Originally posted by thunderlady
He does not believe in a woman's right to have autonomy over her own body. This defines him as a misogynist.
And he doesn't believe in taxes which means no public funding for roads or fire departments, etc.
What's so confusing about this? You're the one who supports him; you should know all this.
Not believing in abortion does not make him a woman hater.
As far as taxes go, he does believe in taxes, just not the way they are now collected. He first proposed a national sales tax for many, many years
ago, which would eliminate the IRS bureaucracy and the millions upon millions of dollars wasted in running it. Plus, it would generate revenues from
individuals and commerce that currently don't pay taxes, such as: those involved in prostitution, drugs, illegal gaming, etc.
Beyond that, National Income Taxes have been imposed several times throughout our history to support war efforts, and this latest tax imposed by the
16th Amendment was never properly ratified by Congress, and to my knowledge wasalso supposed to be short term solution imposed in support of funding
our efforts in WW1.
With a national sales tax, you would pay taxes one time, when you spent the money your earned, instead of paying taxes both when you earn the money,
and when you spend it. And, it would take the burden of collection off the backs of employers.
I am all for abolishment of the IRS and establishing a national sales tax.
As to the abortion issue, I don't really stand solidly on either side of the fence: I believe that if a women gets pregnant unintentionally and
wants to terminate that pregnancy she should be entitled to do so, once or maybe twice. But, if she's had numerous pregnancies terminated and uses
abortion as a method of birth control, then at some point she should be denied further abortions.
And, I strongly believe that it's not just the womens decision! If a women can decide against abortion in an unwanted pregnancy, then force the
father to pay chid support, whether he wanted the child or not, then the father SHOULD have a say.
If the woman can burden the father with 18 years worth of child support, then WTF can't she be burdened with 9 months of pregnancy if he were to
want the child.
I'm all for womens rights, and yes a womens body is hers. But, when she's chosen to share her body with someone else and becomes pregnant as a
result, thus gaining the right to tap into his pocket book for the next 18 years, he should also earn the right to decide against her getting an
abortion, if he is willing to take custody of the child and the responsibilities that go with having a child.