Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[A'isha]

How about a chain of abortion clinics right across the border? They'd have to claim they were raped to get around Mexico's laws, but might work. Then there's Misoprostol, apparently already in stock and available in Mexican pharmacies: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/he...omen-lured-to-mexico-in-search-abortion-pill/

Which will probably end up being smuggled back into the United States, thanks to this bill's new restrictions.

 

[xjx388]

20 weeks as a determination of viability, while honestly stupid, fits the pragmatism for most states and healthcare providers. I think SCOTUS would absolutely strike down the clinic regulations as they violate the state's duty to provide access to healthcare. The states are violating their duty in this Texas bill.

The state does not have a duty to provide healthcare under the Constitution. The SCOTUS would have no basis on which to make such a ruling.

And AGAIN your trying to shove in it as a "right", but that's NONSENSE! States don't have to provide for abortion by their legal capacity but that doesn't mean they have a duty to invent a legal capacity to REMOVE that either, even for protection of the fetus.

But it is a right, under the 14th amendment. And States have a compelling interest to protect the life of the unborn child. So they do have the right to regulate abortion after viability.

If the states actually used the measure of viability what they'd do is actually take the fetus considered viable as their own ward. The mother can have it removed and the state can then provide for all medical care to bring the child to term with whatever technology available. THAT is what defines the State's intervention capacity. Do you see them doing that? Do you see them OFFERING that? Nope, and it's because this "viability" argument is a bs argument; it's an artifact of the research that politicians use in a sadistic fashion to promote their anti-choice agenda. It's a smokescreen.

In most cases, women entered into the sexual union willingly. If she fails to get an abortion within the legally allowed timeframe then she must bear responsibility for her actions. And there are better ways of handling it. Adoptive parents will willingly bear the burden of the costs of care for that baby.

You misunderstand the dynamic severely. That child, when born is afforded the rights as delegated by the state and their sovereignty.

You keep saying that, but the whole basis of the Constitution is that the people have the sovereignty. The State has certain rights and all other rights are reserved to the people.

Even if you're a parent your legal capacity is nothing more than a proxy of the state.

No. My legal capacity as a parent is one of those inalienable rights reserved to the people.

Killing your born child, who is completely independent of your biology and poses no health risk to you (assuming that you killing them isn't in self defense...). Unborn fetus is a COMPLETELY different legal and biological dynamic. Conflating this again is beneath you.

No. Killing my child would deprive that kid of his or her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The State has a duty to protect those rights and thus, murder is wrong. And that "born" child is completely dependent on my biology to live: I have to labor in order to keep him alive.

By using ACTUAL intervention measures. If they want to promote the health of a "viable" fetus they can go out and buy a surrogate uterus (either technological or transplant). I have no idea if this is even feasible but THAT is how a state can protect the unborn child. Otherwise prohibiting abortion violates their duty.

Maybe one day. But until that day, a woman has a duty to their viable but unborn child just as if that child had been born. The state has a duty to protect the life of the unborn child. Texas recognizes this by providing Medicaid and CHIP coverage to the unborn child so that a needy mother will have the healthcare necessary to bear a healthy child. Then we provide WIC and Food Stamps so that both mother and child can maintain their health.

Those infrastructures do exist and yet for some reason the focus is still on mitigating the capacity for healthcare professionals and mothers to make health decisions. How do you not see the disconnect here? The restriction in the interest of the child is bullpies because if that were true they would actually use interventions, not restrictions.

You can't argue that the State has a duty to use non-existant technologies to maintain viable fetuses. The mother has a duty to maintain that viable fetus if she did not opt for an abortion during the allowable time.

Ten dollars and a bag of donuts says you have no idea why later stage abortions are performed. Later stage abortions almost always are performed because the child's viability not only to survive birth but to survive in the uterus is dangerous to allow for further development. This doesn't happen often but it does put the mother and child at risk. Most all abortions are performed early. Later discretionary abortions are performed to reduce further risks to both mother and child. You cannot presuppose viability across the board. Even children who are born may be non viable.

And Texas allows for those situations. The new law makes exceptions for dangers to the mother's health or if the baby is, for lack of a better word, compromised.

is your child biologically dependent on you? Does it put you at risk? Are there other intervention measures that produce better outcomes? If no, kill your kid. I'll advocate for you.

You are missing the point. I'm not arguing for the right to kill my kid. I'm trying to see where you draw the line. You seem to be OK with an abortion at 39 weeks, I just wonder what the distinction is to you after it's born.

