Taxes on abortion

[M14 Shooter]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Didn't the right attempt the same kind "behavior modification" when it tried to impose a "voting tax" by insisting that everyone must purchase some specific kind of "voter id" from the government? How did that work out for you in 2012?

 

[Cowman]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

 

[Agit8r]

...to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Answered your own question there, huh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

If the government was receiving $3,000 for each of the 1,000,000+ abortions per year they would be telling the right where to shove their objections.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm all for it! We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Didn't the right attempt the same kind "behavior modification" when it tried to impose a "voting tax" by insisting that everyone must purchase some specific kind of "voter id" from the government? How did that work out for you in 2012?

Your avoidance of the question leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

It doesnt have anything to do with raising revenue -- its a punitive tax, a tax desgined to restrict the exercise of the right.
I shall place you in the "It -is- constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Answered your own question there, huh?

I don't follow...?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

It doesnt have anything to do with raising revenue -- its a punitive tax, a tax desgined to restrict the exercise of the right.
I shall place you in the "It -is- constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.

You can put Obama on it also.. He supports taxes on Cigarettes.

 

[Agit8r]

...to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Answered your own question there, huh?

I don't follow...?

So... are there actually people out there that think that society would be better with unwanted children being more commonplace? Must be some form of superstitious nonsense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Pursuant to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html#post7074359

If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - the purchase and ownership of firearms in particular - can be heavily taxed to encourage or force people to not exercise said right for the "good" of society, why can't the same logic be applied to abortion?

Would punitive taxes on abortion, making it less attractive and affordable, be a legitimate means of limiting the number of abortions unterdaken each year and the number of innocent human lives ended for convenience?

The Constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, so that argument is out.

Didn't the right attempt the same kind "behavior modification" when it tried to impose a "voting tax" by insisting that everyone must purchase some specific kind of "voter id" from the government? How did that work out for you in 2012?

Your avoidance of the question leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.

Your label maker is irrelevant. The issue is behavior modification via taxation. It works to some extent but it has limitations. Small incremental tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol have had an impact on those behaviors because the funds were used to advertise the negative effects of those behaviors. The attempt by the right to modify voting behavior failed because it was seen for what it was, a patent attempt at voter suppression. A punitive tax on gun purchases is likely to be viewed in a similar manner and also fail. Ditto for a punitive tax on abortions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Answered your own question there, huh?

I don't follow...?

So... are there actually people out there that think that society would be better with unwanted children being more commonplace? Must be some form of superstitious nonsense.

That's a determination to be made by the legislators that passed the bill to that effect and the executive that signs it into law, in the name of their constituents. Presuming that there is such a law enacted, the determination that it -is- for the good of socierty; arguing against this only argues against the given and ignores the premise of the post.

So, to address that premise:
Do you or do you not bellieve that it is constitutionally premissible to levy a punitive tax on abortion?
If not, and remembering that the constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, please explain why not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Didn't the right attempt the same kind "behavior modification" when it tried to impose a "voting tax" by insisting that everyone must purchase some specific kind of "voter id" from the government? How did that work out for you in 2012?

Your avoidance of the question leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.

Your label maker is irrelevant. The issue is behavior modification via taxation. It works to some extent but it has limitations. Small incremental tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol have had an impact on those behaviors because the funds were used to advertise the negative effects of those behaviors. The attempt by the right to modify voting behavior failed because it was seen for what it was, a patent attempt at voter suppression. A punitive tax on gun purchases is likely to be viewed in a similar manner and also fail. Ditto for a punitive tax on abortions.

So, you do NOT beleive that that is is constitutionally acceptable to levy a punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms, just as it does not allow for punitive taxes on the exercise of the right to an abortion.
Correct?
Please explain your answer.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't follow...?

So... are there actually people out there that think that society would be better with unwanted children being more commonplace? Must be some form of superstitious nonsense.

That's a determination to be made by the legislators that passed the bill to that effect and the executive that signs it into law, in the name of their constituents. Presuming that there is such a law enacted, the determination that it -is- for the good of socierty; arguing against this only argues against the given and ignores the premise of the post.

So, to address that premise:
Do you or do you not bellieve that it is constitutionally premissible to levy a punitive tax on abortion?
If not, and remembering that the constitution does not prevent behavior modification taxes, please explain why not?

Sure it's constitutionally permissible. The precedent goes back to the whiskey tax. Doesn't mean it would be any better for the public peace, tough.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your avoidance of the question leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.

Your label maker is irrelevant. The issue is behavior modification via taxation. It works to some extent but it has limitations. Small incremental tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol have had an impact on those behaviors because the funds were used to advertise the negative effects of those behaviors. The attempt by the right to modify voting behavior failed because it was seen for what it was, a patent attempt at voter suppression. A punitive tax on gun purchases is likely to be viewed in a similar manner and also fail. Ditto for a punitive tax on abortions.

So, you do NOT beleive that that is is constitutionally acceptable to levy a punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms, just as it does not allow for punitive taxes on the exercise of the right to an abortion.
Correct?
Please explain your answer.

Taxation has been decided as "constitutionally acceptable" since the inception of the union. As far as "punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms" is concerned that occurred back in 1934. The subsequent "behavior modification" of that law is open to interpretation but the precedent of "punitive taxation" on gun purchases does exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your label maker is irrelevant. The issue is behavior modification via taxation. It works to some extent but it has limitations. Small incremental tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol have had an impact on those behaviors because the funds were used to advertise the negative effects of those behaviors. The attempt by the right to modify voting behavior failed because it was seen for what it was, a patent attempt at voter suppression. A punitive tax on gun purchases is likely to be viewed in a similar manner and also fail. Ditto for a punitive tax on abortions.

So, you do NOT beleive that that is is constitutionally acceptable to levy a punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms, just as it does not allow for punitive taxes on the exercise of the right to an abortion.
Correct?
Please explain your answer.

Taxation has been decided as "constitutionally acceptable" since the inception of the union. As far as "punitive taxes on the exercise of right to arms" is concerned that occurred back in 1934. The subsequent "behavior modification" of that law is open to interpretation but the precedent of "punitive taxation" on gun purchases does exist.

So, you agree that similar punitive taxes on abortion are constitutionally acceptable as well.
Correct?
If not, why not?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

No new taxes! Except when it suits us!

Conservative hypocrites. LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sounds good to me.

Two or three thousand dollar tax on each abortion would be nice with the money going to support children who have been born and put up for adoption.

I'm fine with taxes on abortion. But your outrageous gouging solely with the intent of discouragement because noone would be able to pay it, is ridiculous.

I like it though, that the people who scream against abortion are now suggesting as a possibility revenue generation for the government from doing it.

No new taxes! Except when it suits us!
Conservative hypocrites. LOL

Your avoidance of the primary issue leads me to believe you accept the soundness of the premise contained therein and wish to argue something else instead.
Thus, I'll place you in the "It is constitutionally OK to place a punitive tax on abortion" column.
Thank you.