Jump to content
Jotari

Death Penalty and Abortion, the overlap (or lack thereof) of opinions

I...  

102 members have voted

  1. 1. I...

    • Support both the Death Penalty and Abortion.
      21
    • Support the Death Penalty but not Abortion.
      17
    • Support Abortion but not the Death Penalty.
      48
    • Support neither the Death Penalty nor Abortion.
      16


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Do you believe that women who get abortions (as well as the doctor who facilitates the abortion procedure) are murderers?

Like, you say that's about as nonconvicing as that argument but that's the point you are still arguing in principle.

The murderers are those who take pleasure in the process. There is a difference in people who are killers and those who are murderers. An abortion may leave a woman with blood on their hands, but because of the hard decision that woman made, it isn't murder because there nearly always is no intent to abort the fetus from conception. The thing I hate the most about abortions are the doctors who do them as part of their profession. They go out of their way to break their oath because of the lack of ethics in cosmetic doctors. If they are more professional and possibly more objective medical doctors, like OB/GYNs, then I have nothing against them doing abortions. More often than not, those doctors who originate from cosmetics to do abortions are in it for the profit are wretched, snaky scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sifting through the pro-life results, I can't find any evidence that abortion is profitable. 

From this source:

Quote

The numbers suggest the opposite. The average amount paid for an abortion nationwide—about $450 for the most common procedures—has been relatively stagnant for decades, despite inflation in other areas of medicine and higher costs. In the 1970s anti-abortion attorneys formed a decadeslong plan to craft and lobby for state regulations that would gradually strip away physicians’ ability to provide the procedure. Much of the legislation makes it more expensive for clinics to operate, and the strategy has proved effective. Since 2011 at least 162 abortion providers have closed or stopped performing abortions, and 21 clinics have opened.

$450 is next to nothing given the medical equipment and staff required; any non-specialist doctor will be charging more than twice that for an hour's work.

Abortion clinics are quickly going out of business, and money is also only one aspect; dealing with protesters is mentally draining, plus there's an actual risk to your life. 

Googling on salary sites suggest the average doctor earns $187,000 while the average abortion doctor earns $80,000-100,000, too.

In fact, the only abortion doctors charging thousands for their services *are* the specialized, more objective doctors handling the later term abortions in cases of likely fetal or maternal demise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Res said:

Sifting through the pro-life results, I can't find any evidence that abortion is profitable. 

From this source:

$450 is next to nothing given the medical equipment and staff required; any non-specialist doctor will be charging more than twice that for an hour's work.

Abortion clinics are quickly going out of business, and money is also only one aspect; dealing with protesters is mentally draining, plus there's an actual risk to your life. 

Googling on salary sites suggest the average doctor earns $187,000 while the average abortion doctor earns $80,000-100,000, too.

In fact, the only abortion doctors charging thousands for their services *are* the specialized, more objective doctors handling the later term abortions in cases of likely fetal or maternal demise. 

It's recent development, which I'm very happy for. Also, I would think an OB/GYN would charge that much because an abortion operation could take hours away from seeing other patients who need help in other areas of their expertise, as well as complications from such a surgery being performed so late. Those statistics come from 2011, so within the last 10 years, which is fairly recent in my opinion. Making money solely from abortions doesn't sit right with my ethics, as does most cosmetic surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Do you believe that women who get abortions (as well as the doctor who facilitates the abortion procedure) are murderers?

Like, you say that's about as nonconvicing as that argument but that's the point you are still arguing in principle.

Yes, on the grounds that they're unjustly taking a human life, and their actions are intentional.  They certainly don't believe that the unborn is a person, so an argument could perhaps be made for diminished responsibility, but as abortion is currently legal (at least in the USA) that's kind of a moot point, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am heavily for abortion. 

To me, the woman in question is more viable than the bunch of cells inside her that can't exist without her, that leeches off whatever she ingests and has a potential to completely ruin her. Pregnancy is a huge thing and women are not just there to be living incubators. 

