A Letter to Donald Trump

[Underhill]

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.

No you misunderstand me. I am not saying responsibility, or encouraging it, is absurd. We are already doing that in most circles. I am saying that expecting responsibility, as the foundation of policy, is absurd.

And I disagree on another point. I think a lot of people are stupid when thinking with their sexual organs. Those are the same idiots who have multiple abortions. Any sensible person would learn from their mistake.

So you think that $450 is not a disincentive but more money will be? I'm sorry but I don't see it. About the only thing I see working is the day after pill for a lot of these people. Something where, when they wake up in the morning realizing how stupid they've been, they have a simple and quick method of dealing with it that does not involve abortion.

 

[ZenMonkey]

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 sister has had a few miscarriages herself, and has been blessed with her first child just three month's ago. I have no power in the medical arena, which is the area that will help would be mothers come to term without miscarrying. I do however have some power and a voice when it comes to national policies, and the laws adopted. We all do to some extent. Awareness also needs to be directed on issues that can be prevented with a bit more ease. Simple solutions are typically more effective than complex.

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.

They are vastly different, but many don't make it any easier on themselves and indeed much more difficult simply because they fail to act responsibly. Dude, we all go through hell in life. My struggle is no more or less severe than your own. If you want to list a few things I'll play along. I've lost two homes, family support, valuable trust, many jobs, have been on the disabled list since the year 2000, was a heavy drug abuser for over 15 years. I have been caring for a teenage boy along with my elderly mother whom I watched die while in recovery after a hip replacement surgery, and then resuscitated only to be placed on oxygen 24/7 who likewise suffers from Alzheimers for over 10 years. That's just the tip, but I get by well enough on less that $1000 a month income. I don't use poverty or my challenges as an excuse to justify my bad decisions. I own them. That one half of being responsible. the other half involves accountability.

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.

Do you? Do you pay taxes to help my family? What tax exactly and how does it apply to them particularly?

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

Really? Explain.

Excuse me while I doubt that very seriously.

Really? Have I given you any reason at all to doubt my sincerity? If so, I'd like an opportunity to defend myself in light of your very serious doubt.

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.

Try to follow along. With less unwanted pregnancies occurring, there would be less abortions taking place, hence less lives lost. The implementation of incentives that not only encourage more responsible behavior, but require a degree of accountability would help prevent and would help minimize unwanted pregnancies. Will it solve the issue? No. Will it help prevent unwanted pregnancies? Yes. This incentive doesn't attack abortion. It encourages more responsible behavior by requiring a degree of accountability from those who don't practice safe and responsible sex. If people are not willing to have a child knowing a pregnancy could occur from their actions, it's terribly irresponsible behavior. That's just the reality of it. When child's life and future is put in the balance just so two people can get their rocks off and simply choose to terminate the pregnancyafter for sake of avoiding accountability, there's a monumental responsibility issue present that needs addressing. That's what I'm doing - Like it or not.

 

[ZenMonkey]

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.

I'm not attempting to entice people to have unwanted children. That's not even on the radar. If a couple wants to abort then by all means abort, but also take some accountability. I'm attempting to help prevent unwanted pregnancies through incentives that encourage more responsible behavior. The result of less unwanted pregnancies are less abortions and fewer lives lost. The 5% - 10 % tax is a responsibility incentive tax that would require a degree of accountability. You could possibly look at it as an accountability tax incentive also.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I agree that an alternative would be more valuable, but that doesn't mean it's necessary. I mean, you are assuming that a letter or plan of this kind is necessary. I think you have to convince us of that before demanding any kind of alternative. Imho, I don't think that infringing on the rights of women in this way is necessary or beneficial in any way. Remember that abortions still were prevalent when illegal. And any lot more dangerous to boot.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Do you? Do you pay taxes to help my family? What tax exactly and how does it apply to them particularly? .

I pay income taxes. If I lived in the same area as you I would also pay property taxes. Both of these go into paying for the roads that your family drive on. The subsidies that keep the gas you put in you car low, the maintenance of the power-grid you use, the maintenance of the water waterlines you use, the schools you and your children have gone to, the military that protects you, the police that protect you, the firefighters that make sure your house doesn't burn down, ect. I could go on.

 

[philbo]

One other thing that doesn't appear to have been factored in: the law of unintended consequences.

