Arguing About Abortion

[HarryStotle]

I understand that it’s extremely uncomfortable to be very pro life and yet pay taxes that pay for abortion benefits. May I also be uncomfortable with my taxes being higher to compensate for the tax free status of religion?

I’m not stating that I actually want to eliminate the tax free status of religion but it is true that if religion were taxed, the burden on everyone’s taxes would be less.

How about those that object to monies paid to our military due to being anti war or conflict?

Everyone pays some portion of their taxes that benefit something they object to…often on religious grounds or personal worldview. I don’t want to pay for abortions. I also don’t want to pay for religions to have tax free status. Just something to think about.

There are differences that you are failing to acknowledge.

The “tax free” status of religion simply means that donations to religious organizations are not taxable and do not count as income. Atheist taxes do not go to fund religious organizations.

That is not the same thing as taxpayer funded abortions where taxpayers pay for abortions despite that they have a conscientious objection to them. The cases would be the same if religions were state funded. That is not the case.

As to monies paid to the military, national security is a benefit to everyone in the nation whether they appreciate that or not. Now a good debate to be had is how and when military expenses are apportioned in the best interests of the people, but that doesn’t imply military expenditures are without value at all to the country. What would the dissenters say when their country is invaded by another? I suppose they would have no preferences as to who rules them — Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Eisenhower?

 

[Pattylt]

The “tax free” status of religion simply means that donations to religious organizations are not taxable and do not count as income. Atheist taxes do not go to fund religious organizations.

No, it goes beyond that to include housing and their media and book sales and missionary expenses. It’s why Scientologist fought to be declared a religion. Millions of dollars of profits by these organizations are tax free.

I agree about the military and I have no objection but many religious practices do…JWs and Quakers comes to mind.

Many people have conscientious objections to where portions of their taxes go…do we accommodate all of them?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Amen. Sacredness of every vulnerable human life is decidedly Christian.
And we know that only GOD through The Divine Mediation of JESUS The Beloved Divine Anointed One with The Holy Spirit, always seeks hearts, souls, and minds.
We, by commission, out of knowing & loving God and neighbor diligently inform
for the welfare of others. We fall short of the deep concern of JESUS, but receive Divine Favor (Grace) to do out of self-giving (washing other’s feet) - concern for others. As The Holy Bible says, GOD takes no pleasure in someone choosing Eternal separation from GOD.
The days in which we live have been foretold, not only in The Holy Bible,
(i.e. Daniel (for example, increase of knowledge), Matthew 24, Revelation)
but in specifics by the likes of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. The exaltation of human reason over the precepts of GOD is nothing new; and recent rapid communication has seem a world wide explosion of this. So often,
sincere Judaeo-Christianity expressed by flawed public figures is mocked and ridiculed. We are called, ‘old-fashioned,’ ‘unkind,’ ‘exclusive,’ ‘non-multicultural,’ ‘hateful,’ and more for adhering to Salvation by Divine Favor of JESUS and His Merits so GOD can complete transformation of each of us.
This is re-mindful of Neron Caesar (his number adds to six hundred and three score six in the Hebrew numbering system, 616 in the Latin), blaming Christians, ‘the troublesome sect,’ for things like the fires in Rome. Just like Christian haters in Rome required Christians to bow to Nero’s image(head) or use coins with Nero’s image(hand), the biased educational, media, political faction world system keeps insisting on conformity to things diametrically opposed to GOD and GOD’s ways to be accepted. Including, some in The Church insisting that complacency with the radical secular humanist ‘truth is relative’ social constructionist moral relativist culture of death is a necessary evil for other efforts to help the poor and marginalized. Bishop Sheen expressing that there will be massive bloodshed because of this happened before 1950.
~
He said that the more diligent of the ideals of promoting the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ by supporting Godliness in government and other venues would decrease because there would be greatly diminished focus on teaching growth in individual & families accepting Divine Favor (Grace) to be Godly, all the while a counter-Church would focus on a so-called ‘new’ humanitarianism as solutions to address the ills of humanity. This sure has come true.
Peace.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

"“Why is it that so few realize the seriousness of our present crisis?” he asked 72 years ago. Then gave the answer: “Partly because men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because it involves too much self-accusation, and principally because they have no standards outside of themselves by which to measure their times… Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world. The great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on.”

source: Did Fulton Sheen Prophesy About These Times?| National Catholic Register

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The “tax free” status of religion simply means that donations to religious organizations are not taxable and do not count as income. Atheist taxes do not go to fund religious organizations.

No, it goes beyond that to include housing and their media and book sales and missionary expenses. It’s why Scientologist fought to be declared a religion. Millions of dollars of profits by these organizations are tax free.

I suspect you are mistaken.

For example, clergy salaries and other income are taxable.

Regardless of whether you’re a minister performing ministerial services as an employee or a self-employed person, all of your earnings, including wages, offerings, and fees you receive for performing marriages, baptisms, funerals, etc., are subject to income tax.

There are some “allowances” for furnished (i.e., provided to) accommodations but that isn’t very different from arrangements in other occupations where accommodations are integral to the position — a “business expense” of sorts.