That isn't even an argument against me, you realize that right? Just because my individual reality makes treatment hard doesn't mean that states get to force legal restrictions for it. That's absolutely a violation of their duty. You know what they SHOULD do? Build more hospitals...

With what money?

 

[xjx388]

Which will probably end up being smuggled back into the United States, thanks to this bill's new restrictions.

It already has been before the bill and will continue to be after.

 

[Elizabeth I]

And that "born" child is completely dependent on my biology to live: I have to labor in order to keep him alive.

No, you don't. Somebody has to, but it doesn't have to be you.

 

[xjx388]

No tax money was spent on abortion provision in Texas. Planned Parenthood in Texas explicitly chose that path in order to continue receiving government support.

Money is fungible.

The gutting of Planned Parenthood funding in Texas is most definitely a part of the Tea Party agenda to punish women for their sexuality.

Or you know, to protect unborn children.

And perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Texas' idiot-in-chief Rick Perry has refused any increase to Medicaid funding in Texas.

From the federal government. There are other ways to care for the needy people of Texas than that.

Gee, you "feel for" them. That's generous. Would you like to share with us your ethnicity, your education level, and your income? I ask because I have a strong suspicion that you are living a pretty easy life and have no idea what the women you "feel for" have to deal with.

I'm Hispanic, some college and we make about $250K/yr. But when we started we made next to nothing and lived on food stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing. We lived in the poorest neighborhoods for the first 15 years of our marriage. Only in the last 10 years have we been able to get out of that cycle. Our families are still at that level. So yeah, I do know what it's like and what poorer folk have to deal with.

In this context, you sound very much like those who argue that people who are poor and uneducated somehow deserve it. You know, that lazy, grasping 48%.

[And, by the way, why weren't you and your girlfriend - now your wife - using contraception, Mr. Responsibility?]

I do believe that most of the problems of the poor are created by the poor. I've seen it.

As for our use of contraception, it's irrelevant. We did the responsible thing by taking responsibility for our child and raising her the best we could while climbing out of the pit of poverty. We could have been stuck there forever but we decided to work hard to get out. I'd say we did pretty good.

There's a big difference between sixty miles and two hundred miles. Are you aware of the fact that every clinic west of IH-35 will have to close under these rules? Look at a map of Texas.

There are currently not many abortion clinics in West Texas at all. So for the last century or so, a woman in rural Texas who wanted an abortion had to drive somewhere far away to get it. This law changes nothing.

Yes, "simply because it's her body." What ivory tower do you live in? Because the woman has to deal with all the physical risks of pregnancy and delivery, and, if the man chooses to walk away, all the financial and social burdens of raising a child alone.

Not quite, the man doesn't get to absolve himself of financial responsibility. And what if the man is willing to take on those burdens himself if the woman doesn't want them? Shouldn't he have some right to have that child?

Gosh, maybe you haven't noticed, but women often have much less choice in the question of whether or not to have sex than men do. And I'm not talking just about rape. I'm also talking about cultural and social practices and pressures that dictate that women yield to men in the arena of who initiates sex and who gets to say yes or no, even in the context of marriage. Those pressures often also discourage the practice of contraception.

There, now you can say that this is a "cultural and societal" issue - a completely different subject - that shouldn't affect the availability of abortion. That's dishonest argumentation, but it doesn't seem to stop you.

All of that may be true, but this does not detract from the need to protect the unborn child. Abortion is legal, safe and available. It is just restricted in order to protect the kid. It's really that simple.

Certainly you can. You just can't get caught. The coke traffic between Mexico and the United States gives the lie to that assertion.

By that logic, then, a woman can always have an abortion, she just can't get caught.

 

[A'isha]

Money is fungible.

Not for this, it's not.

Or you know, to protect unborn children.

The desire of this bill's sponsor to pull CHIP benefits from women for the explicit reason that their children haven't been born yet puts the lie to that statement.

From the federal government. There are other ways to care for the needy people of Texas than that.

Except that makes it a lot harder. Apparently concern for children ends once they're actually born.

There are currently not many abortion clinics in West Texas at all. So for the last century or so, a woman in rural Texas who wanted an abortion had to drive somewhere far away to get it. This law changes nothing.

Going from "few clinics, making it difficult" to "no clinics, making it really difficult" is abso-***********-lutely a change. It's just not one that will ever affect you/

Not quite, the man doesn't get to absolve himself of financial responsibility. And what if the man is willing to take on those burdens himself if the woman doesn't want them? Shouldn't he have some right to have that child?

