Netherlands moves on abortion funding after Trump reinstates 'gag rule' - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Netherlands moves on abortion funding after Trump reinstates 'gag rule'

£0.00 @
Dutch official: "Banning abortion does not reduce the number of abortions" On Monday, Trump signed an executive order, widely known as the "global gag rule," which bars international nongovernmenta… Read More
MrScotchBonnet Avatar
banned5m, 3w agoPosted 5 months, 3 weeks ago
Dutch official: "Banning abortion does not reduce the number of abortions"

On Monday, Trump signed an executive order, widely known as the "global gag rule," which bars international nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortions from receiving US government funding.

https://s30.postimg.org/q4mx1mm8h/screenshot_edition_cnn_com_2017_01_26_10_38_28.png

During the Obama years, US law banned direct funding for abortion services, but nongovernmental organizations were allowed to receive funding for other programs, including those related to contraception access and post-abortion care.

According to the Dutch government, the new fund would allow women in developing nations to gain access to contraceptives, clear information and abortion.
"We have to make up as much as possible for this financial blow, with a broad-based fund that governments, companies and civil society organizations can donate to," Ploumen said.
"So that women can continue to make their own decisions about their own bodies."

http://www.hercampus.com/sites/default/files/2016/02/02/tumblr_louqj5ibcC1qk48q1o1_500.png
MrScotchBonnet Avatar
banned5m, 3w agoPosted 5 months, 3 weeks ago
Options

All Comments

(35) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
banned 5 Likes #1
News flash Trump. Abortions still happen even when it's illegal. The difference is that they aren't safe and done by a doctor.
4 Likes #2
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
8 Likes #3
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.

Because it saves women's lives.

That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
1 Like #4
And her taxes too, presumedly?
3 Likes #5
Maybe the Mexican govt will pay?
banned 1 Like #6
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.

Some of these women would have been raped lets not forget.
2 Likes #7
MrScotchBonnet
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.

Some of these women would have been raped lets not forget.


I'm sure the Trumpster has an opinion on what the definition of rape is!
1 Like #8
MrScotchBonnet
News flash Trump. Abortions still happen even when it's illegal. The difference is that they aren't safe and done by a doctor.
Totally agree, bad bad move.
2 Likes #9
So in our modern civilised society where the pregnancy is between consenting adults it's okay to kill a healthy 20 week old baby?
2 Likes #10
sowotsdis
So in our modern civilised society where the pregnancy is between consenting adults it's okay to kill a healthy 20 week old baby?

It's legal yes. 'OK' is more of a moral question.

This is about the provision of terminations, not the morality of up to which week they should be offered.
2 Likes #11
sowotsdis
So in our modern civilised society where the pregnancy is between consenting adults it's okay to kill a healthy 20 week old baby?

Of course it is.
1 Like #12
Vanderlust
And her taxes too, presumedly?


no this is saying the usa will not fund abortion in foreign countries. this will stop usa tax payers paying for abortions in Africa for example.
1 Like #13
MrScotchBonnet
News flash Trump. Abortions still happen even when it's illegal. The difference is that they aren't safe and done by a doctor.


.... they aren't illegal, you know the difference between public funding activities and criminalising them, right? perhaps you don't....
2 Likes #14
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.

That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?

Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
1 Like #15
MrScotchBonnet
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Some of these women would have been raped lets not forget.

So for you, what matters is the philosophical provenance of the action rather than the morality of the action. But regardless, youre still conflating illegality with financial responsibility.
1 Like #16
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
sowotsdis
So in our modern civilised society where the pregnancy is between consenting adults it's okay to kill a healthy 20 week old baby?
It's legal yes. 'OK' is more of a moral question.

This is about the provision of terminations, not the morality of up to which week they should be offered.


Incorrect! this about who payes for the provisioning of the service, not the provisioning of the service itself. Please don't conflate the two as the position is unsound.
1 Like #17
MrScotchBonnet
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.

Some of these women would have been raped lets not forget.


and yet we have Ireland and their laws.
1 Like #18
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.