For example.. if you aren't going to apply the tax to rape victims who get pregnant, expect the reports of rape to go through the roof as people realize that it's one way to avoid paying.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not attempting to entice people to have unwanted children. That's not even on the radar. If a couple wants to abort then by all means abort, but also take some accountability. I'm attempting to help prevent unwanted pregnancies through incentives that encourage more responsible behavior. The result of less unwanted pregnancies are less abortions and fewer lives lost. The 5% - 10 % tax is a responsibility incentive tax that would require a degree of accountability. You could possibly look at it as an accountability tax incentive also.

Forcing accountability for women who deny the use of their body is an infringement on bodily autonomy. Money counts too.

 

[leibowde84]

One other thing that doesn't appear to have been factored in: the law of unintended consequences.

For example.. if you aren't going to apply the tax to rape victims who get pregnant, expect the reports of rape to go through the roof as people realize that it's one way to avoid paying.

Right on!! Laws are extremely detrimental when not realistically enforceable.

 

[ZenMonkey]

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...."

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

 

[leibowde84]

I pay income taxes. If I lived in the same area as you I would also pay property taxes. Both of these go into paying for the roads that your family drive on. The subsidies that keep the gas you put in you car low, the maintenance of the power-grid you use, the maintenance of the water waterlines you use, the schools you and your children have gone to, the military that protects you, the police that protect you, the firefighters that make sure your house doesn't burn down, ect. I could go on.

You're right. For the most part the feds have 1 big pot.

 

[columbus]

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.

You and I agree upon a good deal.
The basic science: Human beings begin at conception and end at death.
Some basic morality: It is immoral for people to choose death for other humans simply because they are in the way.
Last but not least: The best way to prevent the results of irresponsible sex is to discourage it very strongly.

But this proposal to do that with vague financial punishment after the entire disaster is mostly over is one of the more asinine ideas on the subject I have heard. It is the sort of thing Trump, believing in the power of money as he does, might embrace. Except he is not stupid enough to think a prolife position will improve his running. It won't. It is a very unpopular position, at the national level.
And anyone can see that the last thing we need is yet another disincentive for irresponsible people to do something productive with their lives. A huge fine that shrinks to nothing if you quit your job and just lay around having sex is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of.

I avoided this thread at first. I assumed that you were either a poe or a troll and really bad arguments on this subject make me extremely angry.
Tom

 

[ZenMonkey]

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?

The potential of being burdened with a tax wouldn't help encourage you as a parent to educate your children on safer sexual practices. Lifetime accountability obligations brought on by a pregnancy wouldn't help encourage you to encourage greater responsibility from your kids regardless of whether the pregnancy was terminated or not . Fine. You don't think this incentive would have much effect on the decisions people make in relation to sexual activity. O.K. I'll take you at your word. I have my doubts, but I won't argue the point. The objective to help encourage greater responsibility through lifetime accountability measures would most assuredly have impact on responsible behavior in many people. Particularly those who this tax would hit the hardest (the poor) which is the majority of those who end up choosing to abort. Also, the tax system isn't all that blunt actually. It's fairly specific. Social change isn't exactly the objective aimed for either, but rather personal responsibility. A lifetime tax deduction per check that increases as your wages increase would spur more responsible behavior in many many cases. Maybe not in everyone, but certainly many.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Forcing accountability for women who deny the use of their body is an infringement on bodily autonomy. Money counts too.

Initiating a tax incentive to help encourage more responsible behavior is not an infringement on bodily autonomy. A woman's choice is still being honored, abortion still tolerated, and no one would be forcing anything on a woman's body. An incentive tax can most certainly be applied and it would not infringe on bodily autonomy in the least. Not even a little bit. Sorry -

 

[ZenMonkey]

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

No.

 

[leibowde84]

Initiating a tax incentive to help encourage more responsible behavior is not an infringement on bodily autonomy. A woman's choice is still being honored, abortion still tolerated, and no one would be forcing anything on a woman's body. An incentive tax can most certainly be applied and it would not infringe on bodily autonomy in the least. Not even a little bit. Sorry -

But, how on earth could you implement an award tax? How would we know if the woman was not practicing safe sex? Condoms break and the pill is sometimes ineffective. But that isn't due to irresponsibility on the part of the mother necessarily.

 

[columbus]

Initiating a tax incentive to help encourage more responsible behavior is not an infringement on bodily autonomy. A woman's choice is still being honored, abortion still tolerated, and no one would be forcing anything on a woman's body. An incentive tax can most certainly be applied and it would not infringe on bodily autonomy in the least. Not even a little bit. Sorry -

You need to get an irony-o-meter, hook it up to your device and check it before you hit "reply".
Tom

 

[ZenMonkey]

Right on!! Laws are extremely detrimental when not realistically enforceable.

