A Letter to Donald Trump

[dust1n]

If they are willing to go this far, they would be willing to do anything to get what they want.

Oh yeah, they'd probably rob a bank, or murder of a family, or bomb threat a government building. They might even be willing to tax 5% of the total life income of people they morally disagree with. I wouldn't doubt if you gave a massive ray gun and an underground volcano lair to a woman straight out of an abortion clinic, they'd probably hold the world hostage for a bajillion dollars. Anything it takes to get what they want those women who seek abortions do.

The following is a demonstration of a vacuum procedure performed @ 23 weeks. Only an estimated 1.5 % of abortions are performed so late in a pregnancy. Most are performed within the first 12 weeks. However, the same application is utilized at every stage of pregnancy. What you will see in this video is how a vacuum aspiration abortion is performed and what actually takes place inside the uterus, and to the human life within it. These procedures literally rip the fetus apart reducing them to "goo" via suction.

"You're trying to employ emotion to an issue that requires logic and reason."

 

[Marisa]

Oh, solved. All you have to do is have a check box on IRS Form 483b that asks this the doctor "is this a responsible abortion?" and then of course any supporting medical records. Then of course, if anyone ever refused to pay this tax, like if anyone ever just refused to pay it out of protest, you'd have to send law enforcement, employ the court system, I'm assuming adding another 5% to incentive the people to pay the original 5%, etc... Then, of course, would come the father, who might have just left to avoid being identified or found in the first place... and of course myriad of other concerns and layers of bureaucracy and costs to deal with that neither of us have to be concerned with since it's easy to just propose some government initiative without providing any actual mechanism to do it.

There's also the alarming frequency with which the IRS freezes assets when it decides it's owed money it isn't receiving. So let's punish the poor a little more while we're at it.

 

[dust1n]

There's also the alarming frequency with which the IRS freezes assets when it decides it's owed money it isn't receiving. So let's punish the poor a little more while we're at it.

We'll we all know those are almost always entirely justified, and when they aren't, are at least expedited through the world's quickest and most convenient institution known to man.

 

[Marisa]

We'll we all know those are almost always entirely justified, and when they aren't, are at least expedited through the world's quickest and most convenient institution known to man.

I'd hazard a guess that Willie disagrees with the justification part.

 

[Revoltingest]

We'll we all know those are almost always entirely justified, and when they aren't, are at least expedited through the world's quickest and most convenient institution known to man.

Oh, you got me!
As I started reading, I thought you were serious!

 

[columbus]

Now, I'm not saying you don't have a right to free speech, or that you can't say what you're saying, but it is incredibly dangerous for hundreds of thousands of people, so I'm going to have to advocate an additional 3% tax for your idea. Remember, I'm not punishing your speech. I'm encouraging responsible behavior.

The thing is, I agree with @ZenMonkey on the morality of abortions of convenience. It is the plan I find hideously counter productive.
The arguments in it's favor are ridiculous, so after much discussion and explanations I stand by my initial judgement.
Asinine.
Tom
Eta Yes @Marisa, I am quite judgemental

 

[Marisa]

The thing is, I agree with @ZenMonkey on the morality of abortions of convenience. It is the plan I find hideously counter productive.
The arguments in it's favor are ridiculous, so after much discussion and explanations I stand by my initial judgement.
Asinine.
Tom
Eta Yes @Marisa, I am quite judgemental

It's not your opinion that borders on offensive. You get that, right? That I don't have a problem with your opinion? I don't agree, but we're all allowed to formulate our own opinions. It's the self righteous manner in which you deliver your opinion, compounded by the fact that you seem to enjoy accusing others of all manner of intellectual dishonesty while acknowledging none of your own. Glad you're getting some sort of psychological payoff from it.

 

[dust1n]

The thing is, I agree with @ZenMonkey on the morality of abortions of convenience. It is the plan I find hideously counter productive.

Well, obviously the plan being hideously counter productive is more black and white than the morality of abortions of convenience. Convenience is not some on/off switch... there are obviously many, multiple pressing concerns on individuals when they make decisions of all types. I'm simply disagree with the premise that any abortion is a convenience abort. Sure is convenient not to die during labor, ain't it?

The arguments in it's favor are ridiculous, so after much discussion and explanations I stand by my initial judgement.

Ah, well your judgments I'm sure will prove very valuable for the ten thousand or so kids who are currently starving to death today, and billions that will die via no abortion, but just of natural reasons. They will valiantly salute your efforts.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Medical records are only confidential in relation to the private sector, not governing authorities. If an abortion was performed out of medical necessity it would NOT be a convenience abortion. Rape, incest, a terminal illness, known probable risk of harm or death to either the mother or child, and known medical impairments that would prevent quality of life are NOT convenience abortions. A convenience abortion is more about maintaining and/or to prevent disruption of a lifestyle.

