It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crappy economy, fraud everywhere, 3 wars...and GOP passes anti-abortion bill

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


This bill will not affect taxes at all. The average cost of an abortion is probably around $500 source. The average person receiving an abortion will probably be in the 10% tax bracket because most of these women are under 25 and poor (see previous source). That means, at most, $50 (if we use the larger of the two tax brackets) was lost in tax revenue and at your 1.2 million abortion figure, that is about $60 million lost in revenue.

HOWEVER, most of these women CANNOT take the deduction because you have to be able to itemize (which meand your deductions have to be more than your standard $5,750 deduction for a single person) in order to deduct medical expenses. If you can itemize, which usually means you own a home which most women who receive abortions do not, you can only deduct the amount of expenses that are over 7.5% of your income. Let's just say for sh!!ts and giggles that most of these women are making $30K a year (very generous number) that means they can only take a deduction for medical expenses that are OVER $2,250. No abortion costs that much.

Then you have the employer insurance plans that may cover abortion. If they were forced to switch to a plan that doesn't cover it in order to continue receiving the deduction, they would not find one that is much less, meaning the tax deduction we remain roughly the same whether they have insurance that covers abortion or not.

Either way you cut it, the amount of federal tax dollars going to "subsidize" abortions is pretty much nill and is a drop in the barrel compared to the taxes we waste on killing human beings who are already breathing and conscious. Not to mention that fact that the taxpayer costs for unwanted babies (i.e. hospital costs, welfare, fostering, etc) is way more than the taxpayer dollars that go to fund abortions. Also, not to mention that reducing tax dollars that go to family planning services (i.e. places that provide low-cost or free contraception) increases the amount of abortions and unwanted pregnancies which are funded by tax payer dollars.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well said and very true. Coming from a costs perspective it makes absolutely no sense. Of course most know that this isn't about costs at all, it's about religious beliefs.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Great post nunya


Issues like this really highlight which citizens are actually concerned with the deficit and their fellow citizens versus the ones who have staked a rigidly iron ideological corner from which they will never allow themselves to be moved.

I'm pretty sure Marg is the only poster on this entire thread that even approached the fact that this would make the IRS police of a woman's body. Pretty much every response in "support" of the bill has been the "Well we must reduce the deficit" or "My taxes shouldn't pay for abortions" lines typically trotted out in this situation.

When we show those things don't have any bearing on this bill, the subject is quickly changed, the goal posts are moved, or the poster disappears into the internet sunset.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Thanks for that explanation I am still a littler bit concern about the bill itself.

Interesting that it shows that taxes will indeed affect people with this bill, if passed. Remember that this part of the health care reform was pushed by pro life activist but then was stripped in the final bill. But that doesn't mean it can not comeback to bite us in the rear end.


"This bill goes far beyond prohibiting federal funding [for abortion]," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY). "The real purpose and effect of this bill is to eliminate private health care choices for women by imposing significant tax penalties on families and small businesses when they use their own money to pay for health insurance or medical care.


From the sources.


"This bill is so extreme that it manipulates the tax code to advance anti-choice policies and could spur the IRS to audit rape and incest survivors who choose abortion care," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.


I really don't want the IRS to get any more powers, with the reputation and pass history they have.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


You will not think this way if you or a member in your family gets raped and become pregnant and with no personal money to pay for abortion of an unwanted child, then dependent of government mandated health care and the IRS telling you if you deserve an abortion.


edit on 5-5-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I think it's disgusting that abortion has been socially justified and promoted because people who traditionally oppose it have been right-wing Christians.

There's nothing extreme or right wing about opposing abortion. Many of the greatest Liberals and Left wing people of our times have opposed abortion. Think of probably the least insane, forward thinking religion on the planet? Most people would think Buddhism, Buddhists oppose abortion. Most hippies oppose abortion.

It's a disgusting act of murder and it's been justified under the guise of feminism and liberalism. Both of which are irrelevant to the issue.

