A Letter to Donald Trump

[philbo]

What good is a cynic without a better plan? Also, this isn't directed at just teenagers, but also the parents of teens who are sexually active. The parents of underage teens who have convenience abortions will be the one's required to pay the tax for them until they have income and are of legal age. This will help motivate parents to better educate their children about sex and pregnancy, which is what is needed. The tax incentive would actually apply to everyone capable of producing a child. Teens make up only a small portion of those who have convenience abortions after all.

A cynic without a better plan can still point out why adopting a bad idea is not a good idea.

Motivating parents to teach their children sex ed using the tax system does seem a trifle bizarre, though: at best it's an idea that ought to be trialled before rolling out to everyone to see if it does work. Speakng as a parent (two of each sex), the tax implications of my children getting pregnant/fathering a child would be way down on the agenda regarding motivations for talking to them.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Let's not stop there. Let's tax a woman if she's a bad cook. Or if she doesn't wear make up in public. Or if she, I don't know, maybe forgets her burqa when she goes to market. I can see where this can be a cash cow (no pun intended) for the government.

What you see is fear and not even close to being a valid threat (ever)! The government cannot tax constitutional rights for one. The government could never pull of taxing things as petty as bad cooks, those who refuse to wear makeup, nor can our government discriminate against religious freedoms such as wearing burqa's or forgetting to wear them. Your comment is baseless at best. At worst, it is based on fear as opposed to reason.

 

[Marisa]

What rate are we going to tax the men at? Women don't get pregnant in vacuums, you know.

Or, here's a better idea. Many women cite economic realities as the main reason they choose a "convenience abortion" (I prefer to think of it as exercising her bodily autonomy and moral agency, but hey, whatever). So how about we cure economic inequity, promote workplace childcare options, stop stigmatizing single parenthood, provide easy access to affordable or ever {gasp!} free contraceptives? How about we start teaching comprehensive sex education at age appropriate stages in public schools and include teaching kids how to safe . . . not just from pregnancy but also from disease? In countries that use these methods rather than a tax, abortion drastically drops.

 

[ZenMonkey]

A cynic without a better plan can still point out why adopting a bad idea is not a good idea.

Motivating parents to teach their children sex ed using the tax system does seem a trifle bizarre, though: at best it's an idea that ought to be trialled before rolling out to everyone to see if it does work. Speakng as a parent (two of each sex), the tax implications of my children getting pregnant/fathering a child would be way down on the agenda regarding motivations for talking to them.

You can point out whatever you like, but without an explanation as to why you disagree it's just hot air that benefits no one. Unless you have a genuine critique, you're going to be met with deaf ears. If you have a critique that takes into account what is being proposed and then explain your contention as well as the reason behind it, it would be most welcomed and you would be contributing to the discussion. If you do not, then you're doing little more than being disruptive.

 

[ZenMonkey]

What rate are we going to tax the men at? Women don't get pregnant in vacuums, you know.

Or, here's a better idea. Many women cite economic realities as the main reason they choose a "convenience abortion" (I prefer to think of it as exercising her bodily autonomy and moral agency, but hey, whatever). So how about we cure economic inequity, promote workplace childcare options, stop stigmatizing single parenthood, provide easy access to affordable or ever {gasp!} free contraceptives? How about we start teaching comprehensive sex education at age appropriate stages in public schools and include teaching kids how to safe . . . not just from pregnancy but also from disease? In countries that use these methods rather than a tax, abortion drastically drops.

Read the proposal and your talking points will be answered. All of them. They're included ... Even free birth control, education, and the tax percentage of the fathers. So is a woman's body being her own and the fact that no entity has the right to force anything upon it against her will.

 

[Marisa]

Read the proposal and your talking points will be answered. All of them. They're included ... Even free birth control, education, and the tax percentage of the fathers. So is a woman's body being her own and the fact that no entity has the right to force anything upon it against her will.

I'm just flummoxed that anyone could think that taxing a basic right is the way to go. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, aside from the fact that you are trying to sell a new tax to people who've signed a pledge from Grover Norquist that they will not raise taxes or create new one upon pain of political death.

But what completely blows me away is that anyone could hold the opinion that women own their bodies, but should be taxed for the privilege.

