Because by refusing to pay, they are effectively barring those they disagree with from acting on that belief. If you don't believe in restricting the right of those who don't agree with you to get abortions, then you can't support restrictions on their ability to exercise said right. Why the emphasis on taxes? Why should someone who doesn't think that abortion is murder, have to forgo having an abortion because they work for the federal government? Why doesn't that exact argument apply to any insurance plan that covers abortion? Shouldn't you be insisting that no insurance plan cover abortion services, on the grounds that otherwise you're forcing others who don't approve of abortion to pay for it? To the extent that federal employees are entitled to medical insurance, sure. Again, why the emphasis on taxes? Why doesn't this same logic demand that we ban all insurance from covering abortion services - and thereby impose the belief that abortion is unacceptable on everyone? Ah. So it's okay for Ron Paul to enforce his personal view on everyone else, as long as he's an expert on the subject? Even when other experts pointedly disagree with him? What are you talking about? The fact that Ron Paul knows full well that he has no chance of ever being elected President, and only runs for President as a way of promoting himself and his ideology, is just that. It doesn't mean he's any fundamentally different from any other politician.
Exercise with their own money. Because the federal government gets the money from people, many of whom think, thats murder. This is quite unethical. Insurance plans are private, and you choose to participate in them- you can find a plan that doesn't support abortion if you want. You don't choose to pay taxes, you have to pay them to the federal government. Others agree that abortion couldn't have been done at an earlier stage? Name 1. its not expertise, this is common sense. You had all the time in the world for abortion like say in the first week, second week. Chances are built on views- he could have been a traditional Republican and he'll have all the chance in the world. Isn't that how you'd run. The only way you'll get any chance of election is by saying stuff people want to listen to. So your argument is circular. You're just saying that someone who truly believes in a different direction, and is not status quo, should not run for office. I applaud you. You will will lead this country to hell.
There is only one viable response to this. Repeat after me: Ron Paul would not exercise his personal beliefs as law, because Ron Pauls personal beliefs would stop him from exercising his personal beliefs as law.And just keep chanting.
Which, when it comes to healthcare, means do not exercise at all. So, the point remains. But I thought it was supremely unethical for those same people to use the federal government to impose that view on anyone else? How about if the federal government just promises to only use the tax revenue accrued from abortion opponents for other things, and to fund federal health insurance through the tax revenues of people who do approve of abortion? The vast majority of insured Americans are insured through their employers, with zero choice in which provider or plan they pay their money into. I, for one, am in absolutely no position at all to exercise any such discretion. You can choose not to work enough to make enough money to pay federal taxes, if you like. Just like federal employees who need abortions can choose to pay them out of pocket, under your scheme. But, wait - that money that federal employees have in their pockets also comes from tax revenues! So how is it that when you give a federal employee a paycheck, that money ceases to be tax revenue that is answerable to abortion foes, but if you give a federal employee an insurance benefit, in that case the money remains tax revenue that is beholden to abortion foes? This doesn't make sense. ??? I thought we were talking about dilate-and-extract abortion procedures, but now you are offering arguments against late-term abortions in general? You realize that the ban Paul voted for, doesn't do anything to restrict late-term abortions as such? It just bans the safest, most effective way of doing them. The people who need abortions in that time frame can still get them. They just have to use a more dangerous, less effective method. And if you think that any percentage of women worth mentioning even become aware that they are pregnant within the first week or two, then you don't know what you're talking about. Meanwhile, where does this "need" issue even come from? If we aren't imposing the belief that a fetus is a full-fledged life with full rights onto people, then why do they need to justify the particular timing of their abortion to Ron Paul and the Federal Government? Or rather, you're circling around the point, which is that Ron Paul isn't actually interested in being President in the first place. It's a vanity run, for promoting his pet causes in front of a larger audience.
By this logic, the military should be defunded, because not evryone agrees with its existence (and its actions).
The existence of the military itself has never been questioned it is state in the Constitution as a federal mandate. Abortion itself is disputed. There is a difference.
Not just the military, either. We'd also have to do away with prisons and pretty much every other part of government. There's always going to be at least some small minority that strenuously disagrees with any government policy or institution, and so this argument that we can't use taxpayer funds to pay for anything that any taxpayer strenuously disagrees with means that we can't have a government at all. Anarchy is the only form of social organization that doesn't feature a government imposing on someone, somewhere. Which is why I'm always pointing out that libertarians are simply anarchists who lack the courage of their convictions.