And it is your personal opinion as to why this lifestyle is wrong? Are there any more of your whims that should become martial law?

No more than a 10% annual deduction. The woman would be responsible for the fathers 5% if she refuses to name him yes. However, if a name is given, mandatory dna testing on the aborted fetus and probable father would be required to confirm this. This would further help encourage greater responsibility by all parties before any sexual activity occurs at all. The goal it to help prevent unwanted pregnancies by greater responsibility of both genders.

No. It is a form of control of women. It is a form of medical harassment and sexual policing.

When did religion get introduced in this? Wait ... You introduced it. It's a baseless accusation, but you're certainly free to think so. You're free to have unprotected sex as often as you like and whenever you so desire. You're free to have as many abortions you feel is necessary also. One, five, fifty it's your call. You're free to do what ever it is you so choose. This incentive is only meant to encourage responsible behavior in order to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. It wouldn't interfere with anything aside from your pocket book. The choices you make are completely your own.

Its an obvious stem from religious conservatism. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

But please prove me wrong. Are you an atheist? A hindu? Or are you a Christian? Perhaps you are a satanist? No I think not. Satanists tend to have respect for women and their freedoms.

Though you know what is a proven and effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies? Good sexual education starting in middle school and equal and easy access to birth control. So teach real sexual education in school rather than this "you will get pregnant and die" crap and fund planned parenthood. You will see abortion rates drop like crazy. If you don't believe me look into the statistics of places that do this.

 

[Nakosis]

Is such a tax feasible Mr. Trump? If so, please get the ball rolling when you are elected in 2016 O.k?"

Thank you,

Trump, if he get the nomination would be in a singularly unique position to destroy the republican party.

All's he have to do after the nomination is to come out and say, "Ha! I fooled you all. I'm really a democrat".

That'd pretty much be the nail in the coffin if republicans came to realize they nominated a democrat. Or worse, say he gets elected and then makes the announcement.

Trump has been a democratic supporter and has some close ties to the Clintons. I think It'd be a great political trojan horse that'd be talked about historically for years.

Everyone would hate him but what does he care. He could write a book about how he fooled the american public. Who wouldn't buy it.

Wishful thinking probably but it'd be a historical spectacle I'd pay money to see.

 

[columbus]

Trump has been a democratic supporter and has some close ties to the Clintons. I think It'd be a great political trojan horse that'd be talked about historically for years.

I hadn't thought about it this way before. But Donald Trump is in a better position to blow up the "two party" system than anyone else in modern history.
I like that in a candidate.

Where do I sign up? What can I do to help? I know he doesn't need my money, but I will put up yard signs and write letters to the editor.
Tom

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Since it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, why not charge a fine to every man and every woman who has sex without using birth control. this would cut down on unwanted babies, unwanted abortions, and help control some diseases. an extra benefit is that the government could follow you into your bedroom to be sure you are using an approved method and using it correctly. it would be a real money raiser because unprotected sex happens millions of times every day.

 

[ZenMonkey]

So you don't like the thought of a tax to help encourage more responsible behavior. Fine. Have any of you ever thought about how abortion is poisoning the ideal that humans should have basic rights? At what point does a human fertilized egg gain value? At what stage of our developmental process do we begin to matter? At what point after conception do you place value upon human life? Who decides? If the mother, that's quite a one sided liberty. Is this value determination placed on what is known of the life within themselves, or what they desire for themselves? If for themselves, the value determination isn't made on the life they are carrying at all, only on the value of their own lives. At which point does an unborn fetus become valuable and begin to matter as a living being? At what point do any of us become valuable and begin to matter for that matter? If our value is merely determined by the whims of others, then none of us have any inherent value at all and our want for human rights become the moot fancy of other inherently valueless beings.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Answer both set of questions and explain why please.



At what stage of our human developmental process do we begin to matter in terms of value?


0. Human potential not yet conceived

1. After human conception and causation

2. During the first trimester of human development

3. During the second trimester of development

4. During the third trimester of human development

5. After birthed and no longer needing a host




At what stage of the following process do human rights begin to matter in terms of value?