For those that say 'contraception exists'. Yes. It does. Sadly, it is not 100% effective and not always viable. Anything that affects my hormones gives me the worst mood swings (as in I literally cannot function as a human being) and terrible migraines. The coil is too painful for me and can cause its own problems. I am twenty-six and no one will sterilise me without me having to pay money I do not have for the right to have sex without worrying.

This leaves me with condoms or not having sex. Currently, I choose the latter, because sex isn't a big thing for me right now. Condoms are not 100% effective, although it'd be great if they were since I'd never have to worry. I'd insist on one every single time (and do on the rare occasions I do do anything). But sex is something done for pleasure these days - something that men celebrate and women should be able to as well. I have had relationships break down because of my reluctance to have sex (again, I'm not saying they were the strongest relationships in the first place but it's coloured me towards them even more) - even more because of my own worrying about it rather than the guy's. 

Incidentally, I do not have a maternal bone in my body. I am not good with kids and I really do not like them. People say it's different if it's your own, but not always. I've had friends who had the same stance as me who were pressured into having babies. They treat their kids as a job and hate it (not all of them, again, as some did find their maternal bond once having the kid). 

Until the point where a bunch of cells can be incubated without the need of the woman, I will remain pro-choice. Women are not here to be incubators, nor should they have to remain pure and virginal for fear of what might happen. It is just a bunch of cells, and that is when the procedure is done. It's not viable, it can't exist without her, and it drains her immensely. Adding to that, the lengths many women went to before abortion became easily accessible to get rid of the foetus often left them permanently disfigured or dead, and had lasting impacts on the babies that made it through. I don't want to live in those times. The only reason we're not seeing it so much in Ireland is 'cos they can come across here for easy abortion access. 

 

For the death penalty, I'm pretty much against it. For the reasons Eclipse mentioned about cost and also because of the idea that even those that seem proven beyond a doubt have the potential to be innocent. Maybe I've seen one too many Criminal Minds episodes, but I don't like the idea of killing anyone. I don't think prison should be easy, and I think even those that have committed the most atrocious crimes can be put to work doing something... Maybe I could be swayed in the instances of 100% undeniable, it definitely happened proof... but... I just don't see it. 

 

Anyway, that's my two pence ^.^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see with outlawing abortion is the rise in crime it causes. These kids often end up in the foster care system, which studies have shown that being raised in these environments leads to a higher chance of drug use and being involved in criminal activity. Not only that but there will be a new black market network of back alley abortion clinics which are unregulated and unsafe, the same with at home abortions.

As far as the death penalty goes, I'm against it in 90% of circumstances. You'd have to be among the likes of Hitler, Stalin, George W. Bush, or Mao Zedong. Serial killers and sex traffickers with undeniable evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tumut said:

As far as the death penalty goes, I'm against it in 90% of circumstances. You'd have to be among the likes of Hitler, Stalin, George W. Bush, or Mao Zedong. Serial killers and sex traffickers with undeniable evidence.

One of these things is not like the other.  I'm all for explaining your logic, but please keep the hyperbole to reasonable levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against both of these things, and let me state why in simple terms. For the death penalty there is the cost of having to kill the person, then the cost of having a funeral for the individual has to be taken into account. Personally to save resources, for those convicted of murder that reasonable doubt has been eliminated, I'd put the individual in a straitjacket, then push him out to the middle of the ocean on a small wooden boat. I'll never see the psychopath again, and compared to having to feed him/her every day or killing him/her and paying for the funeral, the person is simply gone. No for more basic crimes such as theft, of course rehabilitation should be undertaken, I know not all crimes are equal to one another. Yes it's barbaric, I agree with that statement, but I do not consent to the use of my income that was extorted from me to pay for anything for a murderer, but I understand that you can not let them back into society, if a better alternative exists except feeding him everyday, along with paying for any health related issues with him, I'd take that in a heartbeat. When it comes to abortion, I'm not stating an outright ban, such thing for the incompetent government to do is pointless as those in power can barely decide what briber they want to have a free lunch with on a dayly basis. Instead I'd prefer the government allow it yes, but not give a single cent towards it (this extends to allot of things in government as well, these assholes are so useless that they waste billions of dollars on useless shit). Sure if you support it and wish to give your money voluntarily to abortion or anything else for that matter, go right ahead. As for me, I would want to buy modern artillery so I can form an effective private militia to remind those in power that they are to serve the people they voted for, with a modern day Battle of Athens on a larger scale would be the punishment for failing to understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda late, and I'm making a short comment, but:

