A Letter to Donald Trump

[Kilgore Trout]

Any letter to Donald Trump that doesn't tell him to stop making our political system a bigger joke than it already is, isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[dust1n]

This would not interfere with a woman's right to choose, a woman's body, and people will still be able abort unwanted pregnancies for convenience. What this incentive will do is encourage greater responsibility in the bedroom and accountability when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. It may hit the wallet, but people are still free to choose. Woman can do whatever they want, make what ever choices they wish, get abortion after abortion if they so choose, but if they get a convenience abortion or multiple a small tax would be applied to both responsible parties responsible for that pregnancy. Woman retain their rights completely.

The government has no say over what woman do with their body. That's how it should be. The government does have a say when it comes to this nations laws and the policies adopted. We all do. That's how it should be. This issue has moved far beyond the arena of government control and into the realm of taxation. Abortion is here to stay. Pro choicer's win. Congratulations. Now it's time for this nation to encourage greater responsibility in order to help minimize unwanted pregnancies. The revenue generated would help fund education and free birth control, among other social programs.

• Unintended pregnancy rates have increased among poor women while they have declined among higher-income women
  • Source: Finer LB and Zolna MR, Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006, Contraception, 2011, 84(5):478–485.
• 42% of women having abortions have income levels below the federal poverty line
  • Source: Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.
• Compared with higher income women, poor women have unintended pregnancy rates 5X as high; abortion rates 5X as high and unplanned birth rates 6X as high
  • Sources: Finer LB and Zolna MR, Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006, Contraception, 2011, 84(5):478–485; Jones RK and Kavanaugh ML, Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime incidence of abortion, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 117(6):1358–1366.
• Seven in 10 women would have preferred to have their abortion earlier. Many women experience delays because they need time to raise the money.
  • Source: Finer LB et al., Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States, Contraception, 2006, 74(4):334–344.
• Delays=Higher Costs: travel costs, child care costs, lost wages from missed work
  • Source: Finer LB et al., Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States, Contraception, 2006, 74(4):334–344.
• Women report having to borrow money from friends & family and forgo paying rent, groceries & utilities to pay for their procedure.
  • Source: Finer LB et al., Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States, Contraception, 2006, 74(4):334–344.

https://www.guttmacher.org/media/infographics/abortion-concentrated-among-poor2.html

I got an idea. Let's tax 10% of their income. That'll probably help.

 

[ZenMonkey]

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.

Convenience abortions are the only ones that require attention. Abortions performed out of medical necessity do not apply. Do you know what a convenience abortion is? You seem to not like the term.

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.

No. I'm sorry, but the right to make a choice isn't the same as the right to take an unborn humans life. It just isn't.

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

If you were given the right to take human life (as you clearly think) then murder would be legal in this nation. It isn't. Abortion is tolerated based on the premise that a woman should not be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy against her will. It is your body. Your right to make a choice is what is being honored. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is merely being tolerated to protect your rights to choose and to not be forced by government to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That's it!

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

I agree -

Doesn't appear to be much about the GOP's position on taxes.

Ohh the things I know ...


Just a small word of advice:

 

[ZenMonkey]

• Unintended pregnancy rates have increased among poor women while they have declined among higher-income women
  • Source: Finer LB and Zolna MR, Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006, Contraception, 2011, 84(5):478–485.
• 42% of women having abortions have income levels below the federal poverty line
  • Source: Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. abortion patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.
• Compared with higher income women, poor women have unintended pregnancy rates 5X as high; abortion rates 5X as high and unplanned birth rates 6X as high
  • Sources: Finer LB and Zolna MR, Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006, Contraception, 2011, 84(5):478–485; Jones RK and Kavanaugh ML, Changes in abortion rates between 2000 and 2008 and lifetime incidence of abortion, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 117(6):1358–1366.
• Seven in 10 women would have preferred to have their abortion earlier. Many women experience delays because they need time to raise the money.
  • Source: Finer LB et al., Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States, Contraception, 2006, 74(4):334–344.
• Delays=Higher Costs: travel costs, child care costs, lost wages from missed work
  • Source: Finer LB et al., Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States, Contraception, 2006, 74(4):334–344.
• Women report having to borrow money from friends & family and forgo paying rent, groceries & utilities to pay for their procedure.
  • Source: Finer LB et al., Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States, Contraception, 2006, 74(4):334–344.

https://www.guttmacher.org/media/infographics/abortion-concentrated-among-poor2.html

I got an idea. Let's tax 10% of their income. That'll probably help.