You need to know what a 'real man' is and how provision and education of legal abortions saves women's lives? Is that the level we're operating at?

I understand the religious right's objections to abortions but the truth is they endanger women's lives and increase the number of children in poverty. That's a situation made worse by the global gag rule in countries where NGOs were helping and educating vulnerable women.

I can understand the political motivation for Trump because it plays to his base but I can't understand how a man raised in this country could defend it, unless they truly believe taxpayers' money is more important than women's health.

That to me isn't the sign of a 'real man'.
1 Like #19
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
You need to know what a 'real man' is and how provision and education of legal abortions saves women's lives? Is that the level we're operating at?

No. It isn't. The level we are operating at is the conflation of fiscal responsibility with legality. You seem to not understand the difference between the two, which is ..... concerning.

I understand the religious right's objections to abortions

this is fallacious and a strawman arguement given that no one stated anything to do with religion. There are ethical moral and professional positions on this subject which you're failing to address
but the truth is they endanger women's lives

So truth is a claim and claims require evidence (data + context) please cite where religious objections to abortion are directly Causal to the health of a woman who is pregnant.... there isn't any because you're arguement is malformed. I think what you are trying to say is that the cause effect relationship between religious objection to this activity results in negative outcomes.... which again is a claim that requires evidence


and increase the number of children in poverty.

evidence please

That's a situation made worse by the global gag rule in countries where NGOs were helping and educating vulnerable women.

evidence please. And define vulnerable

I can understand the political motivation for Trump because it plays to his base
but I can't understand how a man raised in this country could defend it, unless they truly believe taxpayers' money is more important than women's health.

strawman arguement. You're inability to comprehend that there are other reasons outside of own, quite disturbing thoughts on the matter - ie you're claiming all men And women who object are doing so for financial reason, which is conflating many issues: moral ethical professional positions, legality, fiscal responsibility, education, all together

That to me isn't the sign of a 'real man'.

so what. So basically those that disagree with you aren't "real men" even if those same positions for same reasons are women..... logically flawed and fallacious

Open the quote and the responses to your "arguements" highlighted in bold.


Edited By: t3hfunk3r on Jan 26, 2017 13:44
1 Like #20
My argument was based on a moral obligation for the United States to help others. You obviously don't accept that and we'll not find any common ground because the gap between us is one thing;

empathy.

I know that more and more young men struggle with this and there are reasons for that beyond your control. I wish you the best with your life.
2 Likes #21
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.

My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
2 Likes #22
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
My argument was based on a moral obligation for the United States to help others. You obviously don't accept that and we'll not find any common ground because the gap between us is one thing;
empathy.
I know that more and more young men struggle with this and there are reasons for that beyond your control. I wish you the best with your life.


I'm a woman
1 Like #23
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.

Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
1 Like #24
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see

Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.
2 Likes #25
If a woman was raped and wanted an abortion she should be entitled to one free of charge. If a woman got pregnant of her own accord and wanted an abortion then she should be made to pay for the abortion.
banned 1 Like #26
Surely if the girl doesn't want it, and the guy agrees, they should be allowed to decide this privately ?
1 Like #27
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.

If you actually care I would suggest reading first principles of philosophy, You can only get something for nothing if you have previously gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.

The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so. The society you speak of is simply the zietgeist of social norms. Libertarians reject these as violations of first principles. I.e. Taxation or theft by means of coercion is a violation of the Non agression principle therefore taxation is wrong. The absence of taxation would not preclude individuals from establishing entities to collect volunteered contributions from interest parties. In fact, this is by far a more effective method of distribution or resources as only those entities deemed valuable to those indivuals within "society" would exist and the extent of influence they would have would directly correspond to the value (contributions) individuals made to such entities. For example, social secuirty requires government to tax individuals universally without consideration for the individuals needs. Take a 30 year old individual that has been diagnosed with terminal cancer with a prognosis of 18 months. Is it just for this individual to pay social secuirty into a fund to which he or she will never access? Is it not more just to allow the individual to opt out of social security in order to save directly for themself and to use the money they save at their own discretion? For example, providing a little more insurance for any potential partner or child that individual has.

