Btw, I want to thank you for taking the time to critique the proposal. I welcome more if you're willing. It helps encourage me to think out my position more thoroughly. Thank you for that!
Your welcome. I'm glad to be of help.
The proposal wouldn't be aimed at getting woman to not abort, but to help encourage responsible behavior and rather help prevent unwanted pregnancies. You're correct that if someone doesn't want a child the likely hood of being a responsible parent is slim. The tax would help encourage them to take more precautions in the bedroom in order to prevent pregnancy and to avoid being taxed.
By responsible behaviour do you mean people have less sex/more protected sex rather than fewer abortions? i.e. if people are more cautious in the bedroom, that leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion?
Abortion isn't what would be taxed, otherwise the "tax" would entail a fee of sorts only, which could be viewed as a punishment for getting the abortion. This isn't a punishment for getting an abortion, but rather a tax incentive to encourage more responsible behavior. Irresponsible behavior that results in an unwanted pregnancy ending with the termination of an unborn human life for convenience purposes is what would be taxed, hence it being called a "responsibility Incentive Tax". The irresponsible choices which caused the unwanted pregnancy is what would be taxed but only if it results in the death of an unborn human life.
In so far as tax means a person incurrs a monetary cost, I would have thought of it as a punishment for irresponsible behaviour. I think you could argue it is a detterrent but its a linguistic point. it might affect how it "sells" to voters and how many headlines it would get.
Possibly, but wouldn't this alone encourage even greater responsibility by those who knew they can't afford such a tax? Also, the revenue from such a tax could even help fund certain medical procedures that would ensure an unwanted pregnancy did not occur in families that meet your description.
The notion of taxing some behaviours, such as smoking or drinking, ussually has weight. However, I think you'd need a good case to argue that this is an appropriate mechanism in the abortion debate. It could seem crude as you're putting a price on a human life when most people who would hesitate to have an abortion would do it on moral grounds rather than monetary ones. it could appeal to human selfishness rather than some of the deeper sentiments about the intrinsic value of a human life. As obviously the arguments for pro-life come from not just religious instruction in the bible [I don't know if they would have a specific passage in mind] but also from how people feel.
I did economics and what your proposing fits perfectly with the conventional wisdom that people are selfish and respond to money and live based on ice-cold calculation. This has become a mainstream view (and you'll hear stuff about a "fat tax" or stuff like that to change people's behaviour.) But that is almost an admission of failure that only a "materialistic" incentive could actually convince people. I think a more thoughtful religious and conservatives could be sceptical one this. I assume the intention is preservation of a life and it would be sad to think this is how people could be convinced. it would be a truly depressing commentary on the state we are in that it works.
I'm pro-choice as but I know where the pro-life lobby is coming from. its mainly because I don't think this is a matter that can be said to be right or wrong generally- but very heavily depends on the context and on the people involved. if life is sacred (something that is a bit alien to me as an atheist), it is only a technicality that a feteus cannot exercise its rights than means it doesn't have them. I'm a guy, but I know whether or not to have a kid is a life changing decision; terminating a pregnency would be difficult and I'm not sure it be any easier if I were in a woman's shoes though I would defeintly have a different take on it. my hearts in the right place, but reason fails on subjects like this. its too personal.
As an aside, China has the
one-child policy (and does tax parents who have more than one child as I recall). They were genuinely worried that population growth could lead to over-population, plus I think the disaster of the great leap forward and the famine that followed was on their mind as well. An unintended consequence of this is that the younger generation is imbalanced towards men because fewer families wanted a girl. young girls were often killed after they were born. the disparity between number of men and women (about 30 million more men than women by 2020) would disrupt traditional family arrangements. It may or may not be applicable here, but its worth thinking about. its also symbolic of where big government and social conservativism collide and comparsions between a tax incentive and that might fan the flames of a fear of big government which is an issue in the US, particuarly amongst libertarian- republicans.