Lets implement incentives that will actually encourage responsible behavior instead of making excuses for irresponsible people. How's that sound? Btw, it's 5% not 10%. The 10 % applies to the parental unit - as in both responsible parties (male and female). For an individual who's income is below the national poverty level the deduction would be less than $60 per month ($1,200). If a $15 deduction per $300 check is too much to bear for an individual that individual certainly needs to be a great deal more responsible, don't you think? You're attempting to use poverty as an excuse to justify terribly irresponsible behavior. No. It doesn't fly. Like abortion, being irresponsible is a choice. When unborn human lives are in the balance for irresponsible behavior, poverty is not an excuse. Sorry.

 

[Marisa]

Convenience abortions are the only ones that require attention. Abortions performed out of medical necessity do not apply. Do you know what a convenience abortion is? You seem to not like the term.

I know what you mean by the term "convenience abortion". I also know that using this term indicates that you're comfortable judging the morality of the other's actions and don't require any personal knowledge of the circumstances faced by the person acting. It's always a good idea to remember that the way we phrase things, especially things that tend to have high emotional content, often says as much about ourselves as we believe we're saying about the people we're speaking of.

No. I'm sorry, but the right to make a choice isn't the same as the right to take an unborn humans life. It just isn't.

This again is your emotional reaction to the subject of abortion, as medical science has nothing to say on the subject of precisely when human life begins. This does not mean that a blastocyst, embryo or fetus are not human.

If you were given the right to take human life (as you clearly think) then murder would be legal in this nation. It isn't.

Abortion is not murder. Neither are involuntary manslaughter or capital punishment.

Abortion is tolerated based on the premise that a woman should not be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy against her will. It is your body. Your right to make a choice is what is being honored. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is merely being tolerated to protect your rights to choose and to not be forced by government to endure an unwanted pregnancy. That's it!

That's not quite it, but at the end of day so long as you aren't out in the streets harrassing people with no foreknowledge of their intent or circumstances, I'll consider it a "win" that you come down on the correct side of the issue.

Just a small word of advice:

You may wish to consider practicing your own advice. Just a small piece of advice.

 

[dust1n]

Lets implement incentives that will actually encourage responsible behavior instead of making excuses for irresponsible people. How's that sound?

Um, what do I care about implementing incentives that will encourage what only you and some other people deem responsible behavior? Nor does such a taxes present any sort of solution for anything, nor would it work, and will likely just hurt poorest women, and any children they might already have, all for the sake of your warm fuzzies.

Btw, it's 5% not 10%. The 10 % applies to the parental unit - as in both responsible parties (male and female). For an individual who's income is below the national poverty level the deduction would be less than $60 per month ($1,200). If a $15 deduction per $300 check is too much to bear for an individual that individual certainly needs to be a great deal more responsible, don't you think?

Taxes, bills, etc. I'm not actually sure you know how broke 1200 a month is, especially for a single person, especially for a single mother, especially for a family that already has too many kids.

You're attempting to use poverty as an excuse to justify terribly irresponsible behavior. No. It doesn't fly. Like abortion, being irresponsible is a choice. When unborn human lives are in the balance for irresponsible behavior, poverty is not an excuse. Sorry.

What are you talking about? I didn't use it as an excuse for anything. If being broke is correlative with getting an abortion, then why would want to make people who are already willing to get abortion have any less money on a given year, increasing the correlative effect of poor people getting abortions?

People have been getting abortions since the dawn of man. I don't need to justify anything. It's personally not my nor your business who gets an abortion and why they get one.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"Mr. Trump, I'd like to share an idea relating to incentives that could potentially help minimize abortion and increase responsible behavior as well as personal accountability. I know you support certain types of incentives and also encourage them. First let me say that the pro choice proponents are correct. Our government should not be enabled to force a woman to endure unwanted pregnancies. I can certainly respect that a woman's body is her own. That is a perfectly valid stance. However, our government can encourage responsibility as well as accountability, correct? While many pro choicer's choose to terminate unborn human life instead of birthing a child, doesn't our government have the ability and power to implement a responsibility type incentive tax to help encourage responsible behavior?

Such a tax could potentially help limit the estimated 850,000 convenience abortions performed in this nation each year. This may not be a perfect solution to a seemingly complex issue, but it makes for a great compromise If you ask me. You could negotiate the terms. Here is what I myself propose Mr. Trump: I propose that our government implement such an incentive tax. This tax should not require more than 10 % of the gross annual income from those responsible for unwanted pregnancies resulting in convenience abortions. 5 % and up to 10 % of an individuals annual income is perfectly fair and reasonable per procedure and up to 30 % to 40 % total deductions combined. This tax should be applicable throughout the lives of those subjected to it. This may seem unfortunate, but many woman who end up pregnant are unsure who the father is due to multiple sexual partners. I propose that the known potential father's should likewise be subjected to this tax. If a woman does not wish to reveal the name of the father, then perhaps she should be held responsible for his portion of the tax.