On 3/8/2017 at 3:35 AM, Res said:

Sure, cut off the hand of someone who stole to keep their family from starving. Now their family will starve and they can no longer perform many types of jobs. 

That someone could also become a beggar, and doesn't have to necessarily resort to stealing. But then again, that's my opinion, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 6:10 PM, Cute Chao said:

I am heavily for abortion. 

To me, the woman in question is more viable than the bunch of cells inside her that can't exist without her, that leeches off whatever she ingests and has a potential to completely ruin her. Pregnancy is a huge thing and women are not just there to be living incubators. 

For those that say 'contraception exists'. Yes. It does. Sadly, it is not 100% effective and not always viable. Anything that affects my hormones gives me the worst mood swings (as in I literally cannot function as a human being) and terrible migraines. The coil is too painful for me and can cause its own problems. I am twenty-six and no one will sterilise me without me having to pay money I do not have for the right to have sex without worrying.

This leaves me with condoms or not having sex. Currently, I choose the latter, because sex isn't a big thing for me right now. Condoms are not 100% effective, although it'd be great if they were since I'd never have to worry. I'd insist on one every single time (and do on the rare occasions I do do anything). But sex is something done for pleasure these days - something that men celebrate and women should be able to as well. I have had relationships break down because of my reluctance to have sex (again, I'm not saying they were the strongest relationships in the first place but it's coloured me towards them even more) - even more because of my own worrying about it rather than the guy's. 

Incidentally, I do not have a maternal bone in my body. I am not good with kids and I really do not like them. People say it's different if it's your own, but not always. I've had friends who had the same stance as me who were pressured into having babies. They treat their kids as a job and hate it (not all of them, again, as some did find their maternal bond once having the kid). 

Until the point where a bunch of cells can be incubated without the need of the woman, I will remain pro-choice. Women are not here to be incubators, nor should they have to remain pure and virginal for fear of what might happen. It is just a bunch of cells, and that is when the procedure is done. It's not viable, it can't exist without her, and it drains her immensely. Adding to that, the lengths many women went to before abortion became easily accessible to get rid of the foetus often left them permanently disfigured or dead, and had lasting impacts on the babies that made it through. I don't want to live in those times. The only reason we're not seeing it so much in Ireland is 'cos they can come across here for easy abortion access. 

 

For the death penalty, I'm pretty much against it. For the reasons Eclipse mentioned about cost and also because of the idea that even those that seem proven beyond a doubt have the potential to be innocent. Maybe I've seen one too many Criminal Minds episodes, but I don't like the idea of killing anyone. I don't think prison should be easy, and I think even those that have committed the most atrocious crimes can be put to work doing something... Maybe I could be swayed in the instances of 100% undeniable, it definitely happened proof... but... I just don't see it. 

 

Anyway, that's my two pence ^.^

I think this is a good post, and I wanted to quote it merely to attempt reinforcing it, except that I think I'm willing to use condoms.