A minister who is furnished a parsonage may exclude from gross income the fair rental value of the parsonage, including utilities. However, the amount excluded can’t be more than reasonable compensation for the minister’s services.

Could you provide some actual evidence for your claim that “Millions of dollars of profits by these organizations are tax free”?

 

[HarryStotle]

I agree about the military and I have no objection but many religious practices do…JWs and Quakers comes to mind.

The differences are that JWs and Quakers are beneficiaries of national security whether they agree with it or not.

Pro-life individuals do not benefit in any way from someone procuring an abortion. In fact, a good argument can be made that the moral fabric of society is harmed irrevocably when women can kill babies in the womb without restriction.

 

[Pattylt]

No argument from me here.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If Christianity is true and the Son of Man will indeed come to judge all mankind at the end of time, the criteria by which we will be judged is laid out very specifically in the above verse and sharply addresses the question of abortion.

Let’s break down those who did right and those who did not.

1. I was hungry and you gave me food
2. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink
3. I was a stranger and you welcomed me
4. I was naked and you gave me clothing
5. I was sick and you took care of me
6. I was in prison and you visited me.

Jesus, in his teachings, was both cryptic and pointedly clear. There are individuals in the realm of our existence who might fit one or more of those criteria for judgement, but I can only think of one case where someone fits ALL SIX of the criteria for being in need — the fetus in the womb.

Think about it.

The fetus is…

1. Hungry and completely reliant on someone else for food.
2. Thirsty and completely reliant on someone else for hydration.
3. A complete stranger entering the world who is unknown and ‘strange’ to everyone currently living.
4. Completely naked both physically and metaphorically (i.e., completely vulnerable to the elements).
5. “Sick” in the sense that they are incubated, being fed and hydrated intravenously. Without this life support they would die in short order.
6. They are “imprisoned” in a tiny cell, under solitary confinement, enduring a nine month sentence.

Seems to me that Jesus, by himself (God and King) becoming a vulnerable human being in the womb took on all six of those modes of existence for a purpose — I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was a stranger, I was naked, I was sick, I was in prison — in order to exemplify the most vulnerable state of human existence that we all ought to be most empathetic to.

When we lose that sense of identifying with the most vulnerable, we lose something of our humanity.

A non-Catholic will not care or find that convincing.

What you are doing is incentivizing irresponsible behaviour by putting the burden of funding it on those who are NOT making the choice to become pregnant (or risk doing so). So pro-life people will end up paying for it either by being taxed to fund abortions or through higher taxes to fund a system that incentivizes women engaging in risky sexual behaviour when they cannot afford the price and will not be held responsible.

It is still a better compromise that will help the unborn.

 

[Pattylt]

Could you provide some actual evidence for your claim that “Millions of dollars of profits by these organizations are tax free”?

Petition · Remove Tax-Exempt Status for Religious Institutions, Separate Church and State in Government - United States · Change.org

Start here to hear what the claims are (feel free to disagree)

Opinion: Churches' tax exempt status abused, manipulated for political gain | Daily | lsureveille.com

Article explaining abuses.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/18/789218067/whistleblower-says-mormon-church-abuses-its-tax-exempt-status

Another one regarding the Mormon church

Tax Exemption of Churches — Freedom From Religion Foundation

FFRF case explains all the rulings and arguments

Please note. Not all churches do these thing but many of the Mega churches and others do!

 

[Hume]

Well. Professor Singer also proposed that severely disabled infants ought to be aborted…

Sure, there’s all kinds of crazy out there. Crazy left and crazy right.

I don’t think it is an idea that will ever enjoy much traction.

The law requires parents to undergo parenthood too.

No it does not. You can abandon your kids at any time to adoption and foster systems, so the comparison here kinda breaks down demonstrably.

But we agree parenthood is an enormous responsibility. Maybe the biggest.

Which is why it should be the sole domain of the willing. Those that choose life.

That’s not true. I based my arguments on the life of the fetus being more important than bodily autonomy and also on the responsibility that the mother has for bringing it into existence in the first place.

Which are things you’ve not proven. These are just fiat. I disagree with them.

Since we can’t gain an argumentative edge, we must default to choice. Not life, not abortion. Choice.

We default to liberty which also allows abortion to be banned anyways so no one has the upperhand.

You only constrain individual liberty with a good argument. You’ve not made one. At least, you’ve not made one that’s convincing to people who weren’t already in your ideological bent.

I don’t mind giving money if that’s what it takes.

I applaud this.

Encourage your Republicans to vote for paid maternity leave and medicare for mom and baby, at least.

You’ll see the already low abortion rate go even lower, I bet!

First you claim you are matching a theistic reference, then you claim there wasn’t a theistic reference.

You’re just not keeping up with the discussion. You seem to switch directions, I graciously follow you and then you try to wallop me for doing so. You can’t both have and eat the cake, sir.

 

[Rau]

Rau:

The law requires parents to undergo parenthood too.