Should abortion be made illegal? NO! DEFINITELY NOT! This is a sociological issue and a ban only causes people to seek out far more dangerous methods of abortion. But there needs to be a very serious conversation and some real policies and awareness campaigns, and education reforms and media responsibility - All these sort of things should be put into place to educate and dissuade people from getting into that situation. I think it was Noam Chomsky who said that somewhere between washing your hands and murdering your 3 year old there needs to be a conversation on the issue.

This idea that abortion is a woman's right and is generally a just action makes me sick to my (and I almost swore here) stomach!

If a man was to put some pills or chemicals in his partners food or drink, and conspired against her to have a forced miscarriage against her will, he'd be in jail! But females up and down this country are getting abortions against the will of the father. There's absolutely no moral difference. But we excuse one because it's a females right to kill unborn babies. The ego involved in that line of thinking is despicable .

This isn't a hard line Christian vs normal and forward thinking people issue. It's about ethics, you have them or you don't. If you think 100-200 years down the line that abortion will be socially acceptable I think you're all in for a huge shock. It will be less acceptable than it's ever been. More and more we come to understand the value of human life, the value of the life of other sentient beings, this awareness is increasing exponentially every decade. 100 years down the line an unborn baby will not be readily killed, people will not celebrate the murderous actions of pretend feminists - I assure you of this.

As a Socialist bordering on Anarchist I cannot lend myself to believe a ban is acceptable, it isn't, it doesn't address the causes of the problem, it simply takes away the right to a 'solution'. But socially abortion should be outright discouraged and something undertaken as a necessity, rather than abused by loose women who can't keep their legs closed.

It all comes back to education and morality, we're failing children and we're failing young men and women. BUT a law banning abortion isn't getting to he heart of the issue, it skims the surface.

If men were the sex to carry babies in today's political climate, we'd be shunned as murderers and probably get arrested for aborting babies against the will of our female partners.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
On the other hand I probably should have read more responses before responding myself. As I seem to be a little off topic.

I agree, this bill and issue in relative terms can easily be argued to be trivial. But then again so could many other issues. There's a war in the Middle East, but it's not going to stop me ringing up the council and complaining about pot holes in the street.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by kellynap43
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


This isnt about who needs to pay. Or why, where or when. This is about personal responsibility. Something the left has forgot about for a long time now. 49% of america doesnt even pay taxes. 22% of people are on food stamps. The top 10% of top earners in this country already pay 80% of all federal taxes. It's time for the low lifes of america to get off their &** and contribute. Otherwise, this nation is heading for a fallout of great magnitude.


Wow everyone should be a winner like you! You seem so perfect, too bad we don't have only people like you in this world, it would be a better place...well for the yous that is. And we would all make up percentages and praise the sharks we have and not ask em for money. It doesn't matter if they probably got all that money by screwing people up and being greedy.

Get-off you low life! Learn to feed the hand that feeds from you.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Another thing that most aren't talking about in the subject is exponential growth in population and it's effect on resources, the environment, the economy and infrastructure. Eliminating abortion would be a step in the opposite direction for us as a species. People need to take more responsibility and use protection, and families need to stablize with no more than two children per.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I've read the first page of comments, and they were mostly very confusing. It sounded like they were basically bashing the Republicans for the decision to end funding of abortion. So, does anybody seriously think abortions should be taxpayer funded? Obviously its a downright criminal proposition to fund abortions using taxes, so thats why I ask.

Hopefully everyone can agree that anybody who is involved in taxing people to fund abortions belongs in prison. Most taxes involve writing a letter to people threatening to kidnap and cage them if they don't provide a lump sum of money... obviously that is extortion, and obviously people who commit extortion need to be jailed if they can't control them self.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Well I see it this way, most states in this nation are Welfare states meaning that most of the services goes to those that can not pay or support themselves so what is the big deal tax dollars in most states goes to support welfare mothers and their children.

