A Letter to Donald Trump

[philbo]

No investigation would be required. Either abortion is a medical necessity or it is not. The only investigations that could possibly be required are in the cases of those who claim rape, which very few will actually do deceptively. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're grasping at straws with that one.

What makes you think that "very few will actually do deceptively", given that you'd be giving them a massive financial incentive to do so? Sounds like very wishful thinking to me.

 

[Thanda]

I love the assertion that people who don't want children should cease and desist from all sexual encounters or face a tax! As usual, it's not about preventing abortions. It's about making certain that women understand their role in society is to incubate the next generation. Le sigh.

How did you jump from responsible sex to no sex?

 

[Marisa]

That's not what was said but you are well aware of this. If you're going to engage me, at least be honest when you make an attempt to address the views I've presented. The assertion made is that those who are unwilling to have children should be responsible and held accountable for an unwanted pregnancy occurring as a result of their actions. Unwanted pregnancies can be prevented by taking more thorough precautions. That's a fact. It's terribly irresponsible to be completely unwilling to have children and still engage in behavior that results in an unwanted pregnancy. It is irresponsible as well as unbelievably selfish behavior when a human life must be terminated for sake of something as petty as two people getting off.

Your comments on the Child Free by Choice movement betray your ignorance of that movement. Sort of like your desire to try to sell a brand new tax to a political party that want to shrink government to the point it can be drowned in a bathtub betrays your general ignorance of that party, and the fact that many of them don't care if women are killed when abortion is criminalized, so why would they support a tax on the service?

The CFBC movement is a group of people who generally use MULTIPLE methods of birth control because they don't want kids that badly. Women in these movements frequently complain that they cannot find a doctor who will perform a tubal ligation on them, thus ensuring no progeny, because they are of childbearing age and don't have kids yet. You might ask yourself what sort of societal perspective would make a physician take that perspective on the issue.

But you're over here saying "oh, I completely understand bodily autonomy, let's force invasive medical procedures on people because that won't offend anyone's bodily autonomy".

You're asking people to point out the holes in your "logic" and then getting pissed when they do. Dus1n made an excellent post about the correlations between poverty and abortion an you just blew it off. You'll probably blow this off, too: many women cite economic reasons as their #1 reason for seeking an early term elective abortion. So the second biggest thing that could happen to address the issue would be to correct economic inequalities and make it easier for parents to work and have kids at the same time. People who reside below the poverty line do so for a reason. Staring at someone's bare feet and yelling "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" at them makes you look ridiculously ignorant of where the root of the problem lies.

 

[Marisa]

How did you jump from responsible sex to no sex?

First of all, please present your notarized paperwork delineating you as the ultimate arbiter of what "responsible" means in relations to the word "sex".

When you've located that, do go back and read the comment where the OP said that people who don't want kids shouldn't be having sex or should be having (pregnancy) safe sex.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't expect abstinence at all. I stated as much, so quit misrepresenting my stance. It's simply a factual reality that it is irresponsible to have vaginal sex when unwilling to have a child when an unwanted pregnancy would result in the termination of a human life. You have choices in life. We all do. When our choices are responsible for human life, a greater need for responsibility is paramount.

So, everyone gets the tax incentive unless they have an abortion? Wouldn't it just be based on luck, though. I mean, two couples could use the same contraceptives. One couple might get pregnant while the other doesn't. For nothing other than luck, the one couple would get the tax break, but the other wouldn't. Thus, it seems a bit arbitrary and, thus, unconstitutional.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, everyone gets the tax incentive unless they have an abortion? Wouldn't it just be based on luck, though. I mean, two couples could use the same contraceptives. One couple might get pregnant while the other doesn't. For nothing other than luck, the one couple would get the tax break, but the other wouldn't. Thus, it seems a bit arbitrary and, thus, unconstitutional.

It's sort of a lottery approach to taxation, ie, your tax rate depends upon luck (or lack thereof).
To some extent, it's already this way.
- Lose your job, & have your home foreclosed....you can pay tax on the principal, so your taxes go up.
- Plan your affairs around the current tax code....but then the IRS changes it, so your taxes go up.
Taxing use of civil liberties just expands this philosophy.
Perhaps some day, the IRS will send us scratch-off lottery tickets to see what our rate is, eh?