A long time ago I did research on the death penalty and found that although there is a right to an automatic appeal for the death penalty, you can proactively decline your appeal process if you're sentenced to death in court. After careful consideration of a person, I want to uphold the right for a mutual desire for death on the part of individual and society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion is something I have a really hard time finding a stance on, because on a personal level I hate it, but I know how necessary it is. Unintended pregnancies just seem to be a lose-lose situation. There's a woman I know who had an abortion in college, and the guilt over it has haunted her for years. On the other hand, I know of someone who did not have an abortion when she got pregnant in college. Her boyfriend (the father of the baby) left her, so now she's in her mid 30s and living with her parents, and she has an awful relationship with her daughter. 

Obviously both of these are extreme examples and there are people who have abortions/choose not to have abortions who lead happy, fulfilling lives, but the fact that there's no real way to win in some situations just makes me so sad. One thing I really don't understand about some more conservative legislators (please do correct me if I'm wrong, or if this is off-topic) is that they seem to be against education about/availability of contraception AND abortion, when increased modes of contraception could dramatically decrease the demand for abortion. I get the religious perspective of not wanting to promote pre-marital sex, but I think it's important for us Christians to recognize that not everyone is religious, and thus not everyone will believe that pre-marital sex is wrong. Just a thought.

I used to be pro-death penalty, but over the years I've come to believe it's not necessary. It's expensive, there's a possibility of killing the wrong person, and life in prison sucks a lot anyway.

(I apologize in advance if I came across as preachy or rude in this, I'm pretty horrible at expressing my ideas with words)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Help said:

I think this is a good post, and I wanted to quote it merely to attempt reinforcing it, except that I think I'm willing to use condoms.

A long time ago I did research on the death penalty and found that although there is a right to an automatic appeal for the death penalty, you can proactively decline your appeal process if you're sentenced to death in court. After careful consideration of a person, I want to uphold the right for a mutual desire for death on the part of individual and society.

Thanks :) I did say about condoms - they're the only option left if I want to have sex, but I'm terrified over the idea of them breaking or not being effective. I know it's 99% or something like that, but it still scares me. 

With regards to the death penalty, I don't really think it should be up to the individual either (plus it feels unfair that criminals get the right to choose and yet euthanasia is still highly contested). Of course, I'm from the UK, so it might colour my line of thinking, since I'm used to it not being a thing and don't particularly like the idea of bringing it back. That being said, if they agree to decline the appeals process, that does get rid of the majority of the cost involved, I assume (not done as much research into it, but I know appeals make up the majority of the cost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the death penalty, I don't really think it should be up to the individual either (plus it feels unfair that criminals get the right to choose and yet euthanasia is still highly contested). Of course, I'm from the UK, so it might colour my line of thinking, since I'm used to it not being a thing and don't particularly like the idea of bringing it back. That being said, if they agree to decline the appeals process, that does get rid of the majority of the cost involved, I assume (not done as much research into it, but I know appeals make up the majority of the cost).

RE Euthanasia: I'd personally be willing to accept a cheaper alternative. However, there's (I believe) a profound amount of material indicating that the death penalty sometimes weighs on the executioner.

Of course, finding a use and a value for a person in jail - either one society alone finds value in, or both the individual and society find value in - might alter assumptions about whether it's worth killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be very clear and people may not like what I have to say, but I find it necessary to do it.

I think these subjects aren't as closely related as people think. They both deal with life, but they're not really the same thing.

I don't find the conservative take on it hypocritical, because their opposition to abortion does show the conservatives value life, to an extent. The thing is that a foetus being gestated is simply something different from a grown up person who's in the death row. The foetus does not have any flaws of character whatsoever, because it's not yet born, while criminals are considered "broken beyond repair", which is why people support death penalty.

I'm in support of legalizing abortion and banning the death penalty. But, especially in the case of abortion, this will not come without negative consequences of its own.