I don't seen many complaining about this here.

Actually my husband and I pay more on taxes that two poor workers combine together, still I don't complain and I am sure don't care if the poor gets my tax payer dollars to pay for their abortions.

After all I am a tax payer and so my husband.

What cost more an abortion or welfare.


edit on 5-5-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
abortions should not be funded by the federal government for any reason...I don't think I should have to pay for someone else irresponsibility...may sound harsh but I don't think I should have to put a penny in somebody pocket 3 states over because some teenager couldn't use a condom or pull out...dad may be a dead beat but hey I didn't tell her to have sexual relations with anyone...if anyone funded it the whole thing should be voluntary it shouldn't be paid for with tax dollars...and at the farthest stretch maybe state government could get involved for pregnancy with complications...and when it comes to abortions I don't really care what people do as long as no part of the cost comes out my pocket



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Well I see it this way, most states in this nation are Welfare states meaning that most of the services goes to those that can not pay or support themselves so what is the big deal tax dollars in most states goes to support welfare mothers and their children.

I don't seen many complaining about this here.

What cost more an abortion or welfare.


edit on 5-5-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)


thats cause the topic is on abortion....im just sayin
edit on 5-5-2011 by txraised254 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
Another thing that most aren't talking about in the subject is exponential growth in population and it's effect on resources, the environment, the economy and infrastructure. Eliminating abortion would be a step in the opposite direction for us as a species. People need to take more responsibility and use protection, and families need to stablize with no more than two children per.


But again this doesn't address the causes. It would be like taking alcohol away from someone, sure it's going to make them miserable, but that's because they are miserable. That's good, then the problem can be recognized and worked on. Abortion prevents us from getting at the real issues, it promotes irresponsibility. The promotion of abortion is just wallpapering over a giant hole in the wall.

Eliminating abortion would only be a step in the opposite direction if we see abortion as the only solution to the problems we face. Fortunately there are many, many solutions. Unfortunately these solutions involve a massive rethink of society and the current Government, Bankers and Corporate types aren't allowing for it.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 

kind of sounds like they would go as far as let a women needlessly die, along with the infant, rather than allow an abortion....
I can't remember which catholic priest it was, but one of them kind of said that if the women dies, so what, that's what she is for..??? or something like that...
that was a long, long time ago!!!

if pregnancy was life threatening to men, I bet there wouldn't be all this bull crap!!



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Well I see it this way, most states in this nation are Welfare states meaning that most of the services goes to those that can not pay or support themselves so what is the big deal tax dollars in most states goes to support welfare mothers and their children.

I don't seen many complaining about this here.

Actually my husband and I pay more on taxes that two poor workers combine together, still I don't complain and I am sure don't care if the poor gets my tax payer dollars to pay for their abortions.

After all I am a tax payer and so my husband.

What cost more an abortion or welfare.


You're right that abortions decrease the cost of welfare and the need for welfare because its common sense so many of abortions are due to parents who cannot really afford to be parents. Lets say I run a charity and during the meeting I say something like... you know, if we killed off people who needed charity, we could reduce our budget. I think people would look at me with horror and then I'd be asked to leave. I'm not trying to suggest that abortion is murder, but what I'm saying is there are better and worse ways to narrow down the field of people who get welfare.

You're also right that you should be able to spend your tax dollars on whatever you wish. Its only when I'm taxed for an abortion that I object... personally I would not want my money going to fund abortions for people who cannot afford one. I also would not give my money to a charity designed to help someone get an abortion. I think the biggest way to help the problem of unwanted babies is to make the process of giving them away much easier. The best way by far of reducing the unwanted baby problem is to reduce the main root cause of the problem: poverty. So to tackle the unwanted babies problem you tackle the poverty problem so that people can afford contraception and become more highly educated in ways that reduce pregnancies.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NadaCambia

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
Another thing that most aren't talking about in the subject is exponential growth in population and it's effect on resources, the environment, the economy and infrastructure. Eliminating abortion would be a step in the opposite direction for us as a species. People need to take more responsibility and use protection, and families need to stablize with no more than two children per.