 

[Marisa]

So, everyone gets the tax incentive unless they have an abortion? Wouldn't it just be based on luck, though. I mean, two couples could use the same contraceptives. One couple might get pregnant while the other doesn't. For nothing other than luck, the one couple would get the tax break, but the other wouldn't. Thus, it seems a bit arbitrary and, thus, unconstitutional.

If the hole in the condom can be traced to faulty manufacturing, who pays the tax then?

 

[Underhill]

It's a silly concept really. The tax could never compare to the cost of having a child.

All it would really accomplish is make abortions more difficult to get for those with limited funds.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's a fact. It's terribly irresponsible to be completely unwilling to have children and still engage in behavior that results in an unwanted pregnancy. It is irresponsible as well as unbelievably selfish behavior when a human life must be terminated for sake of something as petty as two people getting off.

The only fact is you have no right to dictate my sex life, you have no right to place any sort of burden on me to try and control my sex life, and you have no right to burden my sex life with your own personal code of morality. What is unbelievably selfish is that you think my sex life is selfish and irresponsible and you want to install legal penalties because you do not agree with it.

 

[dust1n]

I prefer to address the root cause of the estimated 850,000 contract killings that are performed in this nation annually for convenience purposes. These procedures are unnecessary and could be prevented by very simple modifications in personal behavior. This would not be a penalty for abortion, but an incentive to help encourage responsibility to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Um these procedures you may find unnecessary, but they still have nothing to do with you, at all. What's an acceptable annual number to you, by the way? 700,000? 300,000? 40,000? If your program dropped 150,000 abortions a year, would it worth it? What if it cost more to actually collect to tax than will be collected? Still worth it?

You already did list a few things - If you were at all concerned about unwanted pregnancy, you would advocate prevention instead of advocating abortion as a method of birth control.

I listed a couple things that I figured are different from your experiences. Not to get in a pissing match as to who has it worth. I'm fine off.

I asked how your taxes help fund my family and you bring up schools. My teen son will be attending the university after summer break, which is all but here already. He's 18 but that is beside the point isn't it? I don't recall your tax dollars ever being used to fund anything in my local area. If you are going to make a statement like that, then you need to back it up with relevant data.

Uh.. just to avoid digressing into taxes and how education funding works, and to keep from delving into your personal life and location, etc., we can move on.

This is relevant how exactly?

Because you dismissed any correlation between abortion rates and poverty by saying, "The only correlation is poor decision making. Poor decisions could quite possibly be the reason they are broke." This entirely and factually wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion what a statistical correlation is, at least in statistics.

I'm not concerned with preventing abortion nor am I advocating taxing them. I'm rather concerned with the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies result in an estimated 850,000 human lives being terminated annually, which you don't seem to care about. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and many lives will be saved.

• There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.
  
  
• 900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.
  
  
• More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).
  
  
• Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
  
  
• Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.
  
  
• Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.
  

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

No, I care about miscarriages, because that's an instance of a child lost when no one was wanting it to happen. You don't seem to care about miscarriages though. Not an easy enough solution available I guess.

You advocate killing unborn human lives. I advocate prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

I advocate for either one of those things. I'm not going to tax a person regardless what method they go about operating their lives.

I support a woman's right to choose, but I likewise acknowledge the root cause of abortion itself.

The root cause of abortion itself is not being taxed 5% of your gross income forever? Yeah, dude.

That's why this doesn't address abortion, or saving lives directly. This incentive is to help encourage responsible behavior before an unwanted pregnancy occurs at all. . After the fact, I'd suggest some accountability to be accepted by both parties involved. It was an irresponsible choice made by both parties that a pregnancy occurred after all. This incentive would be applied based on actions so irresponsible that a human life is terminated.

Just because someone is getting an abortion does not mean said pregnancy happened in an irresponsible way. If a couple has three kids, and gets pregnant again, even though some sort of birth control being used, that person can get an abortion if they want to. Let me spell this out clearly to you... It's their life. Not yours. Their abortions effects you none. At all. Not in a single way. So if someone is set on having an abortion, which has already been determined to be a civil entitled to all women in America fifty years ago, there is absolutely no reason to be taxing them for it. You just call a punishment an "encouragement" despite the fact no actual evidence it functions as such, while it's pretty obvious it's a punishment.