The experience of countries with legalized abortion is good, and sometimes abortions drop in number. But a woman has numerous reasons to abort a foetus. Accidental pregnancy is just one of them, but what about the women who abort because the foetus has some sort of non-lethal malformation or a condition like Down's Syndrome? A woman who aborts a foetus in such conditions is not a terrible person, but it's not exactly a "good" thing either. If anything, it's a bit selfish, even, almost on the level of people choosing pets over children these days because pets are much easier to take care of. It's part of the world's "sanitization", so to speak. The absolute removal of risks and obstacles. That being said, as a male, I fully support the legalization of abortion knowing of all these things, I just don't share the enthusiasm because in the end it's just a matter of the good things (freedom) supplanting the bad.

The death penalty thing is problematic by itself because you simply can't tell the victim of a crime (or their relatives in the case of a deceases victim) that it's "wrong" for them to wish ill upon the criminal. That's simply not how we function as people. However, vengeance should not be a part of the criminal system, because the entity responsible for punishment is the state, not the victim. As a citizen living under a democratic state, you relinquish certain liberties in the name of order. Can you imagine what would happen if everyone sought revenge after being victim to a crime? It would be pure chaos, that's for sure. Death penalty exists to intimidate, but it doesn't really work because people keep taking the risks. There are countries where drug dealing is punished with death, and this doesn't stop people from doing it anyway. If it doesn't work, why should the state keep doing something that's bad for PR nowadays when it could perhaps try to give a criminal a second chance?

In the end, I do have my stance on it but I don't think it's particularly easy to choose one over the other.

Edited by Cerberus87

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cerberus87 said:

I'll be very clear and people may not like what I have to say, but I find it necessary to do it.

I think these subjects aren't as closely related as people think. They both deal with life, but they're not really the same thing.

I don't find the conservative take on it hypocritical, because their opposition to abortion does show the conservatives value life, to an extent. The thing is that a foetus being gestated is simply something different from a grown up person who's in the death row. The foetus does not have any flaws of character whatsoever, because it's not yet born, while criminals are considered "broken beyond repair", which is why people support death penalty.

I'm in support of legalizing abortion and banning the death penalty. But, especially in the case of abortion, this will not come without negative consequences of its own.

I'm not saying for a ban on abortion or a constitution of the death penalty, but I'll avoid my death penalty talk as we both agree it should go even for different reasons. Abortion on the other hand I'm against using federal funds to give, for example Planed Parenthood, cash they extorted to a cause one may or may not support. I'm saying let it be legal, I just don't want to be forced by point of gun to give human number xxx-xx-xxxx, the cash to pay for an abortion when I don't know this person and I have nothing to gain. However if someone wants to do it voluntarily, go right ahead, I won't stop you. I just don't think one should have to do something without his consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Emperor Petitt said:

I'm not saying for a ban on abortion or a constitution of the death penalty, but I'll avoid my death penalty talk as we both agree it should go even for different reasons. Abortion on the other hand I'm against using federal funds to give, for example Planed Parenthood, cash they extorted to a cause one may or may not support. I'm saying let it be legal, I just don't want to be forced by point of gun to give human number xxx-xx-xxxx, the cash to pay for an abortion when I don't know this person and I have nothing to gain. However if someone wants to do it voluntarily, go right ahead, I won't stop you. I just don't think one should have to do something without his consent.

I actually don't know about the specifics of Planned Parenthood so I can't really comment on it. Sorry!

Though, to be fair, usually abortion is granted by public healthcare when legalized. I have no idea how it works in the American states where it's legal.

I don't really understand why it would be a part of Planned Parenthood, though, since abortion is not birth control and should not be used as such except for emergencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cerberus87 said:

I actually don't know about the specifics of Planned Parenthood so I can't really comment on it. Sorry!

Though, to be fair, usually abortion is granted by public healthcare when legalized. I have no idea how it works in the American states where it's legal.

I don't really understand why it would be a part of Planned Parenthood, though, since abortion is not birth control and should not be used as such except for emergencies.