If he can carry it to term and give birth to it, sure.

 

[xjx388]

Not for this, it's not.

How is money not fungible for this? You can't say, "Oh, we didn't spend the government's money on abortion, we spent this other pile of cash we have." You can't separate the money. Money from the gov for BC is money PP can turn around and spend on abortion.

The desire of this bill's sponsor to pull CHIP benefits from women for the explicit reason that their children haven't been born yet puts the lie to that statement.

That was a dumb thing on her part. I don't speak for her, nor am I trying to defend her. I speak only about my own thoughts and my own justifications.

Except that makes it a lot harder. Apparently concern for children ends once they're actually born.

Not for me. I support unborn children getting CHIP and Medicaid benefits if necessary to support their health.

Going from "few clinics, making it difficult" to "no clinics, making it really difficult" is abso-***********-lutely a change. It's just not one that will ever affect you

Which community will lose an abortion clinic in Texas? You will find that there are (before this bill takes effect) not many small communities in Texas with abortion clinics. The ones that do have them tend to be in communities with a hospital; larger communities. Those don't have to close; indeed, there's no indication that they will close. I can't find even one abortion clinic in Texas that would fall outside the new requirements.

 

[Lowpro]

The state does not have a duty to provide healthcare under the Constitution. The SCOTUS would have no basis on which to make such a ruling.

Actually yes they do however my phrasing may have been too direct for an obtuse issue. States have the sovereignty of law to guarantee the health and safety of its citizens. This is a constitutional duty performed by the states. They don't so much provide healthcare (they can and they do but they could just as easily defer it off) but they DO provide for legal control of health care. They are involved in the funding of their health care systems and in the management of them. You know those privately owned clinics? They only act autonomously but under state licensing so yes, in effect the states have assumed the duty of providing health care. You may not understand this too well but health care runs the gamut of surveillance, municipal health standards, a whole lot. The state provides so much healthcare that we often forget that and think of health care as little buildings with doctors in them. That's only a small part of it.

But it is a right, under the 14th amendment. And States have a compelling interest to protect the life of the unborn child. So they do have the right to regulate abortion after viability.
In most cases, women entered into the sexual union willingly. If she fails to get an abortion within the legally allowed timeframe then she must bear responsibility for her actions. And there are better ways of handling it. Adoptive parents will willingly bear the burden of the costs of care for that baby.

Correct but that actually is a bit of a weird one, and Justice O'Conner has touched on this a few times. I'm going to mention it later when you mention how it was unfair of me to suggest an nonexistent intervention...

Part of bearing the responsibility for the action of a sexual union that results in a baby is a strange circumstance and you need to understand that the law does NOT as of now make a strong consensus on this. A pregnant woman sits in a legal limbo. Part of being a parent is actually a delegation of legal agency. Just because you birth out a kid doesn't mean you are now responsible for that kid by any other means than by the law. You can, as a parent, terminate your parental rights and thus that responsibility you're talking about ceases to be. But pregnant women actually don't have that delegation of rights and their capacity to provide as a biological method for survival of the fetus does not fall in them. The states cannot regulate that biology; if they could then they could mandate organ donation. Hell that actually would give them legal power to literally outlaw cancer. That's not a joke. Instead the states want to regulate by the interest of the fetus to promote its life capacity. Doing that would disenfranchise the mother as she is not allowed to maintain her autonomy and her biology. It's not that she has a right to as declared by law, it's that NO LEGAL BODY can interfere with her autonomy and biology. To reiterate, the states have no legal sovereignty to declare the autonomy and biology as a right to be intervened on. BUT as you argue they DO have a right to intervene based on the viability of the fetus. But by outlawing abortion they are NOT truly promoting the life of that fetus, they are disenfranchising those women and violating their autonomy and biology. So keep that in mind for this next bit.

You keep saying that, but the whole basis of the Constitution is that the people have the sovereignty. The State has certain rights and all other rights are reserved to the people.

No. My legal capacity as a parent is one of those inalienable rights reserved to the people.

These two together are funny. Your legal capacity as a parent is ONLY a delegation of the state's sovereignty. You don't actually have special parental rights, instead the state delegates your rights to you. You can surrender them, they can take them away. But make NO MISTAKE as a parent you have no legal protection of unalienable rights there.

No. Killing my child would deprive that kid of his or her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The State has a duty to protect those rights and thus, murder is wrong. And that "born" child is completely dependent on my biology to live: I have to labor in order to keep him alive.