The problem with socialised anything is at some point the system will require coercion in order to sustain it. For example, I pay £450 per month for socialised medicine. A private plan would cost far less and provide better coverage overall particular to my health scenario, yet law precludes me from opting out. So the question is why? The answer is simple, it's a Ponzi scheme that requires either new customers in at the bottom or increases in contributions from existing customers.

Remember liberty is about freedom to exercise you're own decisions at your own cost and risk. Some people make bad choices, some people make good choices. Why should those that make good be held back by those that make bad.
1 Like #28
hass123
If a woman was raped and wanted an abortion she should be entitled to one free of charge. If a woman got pregnant of her own accord and wanted an abortion then she should be made to pay for the abortion.


There is no such thing as free of charge. You mean free at point of need. Which is fine, there are plenty of charities that exist that do this (absent any moral or ethical implications on the decision).. you don't need tax payers to fund this.

A woman that "wants an abortion" is a different scenario to rape and has very real morally questionable connotations. Why does the want of a female override the right to life of an unborn child. Before you answer this please look up a baby at 12 weeks old and tell me that it is a just position.

If you believe the right of a woman to control her body trumps the right to life of an unborn child then I assume you're also in favour and an advocate for legalising all drugs.

Edited By: t3hfunk3r on Jan 27, 2017 00:32
2 Likes #29
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.
If you actually care I would suggest reading first principles of philosophy, You can only get something for nothing if you have previously gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.
The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so. The society you speak of is simply the zietgeist of social norms. Libertarians reject these as violations of first principles. I.e. Taxation or theft by means of coercion is a violation of the Non agression principle therefore taxation is wrong. The absence of taxation would not preclude individuals from establishing entities to collect volunteered contributions from interest parties. In fact, this is by far a more effective method of distribution or resources as only those entities deemed valuable to those indivuals within "society" would exist and the extent of influence they would have would directly correspond to the value (contributions) individuals made to such entities. For example, social secuirty requires government to tax individuals universally without consideration for the individuals needs. Take a 30 year old individual that has been diagnosed with terminal cancer with a prognosis of 18 months. Is it just for this individual to pay social secuirty into a fund to which he or she will never access? Is it not more just to allow the individual to opt out of social security in order to save directly for themself and to use the money they save at their own discretion? For example, providing a little more insurance for any potential partner or child that individual has.
The problem with socialised anything is at some point the system will require coercion in order to sustain it. For example, I pay £450 per month for socialised medicine. A private plan would cost far less and provide better coverage overall particular to my health scenario, yet law precludes me from opting out. So the question is why? The answer is simple, it's a Ponzi scheme that requires either new customers in at the bottom or increases in contributions from existing customers.
Remember liberty is about freedom to exercise you're own decisions at your own cost and risk. Some people make bad choices, some people make good choices. Why should those that make good be held back by those that make bad.
May I need the words compassion, interdependence and community, freedom comes with these huamnities too.
Liberty as you said is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views. There is no pre-requisite as to who, how many, where the sources are that afford you liberty. For example, you get liberty after being educated and many sources contribute to this liberty. It is wrong to say freedom is to exercise your own decisions at your own cost and risk. This is because freedom and liberty typically come from a combination of constitution, legal system, social justice, nationhood, community, parents and extended familes, friend etc. All these external factors contribute to your freedom and liberty without you even having to bat an eyelid. Take the Sales of Goods Act or its replacement, your freedom and liberty are enshrined in statue, sacrifices made by others in legal precedents, without you even havingg to make your decision and spend a penny in legal costs.
1 Like #30
t3hfunk3r
hass123
If a woman was raped and wanted an abortion she should be entitled to one free of charge. If a woman got pregnant of her own accord and wanted an abortion then she should be made to pay for the abortion.
There is no such thing as free of charge. You mean free at point of need. Which is fine, there are plenty of charities that exist that do this (absent any moral or ethical implications on the decision).. you don't need tax payers to fund this.
A woman that "wants an abortion" is a different scenario to rape and has very real morally questionable connotations. Why does the want of a female override the right to life of an unborn child. Before you answer this please look up a baby at 12 weeks old and tell me that it is a just position.
If you believe the right of a woman to control her body trumps the right to life of an unborn child then I assume you're also in favour and an advocate for legalising all drugs.

