• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's my body verses it's my money...

It's my body verses it's my money (read explanation)

  • The statements are comparable.

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • The statements are not comparable.

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • I AGREE with both statements equally.

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • I DISAGREE with both statements equally.

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • I think there should be real compromise in both issues.

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Statement 1 is right, Statement 2 is wrong.

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Statement 2 is right, Statement 1 is wrong.

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • There is nothing useful here. I only wanted to check something.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

GreenvilleGrows

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
566
Reaction score
221
Location
My version of reality
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I thought it was a little interesting that 2 poles asking potentially similar questions appeared at the same time with striking differences in opinions.

One pole essentially said "should humans who don't carry a child in their womb have a say in whether or not the child is born?". The other one essentially said "should people who don't contribute financially to government expenses have a say in how much tax revenue is collected and/or what it is spent on?"

Statement 1: It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

Are these comparable statements?

Do you totally agree to both simultaneously? Do you totally disagree with both simultaneously? Do you think there is compromise in both areas?
 
The two statements are unrelated for the most part. One deals with healthcare, one deals with money.
 
I thought it was a little interesting that 2 poles asking potentially similar questions appeared at the same time with striking differences in opinions.

One pole essentially said "should humans who don't carry a child in their womb have a say in whether or not the child is born?". The other one essentially said "should people who don't contribute financially to government expenses have a say in how much tax revenue is collected and/or what it is spent on?"

Statement 1: It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

Are these comparable statements?

Do you totally agree to both simultaneously? Do you totally disagree with both simultaneously? Do you think there is compromise in both areas?

I'm confused as to what you're getting at here, but I disagree with both statements.
 
I thought there would be poetry.
 
I see a similarity in both cases along the lines of "what is the greater good for the world around me vs the greater good for me" of course, the specifics in both cases depends on ideology.

The ultimate choice in this case though being the individual vs society or could be called liberty vs tyranny by some.
 
The two statements are unrelated for the most part. One deals with healthcare, one deals with money.
I'm confused as to what you're getting at here, but I disagree with both statements.

Well what I tried to articulate (unsuccessfully), is that people who are vehemently against the woman's right to choose often believe in low taxes or few/no benefits. Meaning, I want to have input on what you do with your body, but I don't want others to have input as to where my money goes.

Also, the opposite is true. People who are typically strong pro-choice (my body, my choice) are also often pro-tax. Meaning, even those who pay no taxes should have a say in how much tax is collected and what it's spent on.

My body is mine. My money is mine. To one group: "Why does my body belong to me but my money to everyone?" Or, conversely, to another group: "Why should everyone have a say in what you can do with your body, but they shouldn't have a say in what you can do with your money?"
 
Well what I tried to articulate (unsuccessfully), is that people who are vehemently against the woman's right to choose often believe in low taxes or few/no benefits. Meaning, I want to have input on what you do with your body, but I don't want others to have input as to where my money goes.

Also, the opposite is true. People who are typically strong pro-choice (my body, my choice) are also often pro-tax. Meaning, even those who pay no taxes should have a say in how much tax is collected and what it's spent on.

My body is mine. My money is mine. To one group: "Why does my body belong to me but my money to everyone?" Or, conversely, to another group: "Why should everyone have a say in what you can do with your body, but they shouldn't have a say in what you can do with your money?"

In both cases, since we are all a part of society, we are all in a state of everything we have being needed for both ourselves and for the greater society. Everything we do has repercussions on the greater world around us, even if its a direct result or indirect result, we do affect the lives of everyone around us. Due to this, it is impossibly to clearly state what is mine is completely mine and alternatively what is mine is completely everyone's. Its both to varying degrees.

Given that, I always find statements of full personal or community possession to be completely inane.
 
Entirely unrelated. The ONLY viable argument with regard to 'its my body' and reproductive rights has to do with the child that gets slaughtered in the exercising of the mothers 'rights'. Being opposed to abortion based on the financial aspects or simply what a mother chooses to do to herself is foolish.
 
The two statements are unrelated for the most part. One deals with healthcare, one deals with money.

You're not seeing it Redress. It's about leveling the playing for both men and women in reproductive rights.
 
I thought it was a little interesting that 2 poles asking potentially similar questions appeared at the same time with striking differences in opinions.

One pole essentially said "should humans who don't carry a child in their womb have a say in whether or not the child is born?". The other one essentially said "should people who don't contribute financially to government expenses have a say in how much tax revenue is collected and/or what it is spent on?"

Statement 1: It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

Are these comparable statements?

Do you totally agree to both simultaneously? Do you totally disagree with both simultaneously? Do you think there is compromise in both areas?
I think both statements are essentially true and are comparable in that both reflect your freedom of action in regards to what is your own. Your life is your own, therefore your body and the product of your mind and your hands are yours to do with as you please. The only limits are those drawn around us by the equal rights and liberties of others. Statement 1 seems to be addressing the issue of abortion. A pregnant woman is, however, in the position where her actions may harm the rights of the child dependent upon her body for its survival. But what the rights of that child are and when they begin are not a political or religious consideration but a scientific and philosophical one.