It would help, not solve. It would encourage, not fix.

No evidence still.

This thread alone illustrates how much more value is placed on the wallet than on unborn human lives. Threaten the wallet and the result will be encouragement and an avoidance of the tax. It's far easier to focus on prevention than to quit working (as you said you would do) in attempt to evade.

No, I'd just quit working, move to a different country and expatriate.

Tax evasion is far more difficult than being responsible before a pregnancy occurs.

Right, because it's a punishment to what you've already predetermined to be a responsible or not responsible abortion.

Of course some will likely thumb their nose at such a noble attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Oh, sorry, sir, for impeding on your noble endeavor.

Others, however, will start making more responsible decisions. Not everyone has the luxury of not working like you, so it would be imperative for them to practice more responsible behavior to avoid being taxed for life for something that is easily modified and fixed by them.

Um... I work.

If you're suggesting that only those who choose to abort are to be taxed you are correct. This isn't an attack, however. It is simply a tax initiative to help encourage responsible behavior.

Ah, well you said you did dealt with drug addiction for sometime. I say we tax drug addicts 10% of their income. The tax will be allocated to fight drug crimes and drug trafficking across the country, as well as provide drug treatments to other drug addicts, and to deal with CPS for taking their kids away. I don't think 10% of your income being taxes is an attack. It's simply a tax initiative to help encourage responsible behavior. Time to own to your responsibilities here, bub, and pay up. Actually don't worry about it, because the 10% will come directly out of any SSID check anyone may be receiving, so the federal government can assure you are held responsible. Thanks in advance.

You're are correct for the most part, but given that there are an estimated 850,000 unwanted pregnancies that end in convenience abortions annually in this nation there most certainly is an issue of responsibility that needs addressing. Choice remains a personal decision, but the tax would help encourage more responsible behavior by both genders once implemented.

Ah, well at the end of the day, I personally don't agree that abortion is irresponsible. You have no evidence your plan will work. It would definitely just be taxing seriously some of the poorest women in the country, mainly because as mentioned before, it would be cheaper to pay 5% for your life than it would be to raise a child. So you really wouldn't stop any abortions, just taxing those who got them. Additionally, and again still no evidence this works, there are already ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, mostly birth control. So if you want to end unwanted pregnancies, a cheaper more effective way, that doesn't involve taxing people who exercise their Supreme Court derived right, is probably birth control there, bub.

 

[ShivaFan]

Hillary cannot change the dynamic. It is too late. She cannot reintroduce herself. She cannot recreate herself. She cannot be reborn. She cannot lie her way into a face of the future even if she ironed her face with a hotiron. There is no pants suit she can fit into to be "the man" nor "the women", and it is getting harder to even fit into a pants suit.

She can neither speak for men whose ears hear her sounding like screechy nails on a chalkboard, nor can she speak for women being the enabler of a serial abuser of women.

She can neither properly speak softly without sounding corrupt, nor loudly without being annoying. She cannot be bombastic and turn it into a victory, nor be nice without seemingly phony.

She is not loved, and those who were near her neither love her and often only fear her. There is nothing loveable about her. She is not tough, she is only mean.

Her only hope is to falsely claim in a "public pronouncement" that she is actually a lesbian, thus becoming the screaming headlines and patron of "sympathy" to the bitter end, and yet another identity to sheild herself from the law and her crimes, using all lesbians as human sheilds to keep her golden toilet locked behind doors and only for herself.

But even that would not win her the election.

She will not win the election.

Her only hope is that no Republican runs. Her only hope is, the only candidate in the general election (the national election, after the primaries) is fellow Democrat Joe Biden.

Then she *might* win. But even that is "if'y". She will lose to the Republican.

We are told she polls best against Trump. I don't know if Trump will be the final nominee. But she knows Trump would actually be her biggest disaster. She knows that. Her close advisors, who also despise her meaness, said as much. Trump would paint her own lipstick on her face. Rand Paul would make her look like a turnip. Walker would walk all over her. Neither Bush nor Cruz will win the nomination. You might support them. It isn't going to happen. Their best hope is to be a VP selection. So it will be someone else, that is the dynamic whatever your sympathies are.