Murder isn't wrong as a means to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Murder is basically killing somebody without legal consent. A murder charge would not have saved your kid because you can't be charged with murder before the event.

And no, your child is not dependent on your biology to live, you're trying to conflate your ability to provide to their well being but it's not like you're a Shmoo that he or she can eat and thrive from. In the womb that's another story.

Maybe one day. But until that day, a woman has a duty to their viable but unborn child just as if that child had been born. The state has a duty to protect the life of the unborn child. Texas recognizes this by providing Medicaid and CHIP coverage to the unborn child so that a needy mother will have the healthcare necessary to bear a healthy child. Then we provide WIC and Food Stamps so that both mother and child can maintain their health.

Not by law and even if it were it'd be nonsensical. The mother could just cut the pregnancy of at viability and hand the fetus off to the state. If you really believe in this viability bs you're hiding behind then put your money where your mouth is. She doesn't have to carry her pregnancy to term at all then. She made it to viability, right? Cut the fetus out, put it on a preemie system and abandon it. If you want pretend that she's a mother then we damn well will let her have those legal protections.

You can't argue that the State has a duty to use non-existant technologies to maintain viable fetuses. The mother has a duty to maintain that viable fetus if she did not opt for an abortion during the allowable time.

The technologies exist but let me tell you something. If you want to pretend that viability is an accurate determination of life, then own it. If the state wants to promote the life of that child and NOT infringe on the mother's autonomy then the state can provide for a 28 week removal of the fetus and organs and put it in an incubator. Now you tell me, if you really believe in that viability distinction then the States have to pursue this in lieu of banning any abortion AFTER 28 weeks. What's it going to be for you? Admit that viability is horsecrap or will you promote the ACTUAL intervention that the state can pursue without infringing on the female's autonomy? Is she a mother or is she not? If she's a mother after 28 weeks then you better get ready to pay out the ass and make a lot of tiny coffins. If you're not ready to argue that then well really this isn't about viability at all then is it. Viability is a smokescreen, plain and simple.

And Texas allows for those situations. The new law makes exceptions for dangers to the mother's health or if the baby is, for lack of a better word, compromised.

It shouldn't even have to be enumerated exceptions by law. That should have been a decision made by the pregnant woman and her physician.

You are missing the point. I'm not arguing for the right to kill my kid. I'm trying to see where you draw the line. You seem to be OK with an abortion at 39 weeks, I just wonder what the distinction is to you after it's born.

After the child is born then it's no longer an issue of compromising the mother's autonomy. The fact is she can surrender her child immediately to the state. She cannot actually do that when she is pregnant with the child so the dynamic is changed. To be forced to carry the child to term even if it's dangerous or she has no effective means and the procedure itself exists and meets HER needs. But even more the capacity she has in autonomy dictates NO OBLIGATION to do so. Even IF the states continue their crusade to promote the life of that child they are NOT actually doing so. They are only inhibiting the capacity of autonomy from the mother. The states would be obligated instead to own up to their bullcrap on the distinction of viability.

With what money?

Sounds like somebody made a law that preceded their capacity to perform their duties, huh. Maybe now you see why we're all a little pissed with Texas.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So if a woman decides to abort at 39 weeks, no problem?

Most people would be against that. However, can you provide even a single example of this ever happening?

 

[A'isha]

How is money not fungible for this? You can't say, "Oh, we didn't spend the government's money on abortion, we spent this other pile of cash we have." You can't separate the money. Money from the gov for BC is money PP can turn around and spend on abortion.

Except they don't. By law, they actually can't.

So, if you have some evidence that they're breaking the law after all, I would be most interested in seeing it.

That was a dumb thing on her part. I don't speak for her, nor am I trying to defend her. I speak only about my own thoughts and my own justifications.

Elizabeth I was specifically talking about "[t]he gutting of Planned Parenthood funding in Texas [being] most definitely a part of the Tea Party agenda to punish women for their sexuality", so your own thoughts and justifications about the purpose of such laws are tangential to what she said, if not entirely irrelevant.

Not for me. I support unborn children getting CHIP and Medicaid benefits if necessary to support their health.

The Tea Party Republicans in the Texas Legislature do not, however. They, as Elizabeth I said and Representative Laubenberg's blatant hypocrisy shows, merely want to punish women for their sexuality, and only give lip service to "protecting unborn children" that they in reality don't give two ***** for.