The implementation of such a tax would not only help encourage the practice of safe and responsible sexual activity, but it could potentially save well over 5 million lives in a single decade. Sexually transmitted diseases would most assuredly decline as a result, unwanted pregnancies would most assuredly decline as a result, convenience abortions would decline exponentially as a result of this type of taxation also. Our tax dollars are being used to help fund planned parenthood if I'm not mistaken, which is fine. I'm o.k. with that. However, those who undergo convenience abortions should be hit with a responsibility incentive tax. The revenue generated from these taxes could help fund education, free birth control, child care, and also help feed struggling working class families who live in poverty despite their best efforts to rise above the poverty line. Is such a tax feasible Mr. Trump? If so, please get the ball rolling when you are elected in 2016 O.k?"

Thank you,

Amazingly, this sounds just moronic enough for Trump to promote.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Um, what do I care about implementing incentives that will encourage what only you and some other people deem responsible behavior? Nor does such a taxes present any sort of solution for anything, nor would it work, and will likely just hurt poorest women, and any children they might already have, all for the sake of your warm fuzzies.

Responsible as in not resulting in an estimated 850,000 human deaths annually. This isn't about warm fuzzies, but about saving lives.

Taxes, bills, etc. I'm not actually sure you know how broke 1200 a month is, especially for a single person, especially for a single mother, especially for a family that already has too many kids.

My monthly income is less than the number I gave. I do know and I'm willing to exercise responsible behavior to both prevent an unwanted pregnancy and to avoid such a tax. I have a family too. They require that I make responsible decisions in order for me to effectively care for them given my income. Poverty is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.

What are you talking about? I didn't use it as an excuse for anything. If being broke is correlative with getting an abortion, then why would want to make people who are already willing to get abortion have any less money on a given year, increasing the correlative effect of poor people getting abortions?

The only correlation is poor decision making. Poor decisions could quite possibly be the reason they are broke. I myself am disabled, but I make do. They can too. This tax would help encourage them to make better decisions.

People have been getting abortions since the dawn of man. I don't need to justify anything. It's personally not my nor your business who gets an abortion and why they get one.

Nope, I could care less who gets what, or who does who, or who gets taxed or not. It's not my business, but this nations policies, as well as the laws and taxes adopted by this nation most certainly are. I care about the future of this nation. I care about human life. If a tax incentive such as this one saved only one life because of it it would be worth it.

 

[Wu Wei]

Or you could do as my e-wife (the Child protective worker who hated children and I have referred to as she-demon more than once)

Offer woman $20,000 to get sterilized because then you save money on abortions, welfare, and tax payer support of the whole thing.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Or you could do as my e-wife (the Child protective worker who hated children and I have referred to as she-demon more than once)

Offer woman $20,000 to get sterilized because then you save money on abortions, welfare, and tax payer support of the whole thing.

I'm all for helping fund sterilization procedures for those below the poverty level. Actually, this should be included in social programs that could be funded by the revenue generated from an incentive tax.

 

[Underhill]

There are a laundry list of actions we could take to reduce the number of abortions. Very few of them will happen just because of this kinds of thinking. This absurd notion that only the "irresponsible" have sex which results in unwanted pregnancy. The numbers tell us that just isn't true. Everyone has sex. Those who sign pledges? yep. Those who go to church? yes. If you are between 15 and 25 and have the opportunity with someone you desire, you will have sex. That is what the statistics show. The number of people who do not out of choice are probably statistically somewhere between zero and 1%...

But we keep having this absurd conversation about responsibility.

Want to reduce the number of abortions? Hand out the day after pill like candy to anyone who wants it. Give out contraceptives to anyone who want them. But you will never 'solve' the problem so long as stupid people exist in the world.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

The value of cynicism is the pointing out of unsubstantiated assumptions we all make far too often. It forces us to examine beliefs that we have no real reason to hold. I find that to be extremely valuable.

 

[dust1n]

Responsible as in not resulting in an estimated 850,000 human deaths annually. This isn't about warm fuzzies, but about saving lives.

If you want a crusade then, I'd go with miscarriage, since about 15% to 20% estimated pregnancies end in them, even know happen without anyone noticing. These are mostly against anyone's control, have nothing to do with a pregnant woman's behavior, and cause women immense pain, because most are not understood at all, and there is no awareness of funds for research pouring into how to help these mothers who want their children but can't have them.