It just seems futile to me to vote if one dont have even a little trust that the advocated policies might actually come to existence. Why should they care about that information if they are going to screw you over; other than knowing which strings to pull next time around.
You mean the part that says the USA can't maintain a standing army? That mandate? So is the existence of a standing army in the USA, and every single time the US military has deployed lethal force against anyone, anywhere, at any point in history. Which is what? That pro-troops rhetoric plays well in every state, but anti-abortion rhetoric only plays well in a subset of states?
It isn't a matter of trust - we have an explicit mechanism for ensuring that the advocated policies will be pursued. It's the subsequent election. That's exactly why they should care. If they screw me over, I'm not going to vote for them the next time.
There are plenty of people that question the existence, and activities of the army. It isn't, as I recall, stated that Congress must raise and maintain an army, only that they have the power to do so. By your logic, if People are opposed to the armies existence, then spending taxpayer money on it is unthical. If people are opposed to the War on Terror, then spending money on it is unethical.
Well if you don't have the money its not my problem. To not fund something is not 'imposing'. Its neutrality. That should be fine. I'd support that. They may be insured through their employer, they don't have to be. If the person decides they can find their own insurance. lol. I prefer the other option you mentioned above. But those choices are not directly being funded by the government. Fed Pay. Person uses money as they want. Fed recognizes abortion itself. Person uses insurance Its a matter of the federal government paying for something the people don't recognize to be a valid practice and is murder per them. You realize that the ban Paul voted for, doesn't do anything to restrict late-term abortions as such? It just bans the safest, most effective way of doing them. The people who need abortions in that time frame can still get them. They just have to use a more dangerous, less effective method. [/Quote] Well I wonder then what the rationale was for voting for it, maybe to remove one method of 'late-term abortion'. I'm unsure- someone would have to ask RP this in a more specific manner as to why the vote. I think the method banned is used like from 15-20 weeks. Thats a pretty long time after becoming pregnant. Because even the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade did not allow abortions at all times. So the question that its not a full-fledged life is not actually clear. Partial-birth abortions are quite late, the body has mostly formed, its recognized to be a baby why anyone with eyes. Its hard not to say its a 'human baby'. I wonder if that solidifies the case. Anyhow this question is best referred to him. How would you know. According to your logic anyone who feels that this country needs a different direction is always doing a 'vanity run'- aren't you just judging other again? And that everyone who follows your- say and do what status quo want- 'wants' to become President.
And yet, Ron Paul doesn't particularly support any of those efforts, despite the supposedly consistent, principled basis for his votes on partial birth abortions. Which suggests that he is actually motivated by a more casuist set of policy preferences, and simply marshalls the (conveniently plastic) ideology to justify whatever is politically expedient for him to do. That he's cultivated a legion of fundamentalist followers who will play along, is just so much gravy.
Actually I'm going to backtrack on that statement somewhat. Most of the genuine anarchists I've ever encountered have been highly aware of various types of hierarchy (not just government, but corporations, church, etc.) and tend to oppose all of them in a holistic way. So rather, we should say that a libertarian is an anarchist who has come down with a severe case of tunnel vision, and whose awareness of systems of force and coersion is strictly limited to the government (or, in really bad cases, just the federal government).
Doesn't say it 'can't'. You know quite well that the disagreement with abortion is not 2 people 'disagreeing'. Its quite prevalent. Secondly abortion deals with 'life'- the question is of right to life, which is something way more serious than the military's existence. Although I agree, Federal Gov should not use taxes from pacifist for military adventures. I would support that. I'll support the Gov not using taxes for military adventures that people don't support. But the very existence of the military is Congressional authority, RIGHT OF LIFE is not under congressional authority and that is what abortion deals with.
There is that, and this is another of one of many many things that led me to question whether conservative libertarianism was oxymoronic in the first place.
Has there been a vote on the military issue? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Then how do you know he does or does not 'support any of those efforts'.
But it must protect the right to life. So the existence of the military (optional) has a major difference with the duty to protect the right to life which abortion (according to some) takes away. Yeah, it is.
