Who claims that the unborn are only persons when a woman wants to abort them? I have had several friends suffer after losing a baby through spontaneous miscarriage during the first trimester. Those *babies* were very much wanted and very certainly people. Length of gestation has no more determination on personhood than geography does. The baby is a living human being from the moment of conception--whether in or out of the womb.

Your argument has no coherence or logic. No where in this article does the author promote making abortion illegal (though, admittedly, the tone does allow one to infer he is in favor of such an action). Furthermore, have you read about some of the problems that have been revealed in abortion clinics recently? Facilities are being shut down for not having properly trained staff, for failing to maintain even minimal standards of cleanliness, and for blatantly disregarding minimum standards of care. At least when a woman goes to a back-alley butcher with a coat hanger she knows she is taking a risk. When she walks into a "clinic" she feels safe, even if she isn't.

When is abortion safer than carrying a baby to term? Please provide statistics with sources or links as AmyD did.

But not nearly like they are now. That's the point. The cost of everything has been going up recently, but my insurance premiums, copays, and deductible have skyrocketed in the last 3 years. I had a baby almost 2 years ago with a $1500 deductible. Because of loopholes and exceptions, I ended up paying close to $6000 anyway. My deductible is now $10000 with a $1000 per occurrence deductible, meaning it's really a a $11000+ deductible. I'm afraid to think what the bills will be for the baby I am expecting in March.

Benjamin: The point of the Reformation was to bring the teachings of the Catholic Church in line with the Scriptures. The Reformers had no problems with the government encouraging its citizens to be faithful to their churches. What the Reformers fought against was *anyone* saying that the truth of the Scriptures was limited to an elite group. Please don't try to turn these people into something that, according to their own writings, they were not. It undermines your entire argument. If you disagree with the "Faith Based Initiatives," present facts regarding them and the impact they have (or have not) had. In other words, make a real argument.

Furthermore, what's to keep the flower girl from hiring a guy to deliver flowers to her customers? Then she would be using more of the "societal benefits" available. If she pays a lower tax rate because she currently doesn't use them, does she have to apply for permission to use them if she wants to later on? Knowing that this would raise her tax burden (through a rate increase), why would she do that? It would be in her best interest to either lie (by never registering the new aspect of her business) or never start the new part of the business in the first place. Neither situation is a win for the government or the people.

The very fact that they are paying a percentage helps make the system fair. The more they earn and--according to your argument--make use of the societal services offered, the more in absolute dollar amounts they owe. However, they still pay they same percentage, allowing them a reward for their hard work.

that is a lot of money--Money that could be used for investments or to give to others in need. Cutting out the "middle man" (in this case government) allows us to help more people and to know for certain that our giving is making a difference in a way that we agree with.

...Our country saw far lower levels of need (not necessarily poverty) when people had to turn to private organizations and individuals to have their genuine needs met. A parent, sibling, neighbor, coworker, or fellow church member frequently helped meet a short-term need. And unless the recipient intentionally misused the assistance, very little if any was wasted because it went directly to the source with no overhead to the government. How is that system inferior to one where 20-40% (or even more) of what is set aside as "for the children" or other welfare recipients is used to pay the people who run the system? Even if that number is incredibly low (say 5%), when you consider the sheer amounts in question,...

Hal: "Remove church 'donations' (club dues?) and the giving figures come much closer together" How are church donations and club dues similar to taxes? No one requires me to give to my church or pay dues to a club. If I do not want to pay dues, I simply do not join. If I choose to not support a church, that is between me and God. The two scenarios you want to exclude are completely voluntary and therefore should be included. Furthermore, how do excessive taxation levels in Western Europe to fund their collapsing welfare states manage to be the same as "giving"? Taxes are not optional. Charity giving is. That's part of what makes it charity giving. ...