Whoever the Republican nominee will be, it won't be them, but whoever that is, unless the person is arrested for molesting a child, she is more than just in trouble.

We hear that Trump may run Third Party, and thus throw the election. To her.

No he won't. Trump will not run Third Party.

But there is someone who actually might. Bernie Sanders, whose supporters in donations all have come from small donors and not corrupt Hillary big donor "you owe me" types. The Sanders vote represents a lot of voters, actually. He would snowball her loses even greater than what they are going to be as Third Party, instead of losing by 5.3 points she will lose by 8+ points.

She is a loser.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hillary cannot change the dynamic. It is too late. She cannot reintroduce herself. She cannot recreate herself. She cannot be reborn. She cannot lie her way into a face of the future even if she ironed her face with a hotiron. There is no pants suit she can fit into to be "the man" nor "the women", and it is getting harder to even fit into a pants suit.

She can neither speak for men whose ears hear her sounding like screechy nails on a chalkboard, nor can she speak for women being the enabler of a serial abuser of women.

She can neither properly speak softly without sounding corrupt, nor loudly without being annoying. She cannot be bombastic and turn it into a victory, nor be nice without seemingly phony.

She is not loved, and those who were near her neither love her and often only fear her. There is nothing loveable about her. She is not tough, she is only mean.

Her only hope is to falsely claim in a "public pronouncement" that she is actually a lesbian, thus becoming the screaming headlines and patron of "sympathy" to the bitter end, and yet another identity to sheild herself from the law and her crimes, using all lesbians as human sheilds to keep her golden toilet locked behind doors and only for herself.

But even that would not win her the election.

She will not win the election.

Her only hope is that no Republican runs. Her only hope is, the only candidate in the general election (the national election, after the primaries) is fellow Democrat Joe Biden.

Then she *might* win. But even that is "if'y". She will lose to the Republican.

We are told she polls best against Trump. I don't know if Trump will be the final nominee. But she knows Trump would actually be her biggest disaster. She knows that. Her close advisors, who also despise her meaness, said as much. Trump would paint her own lipstick on her face. Rand Paul would make her look like a turnip. Walker would walk all over her. Neither Bush nor Cruz will win the nomination. You might support them. It isn't going to happen. There best hope is to be a VP selection. So it will be someone else, that is the dynamic whatever your sympathies are.

Whoever the Republican nominee will be, it won't be them, but whoever that is, unless the person is arrested for molesting a child, she is more than just in trouble.

We hear that Trump may run Third Party, and thus throw the election. To her.

No he won't. Trump will not run Third Party.

But there is spmeone who actually might. Bernie Sanders, whose supporters in donations all have come from small donors and not corrupt Hillary big donor "you owe me" types. The Sanders vote represents a lot of voters, actually. He would snowball her loses even greater than what they are going to be as Third Party, instead of losing by 5.3 points she will lose by 8+ points.

She is a loser.

She has the "I'm not a Republican" platform to run on.
Then it doesn't matter much what she stands for.
(Some people are OK with her repealing the Bill Of Rights, ya know.)

 

[ZenMonkey]

Correct, because:


I don't know where you got that idea: the lifetime effect of a pregnancy (whether terminated or not) is *exactly* why I have encouraged responsibility from my children. This is far more important a consideration than "the government's going to take an extra x% of your income if you have an abortion".


Something makes me feel that you *really* don't understand people. ISTM that the "many" people it will have most effect upon are those who spend so much time thinking about their tax bill, they can't get laid anyway.

That would be a valid argument if abortion weren't applicable. As is, a person can pay a one time fee of $450 to end a lifetime of accountability. What I'm proposing will not allow people to avoid the lifetime of accountability that comes with a pregnancy. If people don't want babies they shouldn't conceive them. Babies are the natural result of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. People can dance around it until they're blue in the face, and nothing people say or do is going to change that fact. It's basic biology. A degree of accountability should be applied when unwanted pregnancies can be prevented by simply modifying behavior and making more responsible decisions.