Statement 2 strikes me as universally true.
 
I thought it was a little interesting that 2 poles asking potentially similar questions appeared at the same time with striking differences in opinions.

One pole essentially said "should humans who don't carry a child in their womb have a say in whether or not the child is born?". The other one essentially said "should people who don't contribute financially to government expenses have a say in how much tax revenue is collected and/or what it is spent on?"

Statement 1: It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

Are these comparable statements?

Do you totally agree to both simultaneously? Do you totally disagree with both simultaneously? Do you think there is compromise in both areas?

I agree fully with #1 - partially with #2.

Overall: money is not *mine* or *yours* - it's the product of the government's financial system. It is the government's money. I simply do something in which someone else deems is applicable in exchange for said money.

Within limits: I have a relative say over what I do with my money - but overall - it's still the government's property and ergo they ultimately have the ability to govern it.

Our government in particular gives us priviledges and freedoms that put us in more direct control of our money - but that's purely because the government has deemed that's appropriate and *the* way we function in this society.
 
I thought it was a little interesting that 2 poles asking potentially similar questions appeared at the same time with striking differences in opinions.

One pole essentially said "should humans who don't carry a child in their womb have a say in whether or not the child is born?". The other one essentially said "should people who don't contribute financially to government expenses have a say in how much tax revenue is collected and/or what it is spent on?"

Statement 1: It's my body, and whatever happens with my body is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my body or is otherwise vested in the health of my body.

Statement 2: It's my money, and whatever happens with my money is totally up to me even if someone else is dependent upon my money or is otherwise vested in my earnings.

Are these comparable statements?

Do you totally agree to both simultaneously? Do you totally disagree with both simultaneously? Do you think there is compromise in both areas?

While I would say that both statements are true under most circumstances, like anything else there would be exceptions to the rules.

With the first statement, when that entity is outside the body then it is absolutely true. No one has any right to anything from it nor the right to say what you can do with it as long as there is no direct harm to another. No one can force me to give blood. A mother is not forced to give breast milk. I cannot be stopped from risking my life skydiving, or taking a chance with dangerous weapons (not just guns. Ask me about the bow and arrow incident someday). The only exception I can see would be where someone has committed a crime and is convicted by due process. Then forced labor (but not forced removal of any physical part of the body, solid or fluid) is allowable.

This first statement gets murky when you move into the area of internal dependence. That's because there is no real evidence one way or the other as to whether or not the developing ZEF possess that whatever that puts us above the plants and animals we kill on a daily basis.

The second statement is a little more easier to assert, with the immediate exception being those who are born of you (unless you legally are relieved of or transfer your responsibilities) and those who you legally take on the responsibilities for (i.e adoption). When it comes to government, it does move into a bit of haziness as indeed there is at least some aspect of majority rules (although rule of law should always override majority rules). However it is not illogical to assert that is someone is not contributing to the financial pot that they should have less or no say in what happens with the money.

The two statements are unrelated for the most part. One deals with healthcare, one deals with money.

The first is beyond healthcare, even if the OP intended to only focus on that aspect. The actions I pointed out above and others, like "drug" use (which to some people include alcohol, tobacco, even caffeine) or prostitution, fall under the statement of "It's my body to do with as I please". They ARE related in that both the money and the body belong to a given individual and the freedom of choice of what to do with them are the same. Yes in each area of freedom there will always be some exceptions, not counting the violation of others freedoms. But the freedom of choice of use is still the same.
 
Three things are missing
balance
if we have this, then all are taxed and all have a say ...plus, the woman and the baby are respected as they should be..
family
if we have this, then its unthinkable to kill a family member, so abortion is out of the question
reality
in real life we have neither, but we should be striving to have one and two.
Now, the question is , how do we instill family and balance ???
These two things fail - a law against abortion, never has worked and never will.
not allowing the poor a political voice
 
Last edited:
I agree fully with #1 - partially with #2.

Overall: money is not *mine* or *yours* - it's the product of the government's financial system. It is the government's money. I simply do something in which someone else deems is applicable in exchange for said money.

Within limits: I have a relative say over what I do with my money - but overall - it's still the government's property and ergo they ultimately have the ability to govern it.

Then everything purchased with the governments money is also the governments property?

Our government in particular gives us priviledges and freedoms that put us in more direct control of our money - but that's purely because the government has deemed that's appropriate and *the* way we function in this society.

No, we give ourselves privledges and freedoms. It's our government, we tell it what it can do and can't do.
 
So, can I "take" your body for your own well being or that of another? If yes, can I "take" other property that belongs to you for your own well being or that of another?

If I can not take your body for your own well being or that of another, can I still take other things that belong to you to help someone else?

It has to boil down to degrees, but I can't tell where the limits to the gray area begin an end. Can I take what's yours to save a life? If so, who's life - any life? Can I take what's yours to save your life?
 
Then everything purchased with the governments money is also the governments property?



No, we give ourselves privledges and freedoms. It's our government, we tell it what it can do and can't do.

Yeah sure - we would be able to govern our own government's handling of our monies if we elected Congressman, a President who thereby elected members of the Judiciary who all agreed on how to change the Constitution - I see your point.
 