No it does not. You can abandon your kids at any time to adoption and foster systems, so the comparison here kinda breaks down demonstrably.

Did you miss the part where I said parenthood can’t be escaped by lethal means? That was the point given abortion is the topic…

 

[Hume]

Okay, so before I continue, I’d like to ask you a couple questions.

1. What is your definition of “bodily autonomy”?
2. Do all organisms of the Homo sapien species have a right to life?
3. At what point does a human have the right to life?
4. Is human life inherently good and valuable?

You’re absolutely welcome for the dialogue! I enjoy this type of discussion.

Good questions.

1. Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion
2. Not all homo sapiens have a right to life. The coma patient, for example, that has exhausted their insurance maximum, the hospital’s good will and their collective family fortune no longer has a right to life. The “plug” will be pulled on them shortly after that point.
3. A human begins having a right to life from conception. However, this right to life does not outweigh a mother’s right of bodily autonomy.
4. No. Not in any way I can objectively demonstrate. We’re one of many species on the planet, which has lost 99.9% of it’s species since formation.

Fire away.

I’m going to repeat my post, not to be obnoxious, but…

Sorry, been away from this thread for a bit.

How about we have those who support abortion be taxed to pay for women who have them, while pro-life people be exempted from paying those kinds of “user” fees?

This is largely the status quo now. If a state-expansion of medicaid covers abortion where you live, lobby your state to end that expansion.

What you are doing is incentivizing irresponsible behaviour

And what you’re doing is enslaving women and exposing them to danger that might even take their life.

I think what you’re doing is worse.

So you wouldn’t advocate using “your shotgun” on every innocent being that came into your house after you left the door open, are you?

If they refuse to leave, call the cops. They’ll escort them out. If they refuse after that, yes, someone’s going to use force.

This is a life your responsible for bringing into existence.

I agree with that to a good extent. I just think that the woman also has the option of cancelling that responsibility before it’s born. Like when we breach any bad contract.

 

[Hume]

Furthermore, there are two ways of emptying a child from a womb without killing the child. The first is natural childbirth, and the latter is surgically.
Knowing that, will you support laws discouraging abortion?

Hi Jochoa,

The idea here is that a woman may not want to risk the perils of pregnancy that she has to go through to get to the point where the child can be viably removed from her womb.

As it’s her body, I think she simply has the right to make that decision. There are no risk free pregnancies and the mast majority of women are permanently changed by it in a physical way.

If she’s not fine with that, we’ve no right to make her do it.

The river does not keep women in poverty.

Of the 6 primary drivers of multi-generational poverty, yes. Yes it does.

Now you have changed the river to mean something else which makes no sense.

No, I’ve this is where your analogue breaks down.

May I also be uncomfortable with my taxes being higher to compensate for the tax free status of religion?

Excellent, excellent point.

My property taxes would drop observably if every church and church employee began paying property taxes too.

I’m in the bible belt and boy they’re everywhere. Caused by the classic evangelical problem where the fried chicken was cooked wrong one Wednesday night and the church schismed over it.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Rau:

The law requires parents to undergo parenthood too.

No it does not. You can abandon your kids at any time to adoption and foster systems, so the comparison here kinda breaks down demonstrably.

Did you miss the part where I said parenthood can’t be escaped by lethal means? That was the point given abortion is the topic…

Sure, this is why abortion is different.

If you gave a way for a woman to free herself from pregnancy 6 weeks in without killing the fetus, I’d be happy to ban abortion tomorrow.

No, today! Right now!

 

[Rau]

Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion

When does this right materialize? When one is old enough to articulate it?

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one’s own body without external influence or coercion

When does this right materialize? When one is old enough to articulate it?

Birth is the best discrete point for both sides of the argument.

I might even consider the right to life and the right to bodily autonomy to be nearly the same thing.

 

[Rau]

Sure, this is why abortion is different.

If you gave a way for a woman to free herself from pregnancy 6 weeks in without killing the fetus, I’d be happy to ban abortion tomorrow.

No, today! Right now!

You still miss the point. But from your answer I conclude killing ones kids to escape parenthood is ok if they make demands on you (infringe bodily autonomy, and other freedoms), and no other less lethal means is available.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Sure, this is why abortion is different.

If you gave a way for a woman to free herself from pregnancy 6 weeks in without killing the fetus, I’d be happy to ban abortion tomorrow.

No, today! Right now!

You still miss the point. But from your answer I conclude killing ones kids to escape parenthood is ok if they make demands on you (infringe bodily autonomy, and other freedoms), and no other less lethal means is available.

But where this statement fails is that less lethal means are available.

 

[Rau]

Birth is the best discrete point for both sides of the argument.

An answer based on fiat!

I might even consider the right to life and the right to bodily autonomy to be nearly the same thing.

That thought might just have legs!

 

[Hume]

An answer based on fiat!

No, I’ve argued why that is several times.

Read the thread. None of these are new questions.

That thought might just have legs!

Sure, and as we see in virtually every other species, mom comes first.

When the going gets tough, critters abandon their young. Sometimes they eat them for sustenance.

So mom comes first.