 

[ZenMonkey]

What makes you think that "very few will actually do deceptively", given that you'd be giving them a massive financial incentive to do so? Sounds like very wishful thinking to me.

I've already stated my reasons for thinking this.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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.

You said that if this measure saves even one life then it's worth it. Make up your mind - is it about preventing unwanted pregnancies or saving children who would have been aborted?

 

[dust1n]

You said that if this measure saves even one life then it's worth it. Make up your mind - is it about preventing unwanted pregnancies or saving children who would have been aborted?

You might be having the same misunderstanding as I did. If you prevent someone who was going to get an abortion from conceiving a baby, you have somehow saved that babies life. I've arguably saved more fetuses than anyone, since I've yet to get one person unintentionally pregnant.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You might be having the same misunderstanding as I did. If you prevent someone who was going to get an abortion from conceiving a baby, you have somehow saved that babies life. I've arguably saved more fetuses than anyone, since I've yet to get one person unintentionally pregnant.

Ah, so even more logically incoherent than the original post.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Your comments on the Child Free by Choice movement betray your ignorance of that movement. Sort of like your desire to try to sell a brand new tax to a political party that want to shrink government to the point it can be drowned in a bathtub betrays your general ignorance of that party, and the fact that many of them don't care if women are killed when abortion is criminalized, so why would they support a tax on the service?

The CFBC movement is a group of people who generally use MULTIPLE methods of birth control because they don't want kids that badly. Women in these movements frequently complain that they cannot find a doctor who will perform a tubal ligation on them, thus ensuring no progeny, because they are of childbearing age and don't have kids yet. You might ask yourself what sort of societal perspective would make a physician take that perspective on the issue.

But you're over here saying "oh, I completely understand bodily autonomy, let's force invasive medical procedures on people because that won't offend anyone's bodily autonomy".

You're asking people to point out the holes in your "logic" and then getting pissed when they do. Dus1n made an excellent post about the correlations between poverty and abortion an you just blew it off. You'll probably blow this off, too: many women cite economic reasons as their #1 reason for seeking an early term elective abortion. So the second biggest thing that could happen to address the issue would be to correct economic inequalities and make it easier for parents to work and have kids at the same time. People who reside below the poverty line do so for a reason. Staring at someone's bare feet and yelling "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" at them makes you look ridiculously ignorant of where the root of the problem lies.

Point out the holes. Lets discuss it without getting personal. I'm sure there are holes in this, but nothing valid has been pointed out yet. I do think free birth control would help tremendously. This issue comes down to finding a viable solution that will help encourage more responsible behavior. Poverty is another issue altogether. Poverty is not an excuse to make bad decisions. If anything, it demands better. What I propose is a viable option that despite the contention, would help spur greater responsibility, which would lead to a decrease in the number of abortions performed significantly. The revenue generated could help fund free birth control. It doesn't target a specific gender, and could likewise help fun the expense of child care for working families who live in poverty.


While people tend to shut down and get angry when new tax initiatives are being discussed, it is a very appropriate compromise that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and would most assuredly help decrease abortions by increasing greater responsibility as well as accountability. It's a very simple premise: If you don't want to be taxed, don't get pregnant and terminate to maintain a lifestyle. It's simple. Use multiple contraceptives between you and your sex partner/s. Be more responsible, and the risk of an unwanted pregnancy decreases exponentially. No one is forcing anyone to change anything about their lifestyles. Being irresponsible is choice much like a woman's choice to terminate unborn human life is a choice. Being responsible is likewise a choice. It needs to be encouraged.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Um these procedures you may find unnecessary, but they still have nothing to do with you, at all. What's an acceptable annual number to you, by the way? 700,000? 300,000? 40,000? If your program dropped 150,000 abortions a year, would it worth it? What if it cost more to actually collect to tax than will be collected? Still worth it?



I listed a couple things that I figured are different from your experiences. Not to get in a pissing match as to who has it worth. I'm fine off.



Uh.. just to avoid digressing into taxes and how education funding works, and to keep from delving into your personal life and location, etc., we can move on.



Because you dismissed any correlation between abortion rates and poverty by saying, "The only correlation is poor decision making. Poor decisions could quite possibly be the reason they are broke." This entirely and factually wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion what a statistical correlation is, at least in statistics.