A 12 week old fetus isn't a baby regardless of what it looks like. The mother's rights to her own body are to me much more important than your desire to force her to take a pregnancy to term based on your own moral issues.
1 Like #31
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.
If you actually care I would suggest reading first principles of philosophy, You can only get something for nothing if you have previously gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.

The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so. The society you speak of is simply the zietgeist of social norms. Libertarians reject these as violations of first principles. I.e. Taxation or theft by means of coercion is a violation of the Non agression principle therefore taxation is wrong. The absence of taxation would not preclude individuals from establishing entities to collect volunteered contributions from interest parties. In fact, this is by far a more effective method of distribution or resources as only those entities deemed valuable to those indivuals within "society" would exist and the extent of influence they would have would directly correspond to the value (contributions) individuals made to such entities. For example, social secuirty requires government to tax individuals universally without consideration for the individuals needs. Take a 30 year old individual that has been diagnosed with terminal cancer with a prognosis of 18 months. Is it just for this individual to pay social secuirty into a fund to which he or she will never access? Is it not more just to allow the individual to opt out of social security in order to save directly for themself and to use the money they save at their own discretion? For example, providing a little more insurance for any potential partner or child that individual has.

The problem with socialised anything is at some point the system will require coercion in order to sustain it. For example, I pay £450 per month for socialised medicine. A private plan would cost far less and provide better coverage overall particular to my health scenario, yet law precludes me from opting out. So the question is why? The answer is simple, it's a Ponzi scheme that requires either new customers in at the bottom or increases in contributions from existing customers.

Remember liberty is about freedom to exercise you're own decisions at your own cost and risk. Some people make bad choices, some people make good choices. Why should those that make good be held back by those that make bad.

So your saying we should look to the american form of healthcare as a guide? Laughable.
#32
splender
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.
If you actually care I would suggest reading first principles of philosophy, You can only get something for nothing if you have previously gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.
The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so. The society you speak of is simply the zietgeist of social norms. Libertarians reject these as violations of first principles. I.e. Taxation or theft by means of coercion is a violation of the Non agression principle therefore taxation is wrong. The absence of taxation would not preclude individuals from establishing entities to collect volunteered contributions from interest parties. In fact, this is by far a more effective method of distribution or resources as only those entities deemed valuable to those indivuals within "society" would exist and the extent of influence they would have would directly correspond to the value (contributions) individuals made to such entities. For example, social secuirty requires government to tax individuals universally without consideration for the individuals needs. Take a 30 year old individual that has been diagnosed with terminal cancer with a prognosis of 18 months. Is it just for this individual to pay social secuirty into a fund to which he or she will never access? Is it not more just to allow the individual to opt out of social security in order to save directly for themself and to use the money they save at their own discretion? For example, providing a little more insurance for any potential partner or child that individual has.
The problem with socialised anything is at some point the system will require coercion in order to sustain it. For example, I pay £450 per month for socialised medicine. A private plan would cost far less and provide better coverage overall particular to my health scenario, yet law precludes me from opting out. So the question is why? The answer is simple, it's a Ponzi scheme that requires either new customers in at the bottom or increases in contributions from existing customers.
Remember liberty is about freedom to exercise you're own decisions at your own cost and risk. Some people make bad choices, some people make good choices. Why should those that make good be held back by those that make bad.
May I need the words compassion, interdependence and community, freedom comes with these huamnities too.
Liberty as you said is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views. There is no pre-requisite as to who, how many, where the sources are that afford you liberty. For example, you get liberty after being educated and many sources contribute to this liberty. It is wrong to say freedom is to exercise your own decisions at your own cost and risk. This is because freedom and liberty typically come from a combination of constitution, legal system, social justice, nationhood, community, parents and extended familes, friend etc. All these external factors contribute to your freedom and liberty without you even having to bat an eyelid. Take the Sales of Goods Act or its replacement, your freedom and liberty are enshrined in statue, sacrifices made by others in legal precedents, without you even havingg to make your decision and spend a penny in legal costs.


