Taxpayer Dollars Used For Abortions

Thank you for the debate Firstly, I take objection to the restrictions placed on me by my opponent. My opponent states that we are talking about the moral implications of using tax dollars for abortions and yet nowhere in his topic is this specified. Furthermore, there is no direct modification of his burden in his first statement (he doesn’t say, my burden is ___, or the exact resolution is ___, or this debate only pertains to morals.) The argument presented when my opponent say’s “I argue the use of taxpayer dollars to carry out abortions allows the violation of minorities' beliefs and is, in fact, oppressive on some unwilling taxpayers” is just that, an argument. This is (because it has not been otherwise specified) my opponent’s way of arguing that taxpayers should cease to be used to fund abortions, but this does not limit my side of the argument, in that I may affirm in other ways than simply rebutting my opponent. Contention 1: Social contract theory as it pertains to lack of knowledge and judgment. Preface: Social contract theory states that an individual, as a member of society, gives up some of their power to the government, in order to have protection. You might want to be able to threaten Joe with a knife and take his money, but you also don’t want bob to shoot you because he feels like it, so you give power to the government. The government is supposed to act in the way that best protects its citizens. This can be extended to say that if a people are lead to falsely believe something, then the government does not oppress them by not choosing to act on their conclusion, because, had they been given the correct information they would not make the same decision, and it is not in the best interest of the countries citizens. Take this example. Fox news ups its anti Pakistan propaganda, stating that 99% of all Pakistanis want all Christians killed and 95% want all Americans killed, and that 55% are planning to act on this. Fox then states that they are capable of achieving their goal. Now lets say that this somehow convinced 60% of the population, and they came to the conclusion that it is was necessary to nuke Pakistan. It would be the government’s job to do away with this notion, even if it is the ‘majority opinion’ because it isn’t in the citizen’s interest and because they are grossly misinformed. Sub-point A: Misconceptions about abortion. Many people think that, if the government doesn’t fund abortions, or if the government makes them illegal, they will go away. Many people believe that pro-life actions and laws, for whatever reason, will destroy abortion. This is simply not the case, as women will continue to have back-alley abortions. Back-alley abortions (and other illegal forms of abortion) are far more dangerous than ones done in clinics and hospitals. By not supporting government funding abortion, pro-life advocates are really supporting back-alley abortions, leading to more maternal deaths, birth defects etc. In fact, before Roe V Wade, as many as 5000 women died annually from unsuccessful abortions [1.] By not supporting abortion, you encourage more risky versions of it. In terms of your earlier analogy, imagine you refuse. The man, not having any bullets, takes out a shotgun because it is the only thing that will do the job. The man then shoots the child, and also kills the mother who is standing next to him. Sub-point B: Misconceptions about the pertinence of the bible to abortions. 1.) The bible and abortions simply don’t mix. Abortion is a new idea and a new technology. This is a technology that was not talked about in the bible because, even if you assume it was written by god, people wouldn’t have understood abortion in the sense that we do until over 1000 years after the old testament was written (which is where most of the evidence that pro life Christians site comes from.) Therefore it is impossible to say what the bible’s stance on it would be, it is like asking someone what the bible says about the use of electricity or flying cars. The argument that many people have is about vernacular (specifically that the bible doesn’t differentiate between a child and a not yet child,) but there wasn’t a need for a vernacular that differentiated between born and unborn. This nullifies the religious argument for being pro-life. As it is the governments duty to act in the best interests of it’s citizens, and to act on majority opinion in the absence of tampering. Because these myths are so widespread, they must be ignored in order to truly encompass the best interests of citizens. 2.) Nowhere dose the bible specifically state that humans are human at the point of conception. Because the bible is vague on the subject, it once again devolves pro-life arguments into speculation and myth, relating back to the end of the firs part of this sub-point. There is a reason that it is illegal for youths to ride in cars without seat belts. They don’t know that it is dangerous, and many of their piers and elders may tell them it is not, but it is, and the government has to protect it’s people. Contention 2: Social contract theory, as it pertains to dangerous and horrible situations. There are many situations in which abortion is extremely important. The two most commonly sited ones are cases in which the life of the mother is endangered, and rape. In both of these cases, the need of the few could easily be argued to come before the faith of the many, and the situations are life-threatening on the one hand, and devastating on the other. It puts a significant strain on women have been raped, both psychologically and economically. By having the government not pay for abortions you increase the burden on mothers in these situations, and cause back-alley abortions. In the former of these cases, you not only increase the burden on them, but for poor mothers, you potentially kill them. I think the 10 commandments (and basic ethics) come before Exodus 21:22-25 or Job 10:8-12. Contention 3: Most people aren’t completely pro life, and you can’t oppress a minority in a democracy by accepting a majority opinion. Democracies are supposed to function such that the majority opinion comes to the fore. Therefore, if the government acts on a majority opinion, it does not oppress the minority; it is simply how the system works. One of your arguments is that Christians are the majority and the majority of Christians are pro life. While this is true, the numbers are not overwhelming so I looked up some myself and found this. In one recent poll, 47% of people currently identify as pro-choice, as opposed to 46% pro-life, making pro-choice (by the slimmest of margins) the majority opinion. The trend also looks to indicate further support for a pro-choice stance. This means that people aren’t being oppressed; the system would merely be doing its job. Additionally, most taxpayer dollars would go to rape cases and cases involving the death of the mother, and another poll states that 50% believe that abortion should be legal in some cases and 28% believe that it should be legal in all cases. Once again, the government would once again, be acting within jurisdiction [2.] In a democracy, the fact is that you will end up paying for some things you don’t like, because the government will never agree with you on everything. If it were wrong for a government to do something because some minority opposed it, then nothing would get done. Contention 4: Separation of church and state. Many of the philosophies that lead to a pro-life stance are religious, which should, in a political sense, nullify the objections. The political and the religious are separated so that people of all beliefs have a level playing field, protecting all citizens. Therefore, the government refusing to make a decision (in this case paying for abortions) based on a group’s religious faith is quite simply amoral and illegal. Contention 5: Monetary gains. The government (which means taxpayers in turn) pays for people not having the government pay for abortions, due to welfare, medical and possibly housing costs while a baby is put up for adoption. If the government made abortion available to say teens, rape victims etc. they would make money. If your objection is that you as a Christian would be paying for it, you wouldn’t, it would be paying for itself. Contention 6: No status quo, the government hasn’t funded abortion for ages. My opponent argues that the fact that the government funds abortion is wrong morally. I think it is already clear from my prior contentions that the government should fund abortion, but even if you don’t buy those, my opponent still loses on the ground that you can’t infringe rights if the subject of infringement isn’t occurring. The government doesn’t fund abortions [3] and therefore doesn’t oppress minority taxpayers in doing so. In conclusion, not only is it dangerous and unethical for the government not to fund abortion for those who can't aford it, it violates social contract theory in 2 ways and democracy in another. Additionally the religious arguments against abortion are false and vague, meaning that anyone who objects on those grounds is false. As something to leave you with, I’d just like to say that anyone who says that a human is a human at the point of birth should look at these two pictures and tell me (without looking it up) with 100% certainty, without looking it up which one is human. These pictures are from 30 days into pregnancy. The pictures seem not to be loading, i apologize if they fail to. [1] http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... [2] http://www.gallup.com... [3] http://womensissues.about.com...