0. As an ideal not yet conceptualized by humans? (potential as an ideal)

1. As a conceptualized ideal in the mind of humans? (human causation as an ideal)

2. Within the first trimester after conception in humans? (minimal development as an ideal in human minds)

3. Within the second trimester after conception in humans? (modest development as an ideal in human minds)

4. Within the third trimester after conception in humans? (near full development as an ideal in human minds)

5. After the ideal is no longer just an ideal and has been given birth? (fully developed and a very real part of our human reality)

 

[ZenMonkey]

Also, the point of my contention is no one should be required to die at all because of our deliberate choices. Hell, I can have a great deal more than a blast along with my sexual partners and never risk a pregnancy in the least. Anyone can if they're willing to be responsible about the pleasures of sexual activity and explore a bit. This isn't an either or thing. Men and woman can have sex, both get off as many times they want, and never risk pregnancy at all.


I didn't realize this until a more experienced woman gave me a few lessons in higher sex education several years back. I was well versed myself (I thought) but this woman was a sex goddess to me at the time. I was simply unwilling to have sex and abort if a pregnancy occurred. She assured me that I was in good hands and began to give my a guided tour around herself very openly. It was the most erotic experience I've ever had in my life. Likely because it was new to me, but still. I won't go into detail (thank goodness right) but my point is two people (three, four, etc) can be responsible, have sex, and never risk pregnancy at all.


It is irresponsible as well as unbelievably selfish behavior when a human life would be terminated if conceived for sake of something as petty as two people wanting to get off. It just is. There are many ways around it. There are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, as you all well know. One of which is not engaging in activity that could result in an unwanted pregnancy. A human life is in the balance every time a person chooses to have vaginal sex. Now, I commend planned parenthood for the preventative measures they take to reduce unwanted pregnancies. We need more of that being discussed and campaigned across the board. We need to be honest and truthful about the severity of the choice to abort and be honest in how we educate our children.

 

[ZenMonkey]

My contention isn't so much with aborting as abortion is more often than not the responsible thing to do after the fact. Say I run over a child playing in the street while masturbating at the wheel. Would I be vilified for this? It isn't illegal, but the child's death could have been prevented by more responsible behavior on my part. Should I get a free pass based on the non legality of masturbating while driving?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you don't like the thought of a tax to help encourage more responsible behavior. Fine. Have any of you ever thought about how abortion is poisoning the ideal that humans should have basic rights? At what point does a human fertilized egg gain value? At what stage of our developmental process do we begin to matter? At what point after conception do you place value upon human life? Who decides? If the mother, that's quite a one sided liberty. Is this value determination placed on what is known of the life within themselves, or what they desire for themselves? If for themselves, the value determination isn't made on the life they are carrying at all, only on the value of their own lives. At which point does an unborn fetus become valuable and begin to matter as a living being? At what point do any of us become valuable and begin to matter for that matter? If our value is merely determined by the whims of others, then none of us have any inherent value at all and our want for human rights become the moot fancy of other inherently valueless beings.

All of our rights are determined by the "whims of others", ie, societal consensus which results in laws.
(Note that we've no inerrant absolutely true scripture handing us values & rights.)
This inexact continuing process with variable results doesn't make us inherently valueless.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, the point of my contention is no one should be required to die at all because of our deliberate choices.

I suggest then, you never drive a car, immediately stop purchasing things from many corporations (especially ones like Nike, Nestle, or any cell phone, and become extremely picky about what food brands you buy), switch to green and renewable energy...our entire culture of convenience comes at a cost, and very often the cost is human suffering and health degradation. When you eat fast food, you are adding to the risk of putting fast food workers at risk for repetitive motion syndrome.

It is irresponsible as well as unbelievably selfish behavior when a human life would be terminated if conceived for sake of something as petty as two people wanting to get off. It just is.

It is selfish when you believe your morality should be enforced through taxation. It is irresponsible to support laws that make it even harder on the poor and make being poor even more expensive. It is short sighted to not realize that given our out-of-control population and the problems we are already having with food and resources, that we need abortion or else our population would be much higher, which puts more people at higher risk of the things that come along with over crowding.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suggest then, you never drive a car, immediately stop purchasing things from many corporations.....

Poor corporations....always disrespected.
Even more dangerous are governments, which are the masters of mass killings.
So I say stop paying taxes to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Poor corporations....always disrespected.

Why does a corporation like Nestle deserve even an ounce of respect? Why should we give a damn about Apple? All Nike is good for is severely exploiting over-seas workers and selling the products to us at an insane and ridiculous high price. The largest telecommunication corporations want to funnel even more money into their own pockets by charging websites money so people can have faster access to them. News Corp. is very deliberate in the lies it tells. And the heavy commercialization of music, starting in the 70s, has made music increasingly homogenous to the point even different genres are sound the same.