But again this doesn't address the causes. It would be like taking alcohol away from someone, sure it's going to make them miserable, but that's because they are miserable. That's good, then the problem can be recognized and worked on. Abortion prevents us from getting at the real issues, it promotes irresponsibility. The promotion of abortion is just wallpapering over a giant hole in the wall.

Eliminating abortion would only be a step in the opposite direction if we see abortion as the only solution to the problems we face. Fortunately there are many, many solutions. Unfortunately these solutions involve a massive rethink of society and the current Government, Bankers and Corporate types aren't allowing for it.


Oh I most certainly agree that it is a bandaid problem solve, but on the same token until a massive consciousness shift and cultural shift happens it's one of the few fingers we have to stem the holes popping out from the hose. Eventually we run out of fingers. The problem lies (oversimplistic I know) in our cultural identity, and material conditioning. In order for real responsibility to happen we need strong community based culture that helps and not destroys (like modern day) family units, and not just nuclear families. We need honest education coming from our local parents and leaders, and we need certain customs to become common place. All that cannot exist in our current climate I believe. The issue is a compound issue and isn't easy to solve. But eliminating abortion right now is not helping it either.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


The GOP cannot possibly hope to ever start conceiving of ways to end the problem of abortion because they are in the government. Being in the government, you have been brainwashed into believing the best way to solve problems is using the government, which is a total joke because we all know the government does not solve problems... they patch them up, throw money at them, shove their finger in holes in various dams, and hope for the best.

People usually get abortions because they cannot afford to support the baby. So, one solution to ending abortion is to end poverty. The average income of people who this bill would effect would be middle class people. Therefore the main effect of the bill would be to send a small number of middle class people into a state of poverty while the abortion rate remains the same due to the fact the subsidy provided does not actually stop anyone from getting an abortion.

I mean who is going to not get an abortion because next years taxes will be $50 higher? Nobody. It doesn't help stop abortion. But it does send the few thousand people, mostly middle class, $50 closer to a state of poverty.

The solution to stopping abortions is to help end poverty. And the way you help end poverty is to stop wasting your effort on things like having the government try to solve the problem for you when they are totally incompetent, and go help a poor person out of poverty. Try to start a company in your spare time. Post a Youtube video on how people can save money in various ways. Develop a cheap way of contraception.

I know of a cheap contraception method that if I ever have money to invest I will get developed... I won't rely on the GOP to solve the problem. But on the other hand the fact that they are trying to solve the problem does not bother me like the way it bothers other people who say "there are bigger problems". Well there are bigger problems, but when you are solving problems sometimes its a good idea to start small and work your way up. If someone is really worried about abortion they'll personally do what they can to help end poverty, and they'll personally do what they can to support contraception (unless they are Catholic or something).



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
People need to stop having so many babies period, this earth is having a fit with 7 billion people and we are on course to have 9 billion in just ten years. If people took the time out to just research exponential growth in a finite based environment then there wouldn't be questions about whether a family can afford more than a few kids or not.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


To tell you the truth, I have been very sarcastic here for a reason, because looking at how our government works and how people react, people doesn't want abortions, but many also do not want their tax dollars to pay for welfare.

The reality is that the majority of our tax payer dollars in states goes to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, pension funds and welfare to single mothers that have not need to be having children to Begin with.

I see not problem with families that have problems and find themselves destitute and in need, but those that make a living on welfare those are many, and they are just riding the system, those have not problem perpetuation their condition while procreating, they are actually not looking for abortions they are making welfare babies.

Funny, I live in welfare state and my husband and I are tax to the max because our children are adults and he makes more than the median in the state as a contractor for the federal governemnt.




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join