 

[ZenMonkey]

I'm just flummoxed that anyone could think that taxing a basic right is the way to go. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, aside from the fact that you are trying to sell a new tax to people who've signed a pledge from Grover Norquist that they will not raise taxes or create new one upon pain of political death.

But what completely blows me away is that anyone could hold the opinion that women own their bodies, but should be taxed for the privilege.

Terminating unborn life is not a basic right, but rather a tolerance demanded by those in the pro choice arena. If this were a basic right, I'd agree. It isn't. I'm selling to Trump who won't be selling out just to please a conservative constituency in order to garner votes. In other words, Trump won't be bought by special interest groups nor by the GOP. He has fruck you cash and he's in this to "Make America Great Again". He's obviously appealing to a fairly large base, otherwise he would not be leading in the polls. There's a reason for this that seems to escape you. Woman own their bodies and no one has the right to force anything upon it against her will. Abortion is not a privilege. Not by a long shot. You flatter yourself and overestimate what has been allowed. It is being tolerated based on the notion that no one can rightfully force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That would not be fair, just, nor moral.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mr. Trump's assistent regrets to inform you that Mr. Trump is not literate.

He thanks you for your support.

Oh, you wascally wag!
I saw Trump's assistant's real letter.
Perhaps you wanted to spare the OP from such harsh language, but his real response was this...

Mr Trump read your letter, & was at first amused.
But as he continued, his wry grin vanished, & that big vein on his forehead started throbbing.
He then flew into a rage, saying....
"This ****** ******'s ideas are ****** ********!
He's a ****** **********, & he's fired!"

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's not stop there. Let's tax a woman if she's a bad cook. Or if she doesn't wear make up in public. Or if she, I don't know, maybe forgets her burqa when she goes to market. I can see where this can be a cash cow (no pun intended) for the government.

Come on....let's focus upon what really matters.
Gals who don't shave their pits should get the highest tax.
And guys with neckbeards too!
(That last one is to satisfy feminists' demands for equality.)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd probably have an issue when presented with a tax bill for 105% of my income....lol

Parenthetical aside.....
I've actually had tax bills which exceed my income.
How can this happen, you ask?
IRS accounting is not GAAP.
They'll sometimes treat non-income as taxable, & require capitalization of expenses (making them non-deductable).
(Even careful planning cannot defeat exigent circumstances & interesting times.)
Those are tough years when a perfect storm of FUBAR tax code afflicts one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Terminating unborn life is not a basic right, but rather a tolerance demanded by those in the pro choice arena. If this were a basic right, I'd agree. It isn't. I'm selling to Trump who won't be selling out just to please a conservative constituency in order to garner votes. In other words, Trump won't be bought by special interest groups nor by the GOP. He has fruck you cash and he's in this to "Make America Great Again". He's obviously appealing to a fairly large base, otherwise he would not be leading in the polls. There's a reason for this that seems to escape you. Woman own their bodies and no one has the right to force anything upon it against her will. Abortion is not a privilege. Not by a long shot. You flatter yourself and overestimate what has been allowed. It is being tolerated based on the notion that no one can rightfully force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That would not be fair, just, nor moral.

It's beyond the scope of this thread to explore the complex philosophical, medical, definitional
& political aspects of life's beginning, abortion, civil liberties, & the design of taxation policy.
Suffice to say....
- There is great disagreement.
- It won't be resolved here.
- The law is rather settled regarding abortion being a right.

 

[Marisa]

Terminating unborn life is not a basic right,

No, but having the right to say which organs, if any, you will donate to further another's life IS. This is basic bodily autonomy. You perceive a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as "a life" and that is what colors your opinion. You are so focused on what you think the rights of this organism are that you completely lose focus of the rights of the human being whose organs are being used to incubate this life. And while you focus on that organisms rights, you ignore the fact that if it has rights, it has NO MORE rights than the person whose organs are incubating it. I don't see you demanding that organ donor registration be mandatory, nor that people be forced to donate kidneys, lungs, blood, bone marrow, etc. despite their objections.

but rather a tolerance demanded by those in the pro choice arena.

The only thing we in the pro-choice camp are "demanding" is that you guys on the other side respect our RIGHT to make the same choice you make. Nothing more.

If this were a basic right, I'd agree. It isn't.

Bodily autonomy IS a basic right. So much so that we do not force people to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further another person's life. In case you aren't aware, the uterus IS an organ. We AND YOU believe this so strongly that would be mortified at the harvesting of organs from a corpse against the person's will while alive.

I'm selling to Trump who won't be selling out just to please a conservative constituency in order to garner votes. In other words, Trump won't be bought by special interest groups nor by the GOP. He has fruck you cash and he's in this to "Make America Great Again". He's obviously appealing to a fairly large base, otherwise he would not be leading in the polls. There's a reason for this that seems to escape you. Woman own their bodies and no one has the right to force anything upon it against her will. Abortion is not a privilege. Not by a long shot. You flatter yourself and overestimate what has been allowed. It is being tolerated based on the notion that no one can rightfully force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That would not be fair, just, nor moral.

Trump, like all other GOP candidates, is never, ever, not in a million years, going to advocate a new tax on anything. And considering the conservative head explosion over the recent anti-Planned Parenthood video attempting to link that group with selling aborted fetus' for financial gain, it's unfathomable that you can't see how this idea of yours will be received among the folks who want to criminalize abortion KNOWING it will kill or maim women.

 

[ZenMonkey]

It's beyond the scope of this thread to explore the complex philosophical, medical, definitional
& political aspects of life's beginning, abortion, civil liberties, & the design of taxation policy.
Suffice to say....
- There is great disagreement.
- It won't be resolved here.
- The law is rather settled regarding abortion being a right.

Small minds ... They fail to acknowledge potential and hinder progress. They shrug of the possibility of initiating new concepts for sake of complacency. They are a stagnate cesspool full of disease. Small minds fear. Small minds are complacent. Small minds are a waste of innate potential. Small minds merely exist. That's the scope of their existence.

In relation to your comment relating to the law and abortion being a right, you're mistaken and sorely so. The termination of unborn human life is not and will never be a "right". It is a legalized tolerance based on a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Abortion isn't the right. A woman's "choice" to decide what happens to her own body is.

 

[Marisa]

Small minds ... They fail to acknowledge potential and hinder progress. They shrug of the possibility of initiating new concepts for sake of complacency. They are a stagnate cesspool full of disease. Small minds fear. Small minds are complacent. Small minds are a waste of innate potential. Small minds merely exist. That's the scope of their existence.

In relation to your comment relating to the law and abortion being a right, you're mistaken and sorely so. The termination of unborn human life is not and will never be a "right". It is a legalized tolerance based on a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Abortion isn't the right. A woman's "choice" to decide what happens to her own body is.

You completely missed the point of Revolt's post. The conversation of when life begins is philosophical and will NEVER be ended. It will go on forever, because each individual has a different perspective.

 

[Revoltingest]

Small minds ...

Hey, I'll have you know my IQ is almost 70.

They fail to acknowledge potential and hinder progress.

Does this mean they hinder progress or fail to hinder progress?

They shrug of the possibility of initiating new concepts for sake of complacency. They are a stagnate cesspool full of disease. Small minds fear. Small minds are complacent. Small minds are a waste of innate potential. Small minds merely exist. That's the scope of their existence.
In relation to your comment relating to the law and abortion being a right, you're mistaken and sorely so. The termination of unborn human life is not and will never be a "right". It is a legalized tolerance based on a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Abortion isn't the right. A woman's "choice" to decide what happens to her own body is.

I take a more secular perspective.
Rights are not something absolute handed to us by an inerrant authority.
Instead, they're freedom from limitation granted as the result of societal consensus.
In our case, this means by legislative & constitutional means.
Looking at case law, the Roe v Wade decision codified the right to abortion.
You may dislike & disagree with it, but it is nonetheless settled law, & therefore a "right".
The issue here becomes whether or not we should tax the exercising of rights.
As a foe of big government, I'm loath to see it have such power over us.

 

[Nietzsche]

Does this letter explode? And have embedded steel shards so that when it does, Trump is at least mortally wounded if not dead outright? Because otherwise this letter is less than useless to me.

 

[Marisa]

Does this letter explode? And have embedded steel shards so that when it does, Trump is at least mortally wounded if not dead outright? Because otherwise this letter is less than useless to me.

Less than useless. I love it. Did you dig a hole and bury the measuring bar?

 

[Laika]

Great advice! Thanks again ...

