• 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!

Fines for abortion?

Do you feel the government should be allowed to do this?

  • Total voters
    21
Goldenboy219 said:
That could all be true, although it is arbitrary at best. What we do know though, is that the only way to stimulate economic growth during stagnate periods is with population expansion.

But, your response would be typical to the opinion of many American citizens when the massive waves of immigrants were coming ashore in the late 19th early 20th century. You know, the tired, poor, and sick;)
Click to expand...

The tired, the poor, the sick were here to advance their futures with determination and hard work. They weren't subject to abortion so I am not sure how you draw the parallel there.

I also don't understand how you think that a dependent, damaged undesirable born to a crack addicted mother, neglectful father, and with a host of illnesses relating to it's birth that will burden the state with high costs of medical treatment will stimulate the economy. I'm also not sure how a 4th or 5th baby born to an unwed mother who will become an 18 year recipient of state assistance is supposed to stimulate the economy. I'm also not sure how the child born to the mother who didn't want her and ends up a ward of the state is supposed to stimulate the economy. :shrug:
 
Zyphlin said:
So here's the question. Do you feel the government has the power, or should, fine a woman for either having an abortion or choosing not to carry a child to term? Essentially, that women are completely free to do with their body as they wish, and their privacy is definitely respected.........but if you chose to not carry to term / to abort then the government fines you X amount of dollars, say to cover the costs of people who may be getting free abortions due to lack of financial means or to cover the loss of revenue the government will feel by not having an extra citizen come into this world.

Would this be a breach of the right to privacy? Should the government be fining you for choosing not to do something that you believe effects your health?
Click to expand...

As to whether the government can do this, it would depend on whether the government can make a case that it is allowed to discourage abortion. Fines are there to discourage certain actions. I doubt that would be considered legal currently.
 
The government shouldn't be providing money to assist in abortions in the first place.

That's where a lot of the problems with abortion come from.
 
Abortion is far cheaper than having children. Although it might be able to break even if abortion was evenly distributed among potential wage earning ability, most abortions occur in situations where the potential child would almost certainly end up being a net cost to society.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, I had no intention of bringing that up in any way in this thread. Far more me trying to understand the rationale of people because I routinely am seeing a thought process that is conflicting so maybe it'll give me some insight.

When doing threads like these I don't like actually springing any "trap", though have at times in the past. To me its cheap. That doesn't mean I won't start another thread discussing the issue and using insight from this one, but often times people try to much to spring "the trap" that it ruins a legitimately good conversation.

And its not just support x, but also oppose x.
Click to expand...

:doh caught me with my pants down. however, lets admit that the "trap" is a frequently employed tactic.
 
jallman said:
No it's not. It's reasonable to fine someone for not paying a debt and financially impacting other then but to preemptively fine someone for having a medical emergency without insurance because you assume they won't pay the debt to the hospital is a bit outlandish.
Click to expand...

It is not the least bit outlandish. If someone stops paying their mortgage and student loans, but keeps paying their credit card bill, is it outlandish for the credit card company to increase their interest rates? They COULD keep paying their debt, but it is perfectly logical for the credit card company to assume they won't. They are going to go with what is LIKELY to happen based on actuarial statistics, not what they think will happen in your case specifically.

Same thing here. It's perfectly logical for the government to assume that if you don't have health insurance, you'll default on your medical bills and stick the taxpayers with the bill. It's perfectly logical for the government to assume that if you don't have auto insurance, you'll default on your compensation to your potential crash victim, and stick him (or his insurance company) with the bill. And they should fine people accordingly, just like the credit card companies increase interest rates accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
As to whether the government can do this, it would depend on whether the government can make a case that it is allowed to discourage abortion.
Click to expand...
:confused:
It is 'allowed' to discourage anything it thinks detrimental to the people.

Aside from that,
Abortion is a sad, even tragic choice, to many, many women. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.
 
Last edited:
new coup for you said:
I think there needs to be a cut off at some point. When women get like 10 abortions (albeit a rare instance) they're obviously using it as birth control.
Click to expand...

So what? Alright, let's be honest, if a woman is so stupid that she'd rather spend hundreds or thousand of dollars on abortions rather than $5 for a box of condoms, is this really someone we want raising a child?

I know I sure don't.
 
Goobieman said:
:confused:
It is 'allowed' to discourage anything it thinks detrimental to the people.
Click to expand...

We can fine people for not wearing a seat belt.

Aside from that,
Abortion is a sad, even tragic choice, to many, many women. There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.
Click to expand...

I would have no problem with this, depending on how it was done.
 
Redress said:
We can fine people for not wearing a seat belt.
Click to expand...
Yes, though I am not sure why that was your resoponse.

I would have no problem with this, depending on how it was done.
Click to expand...
So you agree that the government has some legitimate role in discouraging abortions?
 