My monthly income is less than the number I gave. I do know and I'm willing to exercise responsible behavior to both prevent an unwanted pregnancy and to avoid such a tax. I have a family too. They require that I make responsible decisions in order for me to effectively care for them given my income. Poverty is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.

Yeah dude, not everyone lives your life. If you've lived in poverty for a while, congratulations. I lived on my own from 18-25 under the poverty line and made it. I also didn't already have a kid, never ate properly, couldn't pay for multiple sclerosis treatments, still can't afford an MRI, still finishing school with debt. Etc. Your challenges in life and those of others may be vastly different.

Congrats on your family. They made to the point of viability in vitro and were birthed. You're now responsible for them, even though I still pay taxes to help them for some reason.

The only correlation is poor decision making. Poor decisions could quite possibly be the reason they are broke. I myself am disabled, but I make do. They can too. This tax would help encourage them to make better decisions.

Well, then you'd just be shunning the basic concepts of statistics a priori for no particular logical reason.

I care about the future of this nation. I care about human life.

Excuse me while I doubt that very seriously.

If a tax incentive such as this one saved only one life because of it it would be worth it.

Ah, so, less about preventing unwanted pregnancies, and more making sure less unwanted pregnancies result in abortion, and more actually go through to birth, with the fear of taking ten percent of their income. Not to mention the law you suggest would obviously be ruled illegal, like the hundreds of other laws made to attack abortion every year in every state, just wasting more resources for lawyers, instead of actually applying those funds to anything meaningful. Joy. Just what the future of this nation needs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A child costs far more than 5-10% of the vast majority of people's income, so the argument that people will have unwanted children in order to avoid financial punishment is neither valid nor logical.

 

[Revoltingest]

Convenience abortions are the only ones that require attention. Abortions performed out of medical necessity do not apply.

If a rapist caused the pregnancy, & the victim has no medical necessity to abort, do you consider this a "convenience abortion"?

 

[Midnight Rain]

"Mr. Trump, I'd like to share an idea relating to incentives that could potentially help minimize abortion and increase responsible behavior as well as personal accountability. I know you support certain types of incentives and also encourage them. First let me say that the pro choice proponents are correct. Our government should not be enabled to force a woman to endure unwanted pregnancies. I can certainly respect that a woman's body is her own. That is a perfectly valid stance. However, our government can encourage responsibility as well as accountability, correct? While many pro choicer's choose to terminate unborn human life instead of birthing a child, doesn't our government have the ability and power to implement a responsibility type incentive tax to help encourage responsible behavior?

It also hast he ability and power to re-impliment slavery and force all Christians to undergo intense anal rape by horse before baptism. Is it a good idea? Probably not. The afformentioned example is extreme but only so to show you the lackluster and arbitrary substance of your statement "doesn't the government have the ability and power to...."

Such a tax could potentially help limit the estimated 850,000 convenience abortions performed in this nation each year. This may not be a perfect solution to a seemingly complex issue, but it makes for a great compromise If you ask me. You could negotiate the terms. Here is what I myself propose Mr. Trump: I propose that our government implement such an incentive tax. This tax should not require more than 10 % of the gross annual income from those responsible for unwanted pregnancies resulting in convenience abortions. 5 % and up to 10 % of an individuals annual income is perfectly fair and reasonable per procedure and up to 30 % to 40 % total deductions combined. This tax should be applicable throughout the lives of those subjected to it. This may seem unfortunate, but many woman who end up pregnant are unsure who the father is due to multiple sexual partners. I propose that the known potential father's should likewise be subjected to this tax. If a woman does not wish to reveal the name of the father, then perhaps she should be held responsible for his portion of the tax.

Several points here. So number 1 how do we implement this tax? We force people to give up their own private healthcare records which are confidential and give it to the government? And then the government will decide to tax women who have had an abortion for any reason? Would that tax be just for that year or forever? Can we tax all men who do not use condoms?
On the same line why not make a Christian tax. If one wants to be christian and push ideological concepts that are harmful to the country shouldn't we tax them if they want the right to call themselves christian? Of course not.

And on the last part...if the woman dose not want to name the father then she should burden his tax as well? 20% of their annual income? So if a woman did get pregnant for any reason, got an abortion, and now she doesn't want to get the man who got her pregnant hit with an unfair and abhorrent tax she now has to straddle twice as much? This is the most misogynistic idea I've ever seen seriously proposed.

