I think you're saying that your position is this:
<<t because anti-abortionists feel as
they do, HE, Jorj, feels that they shouldn't have to pay for the particular
medical procedure, abortion, with their taxes.>>
But you haven't made clear, at least to me, whether moral objections on the part of taxpayers to other usages to which tax monies are put should result in suspension of support to them.
I specifically mentioned pacifists who are forced to fund wars (they feel that killing live men, women and children is in the ballpark with taking RU486); ethical vegetarians taxed for cattle industry subsidies; animal rights advocates who pay taxes for lab mice and dogs, etc.
I am overjoyed to pay taxes for foreign aid to help stem overpopulation in the third world. If, I mean when, suffering results from cutting aid to family planning clinics, I personally feel strongly enough about the issue that I might triage another charity and substitute one addressing that particular brand of suffering. But I think suffering very far away doesn't move people much (they're just unaware of it, mostly) unless it's on the 6 o'clock news. Malnourished women forced to bear yet more undernourished babies don't make the news until photogenic maggots and flies are swarming in and out of the noses of their emaciated children, who were too weak to brush them away when they crawled up the little nostrils to lay their eggs. |