Goobieman said:
Yes, though I am not sure why that was your resoponse.


So you agree that the government has some legitimate role in discouraging abortions?
Click to expand...

Again, depending on how it was done. Just because I think abortions should be legal does not mean I like abortions.
 
Goobieman said:
So, if it is done in a manner you approve of, you're OK with it. Right?
Click to expand...

If it is done in a manner that can get past the courts, and does not restrict actual access, correct.
 
Kandahar said:
It is not the least bit outlandish. If someone stops paying their mortgage and student loans, but keeps paying their credit card bill, is it outlandish for the credit card company to increase their interest rates? They COULD keep paying their debt, but it is perfectly logical for the credit card company to assume they won't. They are going to go with what is LIKELY to happen based on actuarial statistics, not what they think will happen in your case specifically.

Same thing here.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Not even close. In your example, they've actually stopped paying something -- and the credit card companies can raise rates according to the the contract which the cardholder signed.
 
jallman said:
No, it's completely outlandish to fine someone for not paying a bill before they are even presented with the bill.
Click to expand...

You ignored the actual content of my post that explains WHY it makes sense, and just repeated your talking point.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
No, it isn't. Not even close. In your example, they've actually stopped paying something
Click to expand...

They didn't stop paying their credit card bill. Is the credit card company being outlandish to assume that they will stop paying their bill, and increase their rates accordingly?

Harshaw said:
and the credit card companies can raise rates according to the the contract which the cardholder signed.
Click to expand...

That is a legal point, and is a separate issue from my point that it is hardly irrational to suspect that an individual will default when the statistics back that up. Sure, it's possible that any individual person will be one of the few who does not default...but businesses play the odds. The government should too.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
They didn't stop paying their credit card bill. Is the credit card company being outlandish to assume that they will stop paying their bill, and increase their rates accordingly?
Click to expand...

They agreed to pay their mortgage and they stopped paying. They're going back on their agreement.

Someone who doesn't carry insurance, intentionally, never agreed to carry insurance. They have nothing to go back on.



but businesses play the odds. The government should too.
Click to expand...

What else do you want to extend that analysis to? Anyone you want to lock up pre-emptively because "statistics" show they're eventually going to commit crimes? Or do you want to wait until they actually commit crimes?
 
Kandahar said:
Same thing here. It's perfectly logical for the government to assume that if you don't have health insurance, you'll default on your medical bills and stick the taxpayers with the bill. It's perfectly logical for the government to assume that if you don't have auto insurance, you'll default on your compensation to your potential crash victim, and stick him (or his insurance company) with the bill. And they should fine people accordingly, just like the credit card companies increase interest rates accordingly.
Click to expand...

Except in the case of the credit card company and mortages you're CHOOSING to voluntarily enter into an agreement KNOWING that there's a chance that if you do certain actions it will cause your rates to go up. You can't compare this to choosing NOT to buy something that the government has no business REQUIRING you to have.

Secondly...

You can't compare it to auto-insurance for the simple reason that there is an over riding state interest, at least partially, in this because you are utilizing that vehicle on government property (the road). And, as it is on their property, the government at least in a small way needs to be sure you're operating on it safetly. Thus why I have little issue with drivers liscenses or speed limits, etc.

This again, is different than your body. The government has no good reason to have a vested interest in your body. They have no business in your having of insurance or not, unless PERHAPS at a point in time when you actually do SOMETHING that causes issue to other people.

However sitting there, with no insurance, and not going to the hospital harms no one.

You can not start FINING people for something that has absolutely no baring on anyone else in any way. This simply opens up the door for fining people who smoke, or drink soda, or eat fast food, or don't exercise 3 times a day, or any other thing you'd want that has to do with a body.

It is only loosely like auto-insurance and NOTHING like credit card company agreements. You're having the government fine someone for something the government has no business in due to something the person MIGHT do. That's absolutely insane.
 
Zyphlin said:
You're having the government fine someone for something the government has no business in due to something the person MIGHT do. That's absolutely insane.
Click to expand...

And it's totalitarian to boot.
 
Harshaw said:
They agreed to pay their mortgage and they stopped paying. They're going back on their agreement.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not explaining my analogy properly. The mortgage and the credit card are with two completely different institutions.

Let's say I have a mortgage with Chase Bank, and I have a Visa credit card through Bank of America. If I stop paying my mortgage and keep paying my credit card, I haven't violated a single agreement I've made with my credit card company. Is it illogical of them to raise my rates anyway? Of course not.

Harshaw said:
Someone who doesn't carry insurance, intentionally, never agreed to carry insurance. They have nothing to go back on.
Click to expand...

So are you against auto insurance mandates as well?