• There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.
  
  
• 900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.
  
  
• More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).
  
  
• Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)
  
  
• Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.
  
  
• Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.

http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

No, I care about miscarriages, because that's an instance of a child lost when no one was wanting it to happen. You don't seem to care about miscarriages though. Not an easy enough solution available I guess.



I advocate for either one of those things. I'm not going to tax a person regardless what method they go about operating their lives.



The root cause of abortion itself is not being taxed 5% of your gross income forever? Yeah, dude.



Just because someone is getting an abortion does not mean said pregnancy happened in an irresponsible way. If a couple has three kids, and gets pregnant again, even though some sort of birth control being used, that person can get an abortion if they want to. Let me spell this out clearly to you... It's their life. Not yours. Their abortions effects you none. At all. Not in a single way. So if someone is set on having an abortion, which has already been determined to be a civil entitled to all women in America fifty years ago, there is absolutely no reason to be taxing them for it. You just call a punishment an "encouragement" despite the fact no actual evidence it functions as such, while it's pretty obvious it's a punishment.



No evidence still.



No, I'd just quit working, move to a different country and expatriate.



Right, because it's a punishment to what you've already predetermined to be a responsible or not responsible abortion.



Oh, sorry, sir, for impeding on your noble endeavor.



Um... I work.



Ah, well you said you did dealt with drug addiction for sometime. I say we tax drug addicts 10% of their income. The tax will be allocated to fight drug crimes and drug trafficking across the country, as well as provide drug treatments to other drug addicts, and to deal with CPS for taking their kids away. I don't think 10% of your income being taxes is an attack. It's simply a tax initiative to help encourage responsible behavior. Time to own to your responsibilities here, bub, and pay up. Actually don't worry about it, because the 10% will come directly out of any SSID check anyone may be receiving, so the federal government can assure you are held responsible. Thanks in advance.



Ah, well at the end of the day, I personally don't agree that abortion is irresponsible. You have no evidence your plan will work. It would definitely just be taxing seriously some of the poorest women in the country, mainly because as mentioned before, it would be cheaper to pay 5% for your life than it would be to raise a child. So you really wouldn't stop any abortions, just taxing those who got them. Additionally, and again still no evidence this works, there are already ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, mostly birth control. So if you want to end unwanted pregnancies, a cheaper more effective way, that doesn't involve taxing people who exercise their Supreme Court derived right, is probably birth control there, bub.

It would generate revenue that could be applied to free birth control, help fund child care and education. It hasn't been implemented so there is no data to date to prove it would decrease abortions, but it would help encourage greater responsibility and accountability. The evidence is the fact that a tax would be applied in which those subjected to it would be held responsible for paying, thus resulting in a degree of accountability. If they follow your lead and leave the country to evade. Good riddance! This nation is better better off without you. Also, I don't think abortion is irresponsible either. Sometimes it's the most responsible thing to do. Getting pregnant while being unwilling to have a child however IS irresponsible when it could easily be prevented by simple modifications in behavior. As for poverty and the correlation between it and those who abort. You're suggesting poverty directly influences the reason people have abortions, right? I would agree, but then there's an underlying cause that places them in such positions. What do you think that might be? As for taxing drug users. Sure! Lets legalize drugs like abortions and that would be a very valid suggestion. Furthermore, you said you'd quit working to evade the tax. Most don't have that luxury and are required to work.

 

[columbus]

How did you jump from responsible sex to no sex?

This is one of the annoying logical fallacies commonly used by the baby killers. It is called "the fallacy of the excluded middle".
People can have sex every day with zero risk of pregnancy. Gay sex, oral sex, the list is long. But "PenisinVagina" sex is the big favorite among heterosexual people. So pretending that abstaining from PiV sex equates to virginal chastity is common. Even PiV sex can be made nearly pregnancy proof. PiV sex using a diaphragm, condoms, at the right time in a woman's monthly cycle is virtually foolproof. The chances of conceiving a new human being are less than being struck by lightning in the middle of orgasm. But that requires effort, expense, and self-control.

So it is easier to pretend that pregnancy is a random event, like a tumor or a parasitic infestation. Therefore holding up people accountable in any way is an infringement on their rights.
Tom