I missed the original point, but you brought it to my attention. Thank you. A woman can and some may actually cry wolf and claim rape to avoid paying the tax. It's certainly possible. It's just not probable. This would place the woman in very very severe legal situations. False police reports, investigations, invasive medical examinations not to mention the stigma and doubt that typically follows woman who report rapes. Is this truly worth going through? I mean having this accusation permanently attached to them for life and all the criminal risks involved just to save $15 - $20 a week ... Seriously? Through the roof? Hardly! Although some woman would might maybe do this, the possible criminal charges, jail time, investigations, invasive medical examinations, and the stigma and doubt attached would deter the vast majority.

 

[ZenMonkey]

You and I agree upon a good deal.
The basic science: Human beings begin at conception and end at death.
Some basic morality: It is immoral for people to choose death for other humans simply because they are in the way.
Last but not least: The best way to prevent the results of irresponsible sex is to discourage it very strongly.

But this proposal to do that with vague financial punishment after the entire disaster is mostly over is one of the more asinine ideas on the subject I have heard. It is the sort of thing Trump, believing in the power of money as he does, might embrace. Except he is not stupid enough to think a prolife position will improve his running. It won't. It is a very unpopular position, at the national level.
And anyone can see that the last thing we need is yet another disincentive for irresponsible people to do something productive with their lives. A huge fine that shrinks to nothing if you quit your job and just lay around having sex is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of.

I avoided this thread at first. I assumed that you were either a poe or a troll and really bad arguments on this subject make me extremely angry.
Tom

Asinine? Oh boy ... You have done nothing more that voice an opinion without following it up with any substantial content. So it's asinine. Why will it not work. That's what I want to know. Explain your position. The tax incentive would be enacted prior to any procedure warranting its implementation for any given convenience procedure. The tax incentive would be known beforehand, which gives potential abortion candidates an ample window to consider it long before they decide to have unprotected sex. The encouragement isn't in its direct implementation, but in the potential of being taxed for life for behavior that can be easily modified if so desired .

 

[ZenMonkey]

But, how on earth could you implement an award tax? How would we know if the woman was not practicing safe sex? Condoms break and the pill is sometimes ineffective. But that isn't due to irresponsibility on the part of the mother necessarily.

If a couple is completely unwilling to have a child and have sex that could result in an unwanted pregnancy, it's terribly irresponsible on their part to do so. While I know abstinence is not a well liked method of pregnancy (birth) control, it is full proof. We can not force abstinence, we can not force the use of birth control, we can not force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. What CAN be done is initiate an incentive tax to help encourage more responsible behavior by all parties. - This is not a reward tax. It's an incentive tax. We're not rewarding nor are we punishing, but implementing an incentive to help encourage greater responsibility. Yes, condoms do break, the pill isn't 100%, diaphragms are not 100%, and spermicides aren't always effective either. However, combine two or more methods and the risk of pregnancy decreases exponentially. The pill and the use of a condom for example could be a potential combination. The pill and a spermicide another. There are many combinations that could be utilized. It comes down to making a responsible choice. If that choice results in an unwanted pregnancy and they are absolutely unwilling to have the child, the tax incentive should be applied regardless of contraceptive utilized.

 

[ZenMonkey]

You need to get an irony-o-meter, hook it up to your device and check it before you hit "reply".
Tom

You're quick with the insults aren't ya? What is ironic here is it seems to me that many will resist anything that doesn't jibe with their frame of mind. Your types condemn hunters, attack flags, religion, God, guns and all while you support snuffing the life out of the most vulnerable among human life for sake of convenience. You people boast progression, but your actions connote something quite the contrary. Here's the thing, I have not had but one in this entire thread offer any type of useful critique. I've had several opinions tossed about and misrepresentations made. I've had tons of disparaging remarks tossed at me. I've had loads and loads of condescension and resistance to this idea, yet only one single person alone has chosen to contribute anything of substance in a thread that is now four pages long. One. We're on four pages. Four pages full of opinionated, and condescending, disparaging drivel. Hell, I'm not even being debated by you people, which is what I was hoping for. If no one is willing to break down the proposal and tackle it head on and debate the issue, then we best not light a match. Between the gaseous hot air and sh!t piling up and filling the air this place would blow up like an atom bomb. I'm just sayin ...