Which community will lose an abortion clinic in Texas?

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst tweeted a helpful map of which clinics would end up shutting down because of this bill, bragging "We fought to pass SB5 thru the Senate last night, & this is why!"

Which is why I find your reassurances that no clinic in Texas will shut down because of this bill somewhat less than convincing.

You will find that there are (before this bill takes effect) not many small communities in Texas with abortion clinics. The ones that do have them tend to be in communities with a hospital; larger communities. Those don't have to close; indeed, there's no indication that they will close.

Again, how does the statement "things are currently bad" mitigate making things worse? How is further limiting what few options women have in the state of Texas not a bad thing thing?

I can't find even one abortion clinic in Texas that would fall outside the new requirements.

Virtually all the abortion clinics in Texas fall outside the new requirements: 37 out of the 42 that currently exist. Look at that map that Dewhurst tweeted: only the white dots are clinics that will remain open.

Please, explain to me, as best you can, how reducing 42 abortion clinics to five is not going to create additional burdens and roadblocks for women seeking even just a non-surgical medical abortion.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I do believe that most of the problems of the poor are created by the poor. I've seen it.

So poor people deserve to be poor? It's their punishment, like getting pregnant is a woman's punishment for being sexually active?

ETA:

As for our use of contraception, it's irrelevant. We did the responsible thing by taking responsibility for our child and raising her the best we could while climbing out of the pit of poverty. We could have been stuck there forever but we decided to work hard to get out. I'd say we did pretty good.

It's not irrelevant. You made sure your wife was punished for having sex, just like the good folks at the Texas lege want to do now.

Not quite, the man doesn't get to absolve himself of financial responsibility.

Of course he does, de facto if not de jure. Where do you think those rolls of deadbeat dads come from?

And what if the man is willing to take on those burdens himself if the woman doesn't want them?

Is he going to carry to term and go through delivery?

Shouldn't he have some right to have that child?

Not if the woman whose body he wants to use to provide himself with a child is unwilling to serve as his incubator.

By that logic, then, a woman can always have an abortion, she just can't get caught.

That's partly the point. This law will drive women to back-alley abortionists.

The Tea Party Republicans in the Texas Legislature do not, however. They, as Elizabeth I said and Representative Laubenberg's blatant hypocrisy shows, merely want to punish women for their sexuality, and only give lip service to "protecting unborn children" that they in reality don't give two ***** for.

Now, now, now, be fair. The Tea Partiers do care for unborn babies. It's after the babies are born that they no longer give a ****.

 

[xjx388]

Except they don't. By law, they actually can't.
So, if you have some evidence that they're breaking the law after all, I would be most interested in seeing it.

How do they separate the money? It all kind of looks alike . . . That's the reason why Texas did what it did. By giving money to PP for contraceptives, they are freeing up money for them to provide abortions. It's simple economics. You can't escape the fact that money is fungible; there is no special exception in this case.

Elizabeth I was specifically talking about "[t]he gutting of Planned Parenthood funding in Texas [being] most definitely a part of the Tea Party agenda to punish women for their sexuality", so your own thoughts and justifications about the purpose of such laws are tangential to what she said, if not entirely irrelevant.

OK.

The Tea Party Republicans in the Texas Legislature do not, however. They, as Elizabeth I said and Representative Laubenberg's blatant hypocrisy shows, merely want to punish women for their sexuality, and only give lip service to "protecting unborn children" that they in reality don't give two ***** for.

And that's your opinion. Maybe they just want to stop people from killing babies. In any case, I only care about their opinions as they apply to legislation.

Lt. Governor David Dewhurst tweeted a helpful map of which clinics would end up shutting down because of this bill, bragging "We fought to pass SB5 thru the Senate last night, & this is why!"

Which is why I find your reassurances that no clinic in Texas will shut down because of this bill somewhat less than convincing.

That map was not created by him but by a pro-choice group. Funny that when you look up that website, the map does not appear there nor does any justification for what the map shows. For example, it shows an abortion clinic in my neck of the woods as being one that will close down. I know the director of that clinic and they have no plans to close. So much for the accuracy of that map.

And it was exceedingly stupid for Dewhurst to tweet that.

Again, how does the statement "things are currently bad" mitigate making things worse? How is further limiting what few options women have in the state of Texas not a bad thing thing?

It remains to be seen which clinics will close. PP has threatened to close clinics if the law passed but I think that, in the end, was an idle threat. We will see.

