How so? It's the same complaint you have - my tax dollars being spent for something I don't agree with. I don't appreciate my tax dollars being used for waging war either. I'd love to be able to choose which programs my money is spent on. I'd pick reproductive health care for poor women over crooked religious organizations any day.
It seems on the 36th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, President Obama will reverse Bush's reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, in which no American dollars would be used to help fund a family planning agency that included anything about abortion in its tenets, teachings and beliefs.
The Hope begins.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/19/obama.abortion/index.html
I sympathize with this point of view more than you know, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't as straight-forward as that. A holistic view will demonstrate that if the quality of life decreases too far in other countries, and population increases there beyond supportable numbers, and we don't help, they will have to redirect more of their own resources to deal with the problems. Also, they become easy (or at least, easier) pickings for dictatorial regimes and recruitment by terrorist organizations. Even if they don't get across the ocean to us with their destructive ways, they can possibly reach our allies and/or our major trade partners. These factors, in turn, will have an effect on our quality of life as those allies and partners see resources they were sharing or trading with us outright destroyed, squandered by corruption, or simply turned away from us and toward dealing with their problems.
Depends on your point of view. If you take this as "we're paying for abortions that would not have otherwise happened", then I agree. But if you take this as "we are paying for women who otherwise would have had abortions anyway, and might have had them botched by non-professionals with severe negative health consequences", then it is a positive step to take.This is a sad thing.
)
) might say that it is deserved if a woman who gets a botched non-professional abortion develops complications or even dies. But the complications aren't always for the mother. One of my friends in high school had a cousin who was a "coat-hanger baby" - his mother tried to abort him herself, and failed. I'd go over to my friend's house (he lived with his grandfather), and a lot of the time, the cousin was there, too. Not to make light, but dude was like the big chompa-machooie-chomp clone of Stan on the fifth episode of South Park. Actually, it was all pretty damned sad. Oversized, mentally retarded, never developed all of one leg and had to wear a prosthesis - and pretty angry all the time. I would have been, too. 
Operative word being, um, drumroll please.... WAR. Which was authorized by Congress. 
Everywhere that it's not prohibited.
You do realize that neither of the amendments you posted have anything to do with what Meat Tenderizer was saying? In fact the 10th amendment directly supports the argument. That's the whole purpose of the enumerated powers, though the general welfare clause & the commerce clause have been taken to give a general power of legislation to Congress (something it was not originally intended).
Another recent arrival?You do realize that neither of the amendments you posted have anything to do with what Meat Tenderizer was saying? In fact the 10th amendment directly supports the argument. That's the whole purpose of the enumerated powers, though the general welfare clause & the commerce clause have been taken to give a general power of legislation to Congress (something it was not originally intended).
Another recent arrival?You do realize that neither of the amendments you posted have anything to do with what Meat Tenderizer was saying? In fact the 10th amendment directly supports the argument. That's the whole purpose of the enumerated powers, though the general welfare clause & the commerce clause have been taken to give a general power of legislation to Congress (something it was not originally intended).
Meat Tenderizer said: "Anything that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden." This is the polar opposite of the American way, as stated (among other places) in the Ninth Amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything that is not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."
Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."
This is one of the things that made the establishment of the United States revolutionary; throughout history, in most, if not all, civilizations, the answer was assumed to be "no," unless someone in power condescended to say "yes." In the United States, the exact opposite is true. And this is not exactly some arcane secret either; it's common knowledge.
