Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4049)	1/30/2001 3:27:40 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A sizeable minority in the country think of it as murder on a massive scale. Its an issue more similar to slavery then heart surgery in that it is an extremly controversial issue where both sides think the other is ignoreing or abuseing basic human rights. Generally the government should stay out of funding such highly controversial things. Compare and contrast; (Federal matching funds are available for abortions sought by Medicaid recipients only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.) (from agi-usa.org , much more quoted in previous message). Do you think the federal government funding abortions "only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest" is somehow akin to slavery, Tim? I guess Ashcroft thinks so, more or less, since his proposed amendment didn't allow for rape or incest exceptions, anyway. But he's testified under oath that those particular views are currently inoperative, and we should believe him, right?

To: TimF who wrote (4049)	1/30/2001 4:08:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A sizeable minority in the country think of it as murder on a massive scale.</i. Can you explain the thought process that results in this conclusion? Is there some legal basis for it? It doesn't seem to meet the dictionary definition. Karen

To: TimF who wrote (4049)	1/30/2001 10:48:40 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

They think of it as murder on a massive scale because of their religious beliefs. I am willing to entertain the idea that everyone get a religious or moral veto on government expenditure of their tax monies. I knew a man, an absolutist pacifist, so convinced that all war was murder, pure murder, that he lived in poverty all his adult life because he refused to earn enough to be taxed on it. He subsisted, and donated his life to "the movement" and other socially useful activities. He was imprisoned many times for nonviolent resistance to many forms of what he saw as evil. War, racial segregation, conscription, the collection of taxes to pay for war. If he'd earned money, he'd have had pay taxes, so he lived a life on the margin. He was thin. Since nobody cared that he was a pacifist, or cares that hundreds of thousands of other pacifists (and of others with ethical objections to individual government expenditures) object to paying taxes, why should they care that anti-choice people do? This is a facetious suggestion: Let them keep their incomes down below taxable level. That will show they are as sincere in their moral conviction as this pacifist was in his. Again: Nobody's made clear to me why one and only one group gets to 'scuse itself, and everybody else, from taxation for what they don't like.