DescentBB

I was adamantly opposed to the War in Iraq. I didn't think we had the moral authority to invade a sovereign nation. As with any war, I knew that there would be casualties -- innocent people whose lives would be lost because of this countries decision.

Yet, my tax dollers went to funding it.

I've always been opposed to capital punishment. While over the years, my opposition has weakened, it is still not something I am in favor of.

Yet, my tax dollers go to funding it. (It does cost more to kill them then give them LWOP)

However, when it comes to abortion, something that is and has been legal in this country for some time, it appears that the issue of whether or not tax dollers could be used to fund it in a nation wide plan is up for discussion...

Why?

Note, this thread isn't about whether or not you want a health care plan (we have several of those here),or whether or not abortion is good/bad, its about *if* there is a plan, why wouldn't it be assumed that abortions would be covered?

Why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for what they morally oppose?

Don't worry too much, that provision will be removed before the bill passes, it was only used to get past the first round. Keep in mind all of healthcare can be passed with 100% republican opposition.

Gooberman wrote:Why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for what they morally oppose?

What a load…There aint enough bytes on your HD, for me to even start to list all the things I have to fund with my tax dollars, that I don’t agree with.

Spidey wrote:

Gooberman wrote:Why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for what they morally oppose?

What a load…There aint enough bytes on your HD, for me to even start to list all the things I have to fund with my tax dollars, that I don’t agree with.

You took the post backwards -- I even lead with two examples showing where I do the same. I am asking the opposite question: Can you give me an example, (on a somewhat equal footing, taking a life, etc.), of a cause that liberals arn't required to fund because it goes against their values?

If you have an example, great. If not, then why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for *something* they morally oppose?

here we go another abortion debate

I'll open by saying that as a good libertarian, there are even a lot of things that I semi-agree with that I don't want the government paying for.

Second, I'll point out that I think that your examples are flawed. The first example shows the government's mis-application of its duty to protect its citizens. Your problem isn't with it protecting us from outside powers (and the money involved), it's with the way that mr B thought he should do that.

Your second example is a bit mis-placed, IMO. Isn't it a lot cheaper for the government to execute prisoners, than for them to stay in the prison system for the rest of their lives? It strikes me that the government is saving money with capital punishment, and those in support of it should be the ones whining about it not being used more & having to pay out the nose of all those multiple-lifetime sentences.

Third, the biggest problem I have is with the elective abortions. So, lets segregate: I see abortions done when neither the baby nor mother are in any sort of medical danger as completely elective. So, I'd say that they belong in the same bucket as other elective procedures... plastic surgery & such. I think it's silly that my tax dollars should be wasted on making someone's life more convenient, just because they got knocked up.

(At the same time, consider the fact that I don't think the government should be paying for healthcare, in general.)

I didn’t take your post “backwards”.

We all have to pay for defense & the justice system.

99.99 % of all abortions are elective. (no counter example to be made)

Your spin is usually pretty good, but this time…it’s just a death spiral.

Gooberman wrote:If you have an example, great. If not, then why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for *something* they morally oppose?

"Faith-based initiatives"

Checkmate.

Lothar wrote:

Gooberman wrote:If you have an example, great. If not, then why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for *something* they morally oppose?

"Faith-based initiatives"

Checkmate.

Semi-derail:

What about adoptions. Right now there is a big tax credit for any sort of adoption. It's rumored that it might go away. What about infant vs. kids in the foster system?

It is, of course, impossible to entirely eliminate tax dollars funding things tax payers disapprove of. BUT, I stand with Snoopy as a Libertarian. If the government spent less money on all this stuff that was actually outside of their originally very tightly constrained area of control, then there would be much less for people to be offended by.

Gooberman wrote:...

Why is it that only conservatives get to opt'out of paying for what they morally oppose?

They don't.
If abortion gets left out of the bill it isn't because conservatives insisted, they hardly matter to the majority party, so little in fact that they don't even get to attend sessions and committees that write most legislation! No, if it is left out it will be because a majority of politicians believe they will face re-election nightmares if they support keeping it in and that isn't a conservative/liberal thing it's a sense that there are enough voters in both camps who oppose abortion to create that situation.
So don't try to make this about partisan politics, this about non-partisan public opinion on the subject.

GET RID OF ALL OF IT