It's legal in PA so I'll give a short summary of how it works. Concerning medical emergencies where the mother's life is at risk abortion is covered by insurance in the first place. I can agree with your last statement, however most areas that give abortions do so with allowing it as a form of birth control, with using federal cash to intake more revenue to expand even though such places like Planed Parenthood already make a profit (and while yes Planed Parenthood does offer services outside of abortion, most of their revenue comes from selling it to the masses). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tax money can often go to support things one doesn't personally support. Military action, for instance. Or subsidies for certain industries. I definitely don't agree with giving people a carte blanche to veto how their tax money is used, so I'd certainly argue very strongly that at the very least any abortion which is done for the health/safety of the potential mother, or in the case of rape, should be publically funded, since that falls under healthcare to me.

Edited by Dark Holy Elf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Tax money can often go to support things one doesn't personally support. Military action, for instance. Or subsidies for certain industries. I definitely don't agree with giving people a carte blanche to veto how their tax money is used, so I'd certainly argue very strongly that at the very least any abortion which is done for the health/safety of the potential mother, or in the case of rape, should be publically funded, since that falls under healthcare to me.

Yeah, there's also that. In my country's case it has even become a pension fund for politicians, haha.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Tax money can often go to support things one doesn't personally support. Military action, for instance. Or subsidies for certain industries. I definitely don't agree with giving people a carte blanche to veto how their tax money is used, so I'd certainly argue very strongly that at the very least any abortion which is done for the health/safety of the potential mother, or in the case of rape, should be publically funded, since that falls under healthcare to me.

Those incidents are already covered by insurance though. This is for an argument that money that was taken from someone by point of gun should not be used to give a business that is ALREADY turning a profit more cash. A business in that cash is just getting free money, and has less more motivation to decrease there prices to increase demand. You also assume I am for military action, which I've always been against as it is a waste of resources, and only manages to make things worse in our modern world, just look at Lybia or Iraq. I'm not referring to "a veto on how there cash is used" to paraphrase you, I'm calling for so little tax that the government only maintains a sense of order in society, anything else is stealing my cash by point of gun, extortion, which of anyone else does it the action is labeled as a crime, but it's okay when the state does it, bloody hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American libertarians - who always echo this "taxation is theft" rhetoric - are short-sighted, as a country without any form of viable taxation would be one with broken down infrastructure and abysmal public services that no-one except them would want to live in as it would be regressing to a time before modern efficiency and convenience - also vague about what "minimal taxation" is. As much as you criticise the government for their spending, very few individuals are going to spend to help their communities out of their own pocket. Especially when the social policies such as single payer healthcare are incredibly popular that is never going to happen under such a system.

A true libertarian "state" has never and will never exist. Actually, the closest to that right now in the western world is probably already the United States, aside from how they are usually against the huge amount of defense spending. Taxation is always going to be necessary, everyone understands that it is, and I'm sorry that you feel as though it is theft, but you always have the prospect of moving to somewhere else.

Alas, off topic.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

American libertarians - who always echo this "taxation is theft" rhetoric - are short-sighted, as a country without any form of viable taxation would be one with broken down infrastructure and abysmal public services that no-one except them would want to live in as it would be regressing to a time before modern efficiency and convenience - also vague about what "minimal taxation" is. As much as you criticise the government for their spending, very few individuals are going to spend to help their communities out of their own pocket. Especially when the social policies such as single payer healthcare are incredibly popular that is never going to happen under such a system.

A true libertarian "state" has never and will never exist. Actually, the closest to that right now in the western world is probably already the United States, aside from how they are usually against the huge amount of defense spending. Taxation is always going to be necessary, everyone understands that it is, and I'm sorry that you feel as though it is theft, but you always have the prospect of moving to somewhere else.

Alas, off topic.

