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.

Punitive? Depends on your point of view.

No, it doesn't. The meaning of the word, in context, is clear.
Please address the question asked here.

 

[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.

There are more than two amendments. One of them deals with the right to privacy. You might want to consider looking that one up.

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.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Punitive? Depends on your point of view.

No, it doesn't. The meaning of the word, in context, is clear.
Please address the question asked here.

Sorry, I don't answer loaded questions.

 

[MondoBongo]

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.

You seem to think I give a rat's ass about you putting me in some imaginary column in a poll you created in your head. Either that or you're trying to put words in my mouth in an effort to flame me. I really don't give a shit which one it is, your response is stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

You seem to think I give a rat's ass about you putting me in some imaginary column in a poll you created in your head. Either that or you're trying to put words in my mouth in an effort to flame me. I really don't give a shit which one it is, your response is stupid.

You failed to address the premise offered in the OP, moving on to something unrelated - which can only mean that you accept the premise and wish to discuss some other detail.
if you disagree with ther premise, simply say so and state why.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Punitive? Depends on your point of view.

No, it doesn't. The meaning of the word, in context, is clear.
Please address the question asked here.

Sorry, I don't answer loaded questions.

The question is not loaded - you simply seek to avoid it.

 

[MondoBongo]

You failed to address the premise offered in the OP, moving on to something unrelated - which can only mean that you accept the premise and wish to discuss some other detail.
if you disagree with ther premise, simply say so and state why.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit? I did disagree with the premise and I clearly stated why. It's you who chose to ignore my statement and instead resort to childish flame baiting. I'll bet you're one of those people who declares himself a "winner" in an internet argument, aren't ya?

 

[MondoBongo]

No, it doesn't. The meaning of the word, in context, is clear.
Please address the question asked here.

Sorry, I don't answer loaded questions.

The question is not loaded - you simply seek to avoid it.

He was being polite. Obviously, by "loaded" he meant "stupid."

 

[candycorn]

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.

Boy, you guys can't get out of your own way. Women delivered the White House to Obama 6 months ago and even in bullshit theoretical arguments, the GOP war on women continues.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

And you would be correct in placing me in that column.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for what? For standing by my beliefs?

If you would endorse a tax on abortion in order to retaliate against a tax on guns, you're pussing out on your belief against the expansion of government and that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I don't believe that's the argument being placed forth. Liberals, as they argue, believe that taxes are a useful measure to deter "bad" behavior, as evidenced by their penchant for wanting taxes on guns and cigarettes. So why not place a tax on abortion, as well? Liberals, generally, will concede that abortion is "bad" and that they want to reduce its incidence, so why not levy a tax on it to reduce its incidence?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You failed to address the premise offered in the OP, moving on to something unrelated - which can only mean that you accept the premise and wish to discuss some other detail.
if you disagree with ther premise, simply say so and state why.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit? I did disagree with the premise and I clearly stated why. It's you who chose to ignore my statement and instead resort to childish flame baiting. I'll bet you're one of those people who declares himself a "winner" in an internet argument, aren't ya?

Correct me if I am wrong, but your response to the OP was:

There are more than two amendments. One of them deals with the right to privacy. You might want to consider looking that one up

Where in here is a disagreement with the premise and an explanation as to why?

 

[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.

Boy, you guys can't get out of your own way. Women delivered the White House to Obama 6 months ago and even in bullshit theoretical arguments, the GOP war on women continues.

As you failed to address the premise offered in the OP, and moved on to something unrelated, it can only mean that you accept the premise and wish to discuss some other detail.
I'll put you into the "it is constitutional acceptable to tax abortion" column. Thank you.

 

[MondoBongo]

Correct me if I am wrong, but your response to the OP was:

Where in here is a disagreement with the premise and an explanation as to why?

You cannot tax abortions because it would be a violation of an individuals right to privacy. How hard was that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And you would be correct in placing me in that column.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for what?

For stating your position, that a tax on abortion is constitutionally acceptable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't believe that's the argument being placed forth. Liberals, as they argue, believe that taxes are a useful measure to deter "bad" behavior, as evidenced by their penchant for wanting taxes on guns and cigarettes. So why not place a tax on abortion, as well? Liberals, generally, will concede that abortion is "bad" and that they want to reduce its incidence, so why not levy a tax on it to reduce its incidence?

If you believe it is constitutionally acceptable to put a punitive tax on guns, the you must, to remain consistent, have the same belief regarding a tax on abortion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct me if I am wrong, but your response to the OP was:
Where in here is a disagreement with the premise and an explanation as to why?

You cannot tax abortions because it would be a violation of an individuals right to privacy. How hard was that?

And so you agree with the position that you cannot tax the exercise of the right to arms because it would infringe upon that right and thus be a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Correct?

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but your response to the OP was:

Where in here is a disagreement with the premise and an explanation as to why?

You cannot tax abortions because it would be a violation of an individuals right to privacy. How hard was that?

That doesn't make any sense, least because (1) we do tax gun sales, of which gun ownership is a right enumerated by the Constitution (unlike "privacy rights", which are found somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution) and (2) assuming "privacy rights" do exist, you don't seem to have a problem taxing cigarettes, which seems to me would be a violation of that right.

 

[MondoBongo]

That doesn't make any sense, least because (1) we do tax gun sales, of which gun ownership is a right enumerated by the Constitution (unlike "privacy rights", which are found somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution) and (2) assuming "privacy rights" do exist, you don't seem to have a problem taxing cigarettes, which seems to me would be a violation of that right.

I'm sorry. You'll have to show me where laws have been passed stating that what guns a person buys and what brand of cigarettes he smokes are private. I, on the other hand, will simply point you to HIPAA. Those are laws, in place, regarding the privacy of one's medical care. Any tax on abortion would violate those laws. Your argument is invalid.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

That doesn't make any sense, least because (1) we do tax gun sales, of which gun ownership is a right enumerated by the Constitution (unlike "privacy rights", which are found somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution) and (2) assuming "privacy rights" do exist, you don't seem to have a problem taxing cigarettes, which seems to me would be a violation of that right.

I'm sorry. You'll have to show me where laws have been passed stating that what guns a person buys and what brand of cigarettes he smokes are private. I, on the other hand, will simply point you to HIPAA. Those are laws, in place, regarding the privacy of one's medical care. Any tax on abortion would violate those laws. Your argument is invalid.

Firstly, you're going to have to explain how you're defining "privacy rights" to be able to distinguish between choosing to smoke and having an abortion. One is a true private decision by any definition of the word (smoking), while the other is a stretch (abortion). At best, the line by which you're using to differentiate the two is completely arbitrary. HIPAA has no bearing on the validity of an argument, and unless you're going to turn around and argue that the whole "my body, my choice" mantra thrown out by the left is only applicable to abortion, then you don't have much in the way of an argument here.

But all in all, it's irrelevant, since smoking is only half of the equation. The right to own a gun is a right EXPLICITLY protected by the Constitution, and there is simply no way for you to argue that it's Constitutionally permissible to tax a right specifically protected by the Constitution because it's "bad" while arguing that it's impermissible to tax a right not explicitly granted by the Constitution because it's "bad". None.