It certainly isn't meant to be vindictive. Accountability for behavior resulting in an unwanted pregnancy and the termination of an unborn human life for sake of convenience should not be limited, but rather applied so long as the parental unit has income. The thinking process behind my position is this. Parents do not quit being parents after our children reach a certain age. Parenthood is a life long position that we choose to take upon ourselves. Pregnancy and parenthood are not things to take lightly at all. Unwanted pregnancy needs to be strongly discouraged. Likewise, responsible behavior needs to be strongly encouraged in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is to help prevent people from being forced to carry the responsibilities that follows pregnancy and the termination of an unborn human life. Responsible behavior is the targeted goal. Remember this tax would not be a punishment but an incentive that address the issue two fold. It both discourages unwanted pregnancies and encourages responsible behavior. Having children is serious business. Therefore such a tax should not be limited, but applied for life if only for the reason that parenthood is for life. It is fitting and appropriate in relation to pregnancies.
Having Sex does not automatically entail having children. the idea that the morally correct sex is a hetrosexual relationship driven by procreation is on the wane with the advance of gay rights and womens rights to their own bodies. it is however common amongst religious conservative to assume that the only good sex is one that results in children.
By applying the tax for life, you are assuming that parenthood is the natural outcome of a person having sex. There is another view that sex serves not simply a biological function of reproducing the species, but a psychological function that is pleasurable. Parenthood, rather than being a natural institution resulting from biology, is instead a division of labour that results from marriage. marriage is a form of contract and upon entering that contract people have responsibilities of building a family. that is not however, the only way a society can work as it implies that bringing up children is an individual responsibility, whereas some societies bring up children collectively.
Anyone that fathers a child is most certainly responsible. This is where this proposal gets a bit tricky but also where it shines. The father would only be taxed if the mother reveals who he is, which places the mother in a position where she could be responsible for the fathers portion of the tax if she refuses to reveal him. A vindictive woman could give a false name, but the tax would not be applied to the father until genetic testing is done on the aborted fetus. This will need to be a mandatory procedure when a potential father has been named. Where this tax proposal shines is the position it puts both parties in before sexual intercourse even takes place. Both will likely insist on safer sex, both will likely insist on precautionary measures, and neither will likely be willing to have unprotected sex, which will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
As someone who supports the notion of free love I think anything I say on this won't be helpful to you. [So I'm very biased.
]. The idea that a person has self-ownership and entail that two people have the freedom to have sex does somewhat ignore the bias that the father does not have an
individual responsibilities though as the women is the one who will give birth she does. Libertarianism therefore still re-inforces a kind of male priviallage in that women are responsible for the children where as men are not. Taken to its logical conclusion, free love is therefore impractical without provision of free child care so that adults don't have sole burden of responsibility for the child. that idea is also consistent with women's rights as women need to be freed from the sole responsibility of bringing up the children. (it's strange but I still don't think of men as bringing up children in single parent families). the notion of unwanted pregnencies directly implies that people should not have the right to pursue their sexual desires freely and is conservative in that sense.
There are already definitions of convenience abortions in place. Abstinence is only one of many methods used to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It may be one of the only full proof methods, but it certainly isn't the only one.
I'll take your word for it. it would be a good idea to include it in the letter as that will help your case and establish roughly which abortions would be taxed. In a purely cynical calculation, it will tell Trump whose votes and which groups of voters will be affected. Given the senstivity of the subject, there won't be a perfect "right" answer that will make everyone happy or solve the issue completely. its not how politics works. I suspect it will be debated but its will be down to numbers in terms of polling, tax revenue and number of people affected as to whether it goes further than that. Good for you for trying.
If you mean this btw- you might want to send it to a Republican member of congress in your district/state as the President has very limited legislative power. if they're worth they're salt, they (or their deputy reading the letters) will probably take a well-argued piece seriously.
Fortunately I'm a Brit- so I don't have to face the reality of a Republican Congress.