I did not state taxation was theft, I stated it was extortion, they are two different things, learn what they mean. Ah yes "without government who would fix the roads" arguement, news flash, the government with high taxes already fails to maintain infrastructure, if you want proof of that just look at any road in PA not in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh. The biggest joke around here is PennDOT known for its incompetence when it comes to maintaining infrastructure, and to the north of me turns out NYC's entire infrastructure is falling apart due to a lack of maintenance since the state thought to push it back repairs even further. Also the because it's popular argument is a poor argument, do you think that if slavery was popular it should exist as well? I bring that up because a single payer system would make doctors slaves all but in name.

The USA a libertarian society? We spend over 60% of taxes on social security and the healthcare programs which caused the healthcare crisis to begin with, if anything those in the 1970s were shortsighted and did not see that when making such laws. Once again I said it was extortion not theft, they are two different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Emperor Petitt said:

I did not state taxation was theft, I stated it was extortion, they are two different things, learn what they mean. Ah yes "without government who would fix the roads" arguement, news flash, the government with high taxes already fails to maintain infrastructure, if you want proof of that just look at any road in PA not in Harrisburg, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh. The biggest joke around here is PennDOT known for its incompetence when it comes to maintaining infrastructure, and to the north of me turns out NYC's entire infrastructure is falling apart due to a lack of maintenance since the state thought to push it back repairs even further. Also the because it's popular argument is a poor argument, do you think that if slavery was popular it should exist as well? I bring that up because a single payer system would make doctors slaves all but in name.

The USA a libertarian society? We spend over 60% of taxes on social security and the healthcare programs which caused the healthcare crisis to begin with, if anything those in the 1970s were shortsighted and did not see that when making such laws. Once again I said it was extortion not theft, they are two different things.

America does not have high taxes, and yes the infrastructure is garbage. Part of the reason I said it was more libertarian than most other first world countries. The healthcare expenditure sucks as you pay more to get less, yes, but cutting it completely will just kill more people.

Everywhere else in the modern first world is happy with their universal health care and both rate it quite highly and is noted as being far more efficient at saving lives and cost effective than the American "system". That leads me to believe that consensus is correct in this case and America (or well, the American government) is willing to subvert the will of the people because they are backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Everywhere else in the modern first world is happy with their universal health care and both rate it quite highly and is noted as being far more efficient at saving lives and cost effective than the American "system". That leads me to believe that consensus is correct in this case and America (or well, the American government) is willing to subvert the will of the people because they are backwards.

You fail to grasp that the reason we don't have the same level of healthcare as the rest of the world is because we have a military that's drunk on it's own power. If the field of medicine had the 600+ billion dollar budget that the US military does, I would sure as hell hope my healthcare was free and universal, even if I had to pay in the amount of time I would have to wait. I also understand that taxes are necessary (and that the US uses them as poorly as they do), but the 16th amendment was only the result of a decision from the Supreme Court, which means that as an amendment originating from the bench, should first be reexamined and, if necessary, repealed and replaced with a law that has equal emphasis on business taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and income taxes, as well as a flat tax of 25% of everyone's income, down to about 16,000 a year, which would be taxable at 10%, down to $9,000, which wouldn't be taxed (9,000 is close to the amount people on Social Security make every year, so yeah, not taxing the disabled or the elderly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

You fail to grasp that the reason we don't have the same level of healthcare as the rest of the world is because we have a military that's drunk on it's own power. If the field of medicine had the 600+ billion dollar budget that the US military does, I would sure as hell hope my healthcare was free and universal, even if I had to pay in the amount of time I would have to wait. I also understand that taxes are necessary (and that the US uses them as poorly as they do), but the 16th amendment was only the result of a decision from the Supreme Court, which means that as an amendment originating from the bench, should first be reexamined and, if necessary, repealed and replaced with a law that has equal emphasis on business taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and income taxes, as well as a flat tax of 25% of everyone's income, down to about 16,000 a year, which would be taxable at 10%, down to $9,000, which wouldn't be taxed (9,000 is close to the amount people on Social Security make every year, so yeah, not taxing the disabled or the elderly).

I am more than happy to scale down the US military, I'm tired of paying for the defense budget of Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...