DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Libby: *crickets chirping*
ghestspo?......
If they are pro-choice they simply don't want the government invading another personal decision. This does not mean that they would support tax dollars being spent on such a thing. It would be a rare Libertarian that thought this would be the place the government needed to start forcing others on...Libertarians can be pro-choice or anti-abortion too. If they are pro-choice, then they are likely to make an exception to the Party doctrines (as Libertarians are prone to do, IMHO). As for the Hyde Amendment:
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion
Regardless of their moral view (pro-life vs. pro-death), libertarian economic philosophy is against federal funding. That's all...
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
3. You have YET to logically explain WHY you do not find my proposal acceptable.
sure I have......because it provides federal funding for killing unborn children.....
Keep your laws off my body.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Libertarians can be pro-choice or anti-abortion too. If they are pro-choice, then they are likely to make an exception to the Party doctrines (as Libertarians are prone to do, IMHO). As for the Hyde Amendment:
http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-fre...nding-abortion
If they are pro-choice they simply don't want the government invading another personal decision. This does not mean that they would support tax dollars being spent on such a thing. It would be a rare Libertarian that thought this would be the place the government needed to start forcing others on...
Why are you talking about abortion again? You refused to earlier after I destroyed your debate. Keep your laws off my body.Since abortion is a PERSONAL CHOICE and not mandatory, your statement makes no sense....ESPECIALLY since you're not a woman (rather, you haven't indicated that you are). Maybe you should go back to imitating crickets?
because it spends YOUR tax dollars on it, which is NOT legal at the present time....thus it provides federal funding....../mutters something under his breath about liberals ignoring the obvious.....Please explain how providing an OPTION for you to WITHHOLD your tax dollars from a medical procedure, "provides federal funding..." for it. Remember, Roe vs. Wade has been law for over 30 years, so my proposal does NOT promote or support something that already exists.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Please explain how providing an OPTION for you to WITHHOLD your tax dollars from a medical procedure, "provides federal funding..." for it. Remember, Roe vs. Wade has been law for over 30 years, so my proposal does NOT promote or support something that already exists.
because it spends YOUR tax dollars on it, which is NOT legal at the present time....thus it provides federal funding....../mutters something under his breath about liberals ignoring the obvious.....
If you want your money to pay for abortions you can simply donate to Planned Parenthood for that purpose. There is no need for this ruse.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Since abortion is a PERSONAL CHOICE and not mandatory, your statement makes no sense....ESPECIALLY since you're not a woman (rather, you haven't indicated that you are). Maybe you should go back to imitating crickets?
Why are you talking about abortion again? You refused to earlier after I destroyed your debate. Keep your laws off my body.
The federal government has no right to interfere in how states collect taxes. Again. If you want your money to pay for abortions, donate to it. Stop trying to get Federal dollars to go towards it.Ahhh, but I'm not talking about donations. As I've pointed out to others, various States that finance hospitals that facilitate abortions function on State taxes. If you don't want that for your tax dollars, you would have an option not to.
Straight up, logical and simple....no "ruse" about it.
What seems to disturb the anti-abortion mindset about my proposal is that it logically and effectively removes one of their oft used talking points....thus exposing that it was NEVER about money, but about their ideology being enforced on others.
A silly bookkeeping ruse wouldn't change that the woman would choose. You aren't even participating in the same discussion.False budda fuck that, woman choose no one else. Least of all the murderus teabaggers.
well, du'h......you weren't aware of that before?........you want to control others tax dollars in accord with your personal beliefs.
we live in a democracy...that means that occasionally the majority vote does not go your way but still stays within the guidelines of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Roe vs. Wade is a reality...has been for over 30 years. You don't like it...work to vote it down.
Meanwhile, what my proposal does is remove an active talking point from your arsenal of "reasoning" for repeal of said ruling....and you don't like it because it's straight forward and logical.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Ahhh, but I'm not talking about donations. As I've pointed out to others, various States that finance hospitals that facilitate abortions function on State taxes. If you don't want that for your tax dollars, you would have an option not to.
Straight up, logical and simple....no "ruse" about it.
What seems to disturb the anti-abortion mindset about my proposal is that it logically and effectively removes one of their oft used talking points....thus exposing that it was NEVER about money, but about their ideology being enforced on others.
The federal government has no right to interfere in how states collect taxes. Again. If you want your money to pay for abortions, donate to it. Stop trying to get Federal dollars to go towards it.