The implementation of such a tax would not only help encourage the practice of safe and responsible sexual activity, but it could potentially save well over 5 million lives in a single decade. Sexually transmitted diseases would most assuredly decline as a result, unwanted pregnancies would most assuredly decline as a result, convenience abortions would decline exponentially as a result of this type of taxation also. Our tax dollars are being used to help fund planned parenthood if I'm not mistaken, which is fine. I'm o.k. with that. However, those who undergo convenience abortions should be hit with a responsibility incentive tax. The revenue generated from these taxes could help fund education, free birth control, child care, and also help feed struggling working class families who live in poverty despite their best efforts to rise above the poverty line. Is such a tax feasible Mr. Trump? If so, please get the ball rolling when you are elected in 2016 O.k?"

Sounds like you want to micromanage women and their sex lives because it doesn't match up with your religious beliefs.

I admit I have enjoyed watching this slow motion train wreck since it began. I hope he makes it to the real election. He will loose but it will be funny.

 

[philbo]

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.

It might not be a detailed critique, but I think I've explained why I don't think it's a good idea. I honestly do think it's quite bizarre to try and use the tax system to make people think twice when they're about to have unprotected sex, as that'll be the last thing on their minds; as a parent, I don't think it would be anywhere in my set of priorities when it came to explaining to my children why they shouldn't be getting themselves or others pregnant (there's plenty of far better reasons for having that conversation). So it comes across as a post-hoc punitive measure, rather than one which would achieve the stated objectives.

The tax system is a very blunt instrument for attempting social change.. and do you really want government coming up with more taxes while trying to effect that sort of change?

 

[dust1n]

If a rapist caused the pregnancy, & the victim has no medical necessity to abort, do you consider this a "convenience abortion"?

Personally, I think women who want to have an abortion should be required to sojourn, with nothing but a single donkey, up Mount St. Helen, where they must name the unborn child, throw of a bushel of rosemary in the volcano, and get an ultrasound administered by a priest reciting the pledge of allegiance. Hey, it's your freedom to get an abortion, but no one said it had to be easy.

 

[ZenMonkey]

There are a laundry list of actions we could take to reduce the number of abortions. Very few of them will happen just because of this kinds of thinking. This absurd notion that only the "irresponsible" have sex which results in unwanted pregnancy. The numbers tell us that just isn't true. Everyone has sex. Those who sign pledges? yep. Those who go to church? yes. If you are between 15 and 25 and have the opportunity with someone you desire, you will have sex. That is what the statistics show. The number of people who do not out of choice are probably statistically somewhere between zero and 1%...

But we keep having this absurd conversation about responsibility.

Want to reduce the number of abortions? Hand out the day after pill like candy to anyone who wants it. Give out contraceptives to anyone who want them. But you will never 'solve' the problem so long as stupid people exist in the world.

I don't recall ever suggesting that only irresponsible people have sex that result in unwanted pregnancies. That's your projection, not mine. The vast majority of those who face unwanted pregnancies are a result of poor and irresponsible decisions by them. You can check the statistics to confirm that. It should be common knowledge, however. Also, why on earth are you bringing up those who have sex? It's quite obvious that we all do or will in life and often. Some more often than others. Sex isn't the issue. Irresponsible sex is. What I find disturbing is your notion that responsible sex is absurd. Rather, you stated the conversation about responsibility is absurd. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that encouraging responsibility is an absurd notion. I'm sorry, but it could prevent a great deal of heartache, hardship, unnecessary stress, and also save millions of human lives. While you are encouraging abortion pills to be handed out like candy, you fail to address the root cause of most unwanted pregnancies. No wait, you address the root cause but suggest it's absurd to converse about it. I will commend you for bringing up free contraceptives, however. This is very much needed, but we all know that it isn't stupidity that causes people to not use them. By and large people are not stupid. They simply are not encouraged strongly enough to have responsible sexual relations. There's no incentives to prevent pregnancy when $450 bucks will save your *** if a pregnancy occurs. That's not an incentive, nor does it encourage responsible behavior. If anything, it is a cop out and an easy way to avoid lasting responsibility.

 

[ZenMonkey]

The value of cynicism is the pointing out of unsubstantiated assumptions we all make far too often. It forces us to examine beliefs that we have no real reason to hold. I find that to be extremely valuable.

If by being cynical you actually examine an issue I agree. However, the cynicism that has been exhibited thus far has done no such thing. Show me where, how, and why this proposal will not work. Do you have a better plan of action? Present it. Cynicism is only valuable when it leads us to question, seek, and help us understand things more thoroughly. If it doesn't do this much, then it's a hopeless and futile mindset.