Harshaw said:
What else do you want to extend that analysis to? Anyone you want to lock up pre-emptively because "statistics" show they're eventually going to commit crimes? Or do you want to wait until they actually commit crimes?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole alert. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
And it's totalitarian to boot.
Click to expand...
To get you to do something it deemed beneficial, the government used to give you a tax break.
Now it fines you if you don't do it.

:shock:
 
Zyphlin said:
Except in the case of the credit card company and mortages you're CHOOSING to voluntarily enter into an agreement KNOWING that there's a chance that if you do certain actions it will cause your rates to go up. You can't compare this to choosing NOT to buy something that the government has no business REQUIRING you to have.
Click to expand...

We could argue all day over whether your putting yourself at risk and potentially sticking the taxpayers with a bill is a legitimate "choice" to make. But it's hardly irrational from an economic standpoint for the government to want to protect its investors (i.e. the taxpayers) from stupid behaviors (e.g. not owning health insurance), just like it isn't irrational from an economic standpoint for the credit card company to want to protect its investors from stupid behaviors (e.g. people who aren't paying their bills on time).

Zyphlin said:
You can't compare it to auto-insurance for the simple reason that there is an over riding state interest, at least partially, in this because you are utilizing that vehicle on government property (the road). And, as it is on their property, the government at least in a small way needs to be sure you're operating on it safetly. Thus why I have little issue with drivers liscenses or speed limits, etc.
Click to expand...

That is a pretty weak justification, as the government is never successfully sued for accidents that occur on its roads (unless the condition of the road itself is in question).

What if someone lives in a small community with all-private roads, and never leaves? Should they have to purchase auto insurance? Well yes, because if they have an accident without insurance they're still going to stick the other party (or the other party's insurance company) with the bills, whether they're on public roads or not.

Zyphlin said:
This again, is different than your body. The government has no good reason to have a vested interest in your body. They have no business in your having of insurance or not, unless PERHAPS at a point in time when you actually do SOMETHING that causes issue to other people.
Click to expand...

The government has a vested interest in protecting its investors from economic harm, just like a credit card company does.

Zyphlin said:
However sitting there, with no insurance, and not going to the hospital harms no one.
Click to expand...

No, but neither does driving without auto insurance and not having accidents. But no one ever PLANS to have accidents or go to the hospital, so this point is moot.

Zyphlin said:
You can not start FINING people for something that has absolutely no baring on anyone else in any way.
Click to expand...

It DOES have baring on the taxpayers. Who is going to pay if you don't have insurance and can't pay your ER bill?
 
Kandahar said:
We could argue all day over whether your putting yourself at risk and potentially sticking the taxpayers with a bill is a legitimate "choice" to make. But it's hardly irrational from an economic standpoint for the government to want to protect its investors (i.e. the taxpayers) from stupid behaviors (e.g. not owning health insurance),
Click to expand...
Odd.
I thought the right to choose also meant you had the right to choose poorly, understanding that with every choice you made, you were responsible for the outcome.

Remember that the government doesnt HAVE to pay for those that have no insureance, and so there is no basis for the argument that those that choose poorly place a burden on society.

What if someone lives in a small community with all-private roads, and never leaves? Should they have to purchase auto insurance? Well yes
Click to expand...
Under the law, you only need auto insurance when operating the vehicle on public roads.
 
Kandahar said:
Maybe I'm not explaining my analogy properly.
Click to expand...

No, you did -- it's just a bad analogy.

The mortgage and the credit card are with two completely different institutions.
Click to expand...

So? The government and the hospital are (currently) two completely different institutions.


Let's say I have a mortgage with Chase Bank, and I have a Visa credit card through Bank of America. If I stop paying my mortgage and keep paying my credit card, I haven't violated a single agreement I've made with my credit card company. Is it illogical of them to raise my rates anyway? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Are you taking the legal agreement into account, or aren't you? The agreement says the credit card company may raise your rates if you have late payments in other, unrelated accounts.

But the point is, it's not "outlandish" for that clause to be there, because when you default on your mortgage, you're going back on your word and you are demonstrably a worse risk because you stopped doing what you promised to do.

But if you don't carry insurance, you're going back on nothing; there's no history to draw from. You promised to do nothing.


So are you against auto insurance mandates as well?
Click to expand...

If I were not, it wouldn't mean anything, because it's not the same thing at all. You can always not drive on a public road. What do you suggest? Not allow uninsureds out of their homes?

And besides, it's doubly absurd because there's no income requirement for mandated car insurance. You don't get a pass because you "can't afford it." The schemes are not comparable.


Hyperbole alert. :roll:
Click to expand...

You say so only because it demonstrates your "risk assessment" scheme of fining people before they've done anything, based on "likelihood," is absurd. Unfortunately, all of your arguments can be used to argue for pre-emptive lockups. If they can't, then please fully explain how.

Besides, fines are punishment, and according to the 5th and 14th Amendments, punishments still require due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom