortions, but should go to war? Do large enough voting blocks of people truly believe that their tax dollars should go to pro-choice, but not to war?
Isn't it pretty obvious that these two sides viewpoints cancel each other out and that even if we followed their wishes and only applied their taxes to what they wanted, the net result would somewhat similar?
4 comments:
Somehow I think the cost of wars is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of abortions.
—gmanedit
Ha ha, you would think that, so would I, however, every person born in the U.S. costs several hundred thousand dollars to get them to age 18.
Which makes it quite the irony that the party of less taxation engages in TWO practices that require massive government programs.
Let me add that I am neither for war or abortion, but I also understand that the issue of abortion is more about what a woman wants to do than what men want.
The only time I think the man gets a say is if there was an pre-existing understanding that if a pregnancy occurs that it would come to full term, AND, the man would agree to be responsible for the resulting child even if the woman did not want to be involved after the birth.
However, what complicates that issue if if there was an agreement that there would be no conception, but the woman changes her mind, and then sues the man for a monthly alimony.
Abortion, is about women's rights. It's about women having the right to control their own bodies, and to choose to terminate a pregnancy, if that course of action is the better one for them and their particular life circumstances. As Hillary Clinton has said, abortion is not something women take lightly. It should be "safe, legal, and rare.".
As far as the issue being complicated when there is an agreement that "there would be no conception, but the woman changes her mind, and then sues ...", I don't believe that complicates things at all. No birth control is fool proof. If the man does not wish to be party to conception, and is not prepared to pay child support, the only way he can be positive that won't occur is to keep his zipper up.
I get the point about the pro-life crowd being pro-war. That group apparently holds the life of the fetus more sacred than that of any other being -based on their argument that abortion should not be allowed, even when giving birth could result in death of the mother - who may have other lives depending upon her.
The pro-lifers also strongly supports the death penalty - more cognitive dissonance there.
Post a Comment