You're welcome. I don't feel qualified to offer any futher advice as I haven't look into abortion very deeply. Your approach is novel and definetely goes with the flow of current thinking. I find the ability to combine conservative social norms with economic rationality a rather disturbing combination, but thats mainly because our approaches differ and I'm much more emotional and intitutive when it comes to moral judgements. I tend to think emotions are actually valid but only so long as they are subordinate to reason to avoid prejudicing the argument. passion and evidence are a very effective combination, but a hard one to pull off because it requires such sincerity. It would be good if the deadlock on this issue could actually be broken and it laid to rest somewhat. As you implictly accept pro-choice I think you are taking the debate in the right direction so again, best of luck.

 

[ZenMonkey]

No, but having the right to say which organs, if any, you will donate to further another's life IS. This is basic bodily autonomy. You perceive a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as "a life" and that is what colors your opinion. You are so focused on what you think the rights of this organism are that you completely lose focus of the rights of the human being whose organs are being used to incubate this life. And while you focus on that organisms rights, you ignore the fact that if it has rights, it has NO MORE rights than the person whose organs are incubating it. I don't see you demanding that organ donor registration be mandatory, nor that people be forced to donate kidneys, lungs, blood, bone marrow, etc. despite their objections.

No I do not Marisa. I focus on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. You focus only on a woman's right to choose and what happens to a woman's body with no regard to what happens to the human life living in the womb. . I agree a woman deserves that right. I focus on your rights and the life that depends upon the mother to sustain it. In order to be fair and just to both parties, I am advocating responsible behavior and have proposed incentives to help encourage it. Responsible behavior that requires accountability is the only feasible solution to help prevent unwanted pregnancies I can think of.

The only thing we in the pro-choice camp are "demanding" is that you guys on the other side respect our RIGHT to make the same choice you make. Nothing more.

I fully support your right and I fully think that right should be retained by woman. I've stated nothing less.

Bodily autonomy IS a basic right. So much so that we do not force people to donate any organ or bodily fluid to further another person's life. In case you aren't aware, the uterus IS an organ. We AND YOU believe this so strongly that would be mortified at the harvesting of organs from a corpse against the person's will while alive.

I never suggested otherwise. No one should force an abortion on any woman. Likewise, woman should have and retain the right to 'choose' what happens to her own body and no entity should be able to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. However, the termination of an unborn human life does not equate to the right to terminate human life. Otherwise murder would be a legal activity. It isn't. Woman have the right to make a choice concerning 'her' body. The law respects your choice concerning your body and merely tolerates abortion.

Trump, like all other GOP candidates, is never, ever, not in a million years, going to advocate a new tax on anything. And considering the conservative head explosion over the recent anti-Planned Parenthood video attempting to link that group with selling aborted fetus' for financial gain, it's unfathomable that you can't see how this idea of yours will be received among the folks who want to criminalize abortion KNOWING it will kill or maim women.

Ohh the things I know ....

 

[Marisa]

No I do not Marisa. I focus on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. You focus only on a woman's right to choose and what happens to a woman's body with no regard to what happens to the human life living in the womb. . I agree a woman deserves that right. I focus on your rights and the life that depends upon the mother to sustain it. In order to be fair and just to both parties, I am advocating responsible behavior and have proposed incentives to help encourage it. Responsible behavior that requires accountability is the only feasible solution to help prevent unwanted pregnancies I can think of.

The only methods proved to reduce the number of elective abortions, which BTW is far less offensive than "convenience abortions" (it's comments like this that indicate where your motivations may be coming from, BTW) are comprehensive sex education and contraceptive access. Good luck selling a tax to a party who wants to completely eliminate all taxes. Nothing like knowing your audience.

I fully support your right and I fully think that right should be retained by woman. I've stated nothing less.

Okay.

I never suggested otherwise. No one should force an abortion on any woman. Likewise, woman should have and retain the right to 'choose' what happens to her own body and no entity should be able to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. However, the termination of an unborn human life does not equate to the right to terminate human life.

See, if you were being objective you'd recognize that this is a case of one person's right to swing their fist ending at another person's face.

Otherwise murder would be a legal activity.

And there's you emotional reaction. In your mind, abortion = murder.

Woman have the right to make a choice concerning 'her' body. The law respects your choice concerning your body and merely tolerates abortion.

Good. Our society needs far more tolerance of other people's rights than it currently is able to muster.

Ohh the things I know ....

Doesn't appear to be much about the GOP's position on taxes. [/QUOTE]