Virtually all the abortion clinics in Texas fall outside the new requirements: 37 out of the 42 that currently exist. Look at that map that Dewhurst tweeted: only the white dots are clinics that will remain open.

I question the validity of the data upon which that map was created. The problem is, there is no reference to the data that I can find.

Please, explain to me, as best you can, how reducing 42 abortion clinics to five is not going to create additional burdens and roadblocks for women seeking even just a non-surgical medical abortion.

If that actually happens, then you might have a point. Luckily, those clinics have until Sep 2014 to make their case in the courts.

 

[xjx388]

So poor people deserve to be poor?

"Deserve" is a human emotional concept. It has no basis in reality.

It's their punishment, like getting pregnant is a woman's punishment for being sexually active?

What a warped thing to say. How is pregnancy a punishment? No. A person's perception of pregnancy can change based on their personal circumstances, but pregnancy is simply the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.

ETA:

It's not irrelevant. You made sure your wife was punished for having sex, just like the good folks at the Texas lege want to do now.

Again, this is just incredibly warped thinking to me. We certainly don't consider our kids punishments, quite the opposite; we wouldn't change a thing about our lives even with the hindsight of 25 years together. Besides, I punish my wife in other ways . . . like making her eat my cooking!

Of course he does, de facto if not de jure. Where do you think those rolls of deadbeat dads come from?

And they are punished for skipping out on their responsibilities. That mark never leaves your record and the Texas AG is pretty relentless in collecting.

 

[elbe]

How do they separate the money? It all kind of looks alike . . . That's the reason why Texas did what it did. By giving money to PP for contraceptives, they are freeing up money for them to provide abortions. It's simple economics. You can't escape the fact that money is fungible; there is no special exception in this case.

Any two bit accountant can keep money separated. I'm an idiot and I've managed to not spend the money I have in investments on food. They have to keep the books and show where the money goes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is just more evidence in that a vote for a Republican is a vote to ban abortion.

 

[xjx388]

Any two bit accountant can keep money separated. I'm an idiot and I've managed to not spend the money I have in investments on food. They have to keep the books and show where the money goes.

If you ask your parents to lend you money to buy food but then also buy drugs, you can't separate which dollar was used to buy the burger and which was used to buy the joint. It's all the same money. And your parents would be right in denying you further money so as not to support your drug habit. I doubt that the argument, "But look at the receipts. I used your money only to buy food!" would hold much water for them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree with xjx, money is fungible. However, I don't agree with Texan Republicans doing their best to effectively ban abortion for non-wealthy women.

 

[elbe]

If you ask your parents to lend you money to buy food but then also buy drugs, you can't separate which dollar was used to buy the burger and which was used to buy the joint. It's all the same money. And your parents would be right in denying you further money so as not to support your drug habit. I doubt that the argument, "But look at the receipts. I used your money only to buy food!" would hold much water for them.

If I had bank records of separate accounts I could demostrate that one does not bleed into the other unless I want it to. Your argument from ignorance doesn't really stand up.

 

[xjx388]

If I had bank records of separate accounts I could demostrate that one does not bleed into the other unless I want it to. Your argument from ignorance doesn't really stand up.

Are you messing with me?

You could have 20 different accounts, each for a different purpose. You still control all the money and you still only have a finite supply. All the money is the same whether its in your sock drawer or the bank. You can't escape the fungibility of money.

If you pay tax, that tax funds everything the government does, not just the things you agree with.

If you buy a sandwich from chic-fil-a, that money goes to everything they do, including donating to groups you may not agree with. People don't rationalize, "Oh, but I'm only paying for the ingredients and the employees, not the Christian groups." That might be what they think, but it doesn't reflect reality.

 

[elbe]

Are you messing with me?

You could have 20 different accounts, each for a different purpose. You still control all the money and you still only have a finite supply. All the money is the same whether its in your sock drawer or the bank. You can't escape the fungibility of money.

If you pay tax, that tax funds everything the government does, not just the things you agree with.

If you buy a sandwich from chic-fil-a, that money goes to everything they do, including donating to groups you may not agree with. People don't rationalize, "Oh, but I'm only paying for the ingredients and the employees, not the Christian groups." That might be what they think, but it doesn't reflect reality.

It's really not that complicated. PP has strict rules they have to follow about money and, strangely enough, they manage not to violate them. If you think it's somehow impossible for them to actually abide by them you should probably take that up with your representative, but until then it appears you're making an argument from ignorance: you don't understand it, so it can't be true.