Logical errors. Liberty is not derived from law. In fact, legal systems constrict liberty to varying degrees. This is especially true of statutes; for example, sales of good acts removes the freedom for companies to supply goods at cheaper costs to consumers due to mandatory requirements placed upon them. This also reduces the freedom of the consumer to purchase goods at lower costs particular to their needs and at their own risk. The question here is one of coercion. There's none question that violations of first principles such as aggressive behaviour are wrong, and here jn lies the problem. As soon as you insert legal statute into private transactions you remove liberty to varying degrees.

Looks these things are a lot more nuanced than what youre presenting and you need to get at the fundamental principles that are at play
#33
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.
If you actually care I would suggest reading first principles of philosophy, You can only get something for nothing if you have previously gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.

The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so. The society you speak of is simply the zietgeist of social norms. Libertarians reject these as violations of first principles. I.e. Taxation or theft by means of coercion is a violation of the Non agression principle therefore taxation is wrong. The absence of taxation would not preclude individuals from establishing entities to collect volunteered contributions from interest parties. In fact, this is by far a more effective method of distribution or resources as only those entities deemed valuable to those indivuals within "society" would exist and the extent of influence they would have would directly correspond to the value (contributions) individuals made to such entities. For example, social secuirty requires government to tax individuals universally without consideration for the individuals needs. Take a 30 year old individual that has been diagnosed with terminal cancer with a prognosis of 18 months. Is it just for this individual to pay social secuirty into a fund to which he or she will never access? Is it not more just to allow the individual to opt out of social security in order to save directly for themself and to use the money they save at their own discretion? For example, providing a little more insurance for any potential partner or child that individual has.

The problem with socialised anything is at some point the system will require coercion in order to sustain it. For example, I pay £450 per month for socialised medicine. A private plan would cost far less and provide better coverage overall particular to my health scenario, yet law precludes me from opting out. So the question is why? The answer is simple, it's a Ponzi scheme that requires either new customers in at the bottom or increases in contributions from existing customers.

Remember liberty is about freedom to exercise you're own decisions at your own cost and risk. Some people make bad choices, some people make good choices. Why should those that make good be held back by those that make bad.
So your saying we should look to the american form of healthcare as a guide? Laughable.

Not an arguement.
#34
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
hass123
If a woman was raped and wanted an abortion she should be entitled to one free of charge. If a woman got pregnant of her own accord and wanted an abortion then she should be made to pay for the abortion.
There is no such thing as free of charge. You mean free at point of need. Which is fine, there are plenty of charities that exist that do this (absent any moral or ethical implications on the decision).. you don't need tax payers to fund this.
A woman that "wants an abortion" is a different scenario to rape and has very real morally questionable connotations. Why does the want of a female override the right to life of an unborn child. Before you answer this please look up a baby at 12 weeks old and tell me that it is a just position.
If you believe the right of a woman to control her body trumps the right to life of an unborn child then I assume you're also in favour and an advocate for legalising all drugs.
A 12 week old fetus isn't a baby regardless of what it looks like. The mother's rights to her own body are to me much more important than your desire to force her to take a pregnancy to term based on your own moral issues.

Its would be interesting to understand at what point you consider life to become protected. The problem is that science is pushing that point at which life outside the womb becomes viable back further and further. I have no desire to force anyone to do anything. Let me make that explicitly clear. My thoughts are that you make your own life choices and own the consequences of them. If you have sex and become pregnant and want to abort the unborn child, then that is a decision I think you should be free to choose - and pay for. Equally i think a
Doctors should be free to choose to not perform the procedure. Pay for your own decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions.
#35
t3hfunk3r
splender
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
brendanhickey
why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for
CoeK
t3hfunk3r
HotEnglishAndWelshDeals
[quote=brendanhickey] why should the usa pay for abortions? her body, her choice, her bill.
Because it saves women's lives.
That's all a real man needs to hear to understand the reasons for this isn't it?
Not sure whether this is sarcasm or not. For clarity, you'll need to define "real man" and put "saves women's lives" into context.... The situation isn't whether this is illegal, its a question of who pays for it. Coercion is not a nice thing more so when tax payers that are against this kind of thing are required to fund something they morally, ethically, and professionally disagree with.
My tax money goes on a lot of things i disagree with, it's the same for everyone.
Correct. Which is why coercion ie taxation / theft at the threat of punishment is also wrong.... you see
Not really no. I can't think of a better way to fund public services and have a functioning society.
If you actually care I would suggest reading first principles of philosophy, You can only get something for nothing if you have previously gotten nothing for something." If one individual or group gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.
The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so. The society you speak of is simply the zietgeist of social norms. Libertarians reject these as violations of first principles. I.e. Taxation or theft by means of coercion is a violation of the Non agression principle therefore taxation is wrong. The absence of taxation would not preclude individuals from establishing entities to collect volunteered contributions from interest parties. In fact, this is by far a more effective method of distribution or resources as only those entities deemed valuable to those indivuals within "society" would exist and the extent of influence they would have would directly correspond to the value (contributions) individuals made to such entities. For example, social secuirty requires government to tax individuals universally without consideration for the individuals needs. Take a 30 year old individual that has been diagnosed with terminal cancer with a prognosis of 18 months. Is it just for this individual to pay social secuirty into a fund to which he or she will never access? Is it not more just to allow the individual to opt out of social security in order to save directly for themself and to use the money they save at their own discretion? For example, providing a little more insurance for any potential partner or child that individual has.
The problem with socialised anything is at some point the system will require coercion in order to sustain it. For example, I pay £450 per month for socialised medicine. A private plan would cost far less and provide better coverage overall particular to my health scenario, yet law precludes me from opting out. So the question is why? The answer is simple, it's a Ponzi scheme that requires either new customers in at the bottom or increases in contributions from existing customers.
Remember liberty is about freedom to exercise you're own decisions at your own cost and risk. Some people make bad choices, some people make good choices. Why should those that make good be held back by those that make bad.
May I need the words compassion, interdependence and community, freedom comes with these huamnities too.
Liberty as you said is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views. There is no pre-requisite as to who, how many, where the sources are that afford you liberty. For example, you get liberty after being educated and many sources contribute to this liberty. It is wrong to say freedom is to exercise your own decisions at your own cost and risk. This is because freedom and liberty typically come from a combination of constitution, legal system, social justice, nationhood, community, parents and extended familes, friend etc. All these external factors contribute to your freedom and liberty without you even having to bat an eyelid. Take the Sales of Goods Act or its replacement, your freedom and liberty are enshrined in statue, sacrifices made by others in legal precedents, without you even havingg to make your decision and spend a penny in legal costs.
Logical errors. Liberty is not derived from law. In fact, legal systems constrict liberty to varying degrees. This is especially true of statutes; for example, sales of good acts removes the freedom for companies to supply goods at cheaper costs to consumers due to mandatory requirements placed upon them. This also reduces the freedom of the consumer to purchase goods at lower costs particular to their needs and at their own risk. The question here is one of coercion. There's none question that violations of first principles such as aggressive behaviour are wrong, and here jn lies the problem. As soon as you insert legal statute into private transactions you remove liberty to varying degrees.
Looks these things are a lot more nuanced than what youre presenting and you need to get at the fundamental principles that are at play
Liberty and freedom come from law and not from law as some is codified and most is not, I only used one act of liberty out of thousands and what I illustrated is not supposed to be exclusively of all the other thousands of examples.
.
My single example illustrates liberty and how it may not be sourced from within oneself (as you have state thus, "The argument goes that there is no such thing as society simply indivuals making their own decisions and exercising the liberty to do so.")
.
You are asserting that there is NO such thing as society, but this is clearly irrational, as society also provides for liberty (such as that one legal example that I had used, but before it became codified in law, it was liberty then or no libert).

Edited By: splender on Jan 28, 2017 23:52

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!