Yeah sure - we would be able to govern our own government's handling of our monies if we elected Congressman, a President who thereby elected members of the Judiciary who all agreed on how to change the Constitution - I see your point.

I sense some sarcasm..

For the most part, we allow the government to operate in good faith, and it's usually not until it does something "serious" that we stand up as a people and shake it up. Take prohibition, for example. The government thought it would be better for us that alcohol be illegal (and they are probably right) but the American people put a stop to that.

Just because we don't get involved (as a people) over minor disagreements doesn't mean we don't own our government vs the opposite.

If you weren't being sarcastic, nm all this :)
 
I sense some sarcasm..

For the most part, we allow the government to operate in good faith, and it's usually not until it does something "serious" that we stand up as a people and shake it up. Take prohibition, for example. The government thought it would be better for us that alcohol be illegal (and they are probably right) but the American people put a stop to that.

Just because we don't get involved (as a people) over minor disagreements doesn't mean we don't own our government vs the opposite.

If you weren't being sarcastic, nm all this :)

Prohibition is not the same as the government defining the use and purpose of money, though.

Ultimately: as it stands right now - we share governance of our money with the government. They are able to tax us, define regulations that inact fines on us and our transactions, etc. They do not have to, though, listen to our complaints - the judicary, therefor, is where we take serious issues - such as how income tax was addressed decades in the past and other issues of private bank vs federal reserve, etc.

If it was 100% our own: they wouldn't be able to tax us at all - and so on. It's a shared 'governance' - if we elected the governemnt and defined it's functions then that's what we decided was best.
 
Prohibition is not the same as the government defining the use and purpose of money, though.

No, it's not the same thing. It's an example of government overreaching and the American people stepping in an straightening it out. Further, it's an example of it being our government, not us being it's subjects.

Ultimately: as it stands right now - we share governance of our money with the government. They are able to tax us, define regulations that inact fines on us and our transactions, etc. They do not have to, though, listen to our complaints - the judicary, therefor, is where we take serious issues - such as how income tax was addressed decades in the past and other issues of private bank vs federal reserve, etc.

They are able to tax us because we allow it. Despite all the bickering over taxes...if the American people stood together and demanded an action regarding taxes...that's what would happen.

If it was 100% our own: they wouldn't be able to tax us at all - and so on. It's a shared 'governance' - if we elected the governemnt and defined it's functions then that's what we decided was best.

Again, they tax us because as a whole, we allow it...not because we have no say in it. It's not a "shared" governance. Our government is for the people, by the people.
 
Ultimately: as it stands right now - we share governance of our money with the government. They are able to tax us, define regulations that inact fines on us and our transactions, etc. They do not have to, though, listen to our complaints - the judicary, therefor, is where we take serious issues - such as how income tax was addressed decades in the past and other issues of private bank vs federal reserve, etc.

If it was 100% our own: they wouldn't be able to tax us at all - and so on. It's a shared 'governance' - if we elected the governemnt and defined it's functions then that's what we decided was best.

I agree with the sentiment somewhat, although, I'd say that "we share governance of our money with each other via the government". It's our government even if we suck at controlling it.

However, that thinking also implies that as long as the government says it's ok, then it's ok. But, the government changes both how it views rights over your own body or others and how much of what is "yours" that it takes. Just because "we", via the government, "decided what was best" doesn't mean it was what was best. It's just what passed.
 
Here is the thing, on the money subject I believe there are PLENTY of other things that several conservatives would love to spend money on that liberals do not. The money thing is a moot point. I think we can all agree that if possible to function as a society we would go with 0% taxes but as a civil society that is impossible.

As for the whole giving birth control to women, look birth control does not cost a lot in the first place. Those few women out there that need it subsidized aren't even costing you the American tax payer 1/8 of a cent per year. Giving women that need birthcontrol the birthcontrol in the long run saves you the tax payer money. I don't even know why this is even a discussion anymore. As for religious institutes, let them pay some taxes then they have a right to an opinion of our government.
 
Here is the thing, on the money subject I believe there are PLENTY of other things that several conservatives would love to spend money on that liberals do not. The money thing is a moot point. I think we can all agree that if possible to function as a society we would go with 0% taxes but as a civil society that is impossible.

As for the whole giving birth control to women, look birth control does not cost a lot in the first place. Those few women out there that need it subsidized aren't even costing you the American tax payer 1/8 of a cent per year. Giving women that need birthcontrol the birthcontrol in the long run saves you the tax payer money. I don't even know why this is even a discussion anymore. As for religious institutes, let them pay some taxes then they have a right to an opinion of our government.

You may have posted in the wrong poll.
 
You may have posted in the wrong poll.

No because I know what the guy is getting at. He wouldn't be posting this out of the blue unless it was in context with a current event. That's how everyone in here works. They think they are crafty posting a poll that has "Nothing to do with" a current event in hopes that someone that normally sees one way on the issue sees it differently when it is made vague to them in a poll, therefore giving the OP some kind of smug internet satisfaction. /End thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom