Comments on: Hey Stupak, women’s bodies are not bargaining chips

By: GlobalComment » The time to hesitate is through: female sexuality in the age of Stupak

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:17:34 +0000

[...] yes, intentional) to policy issues like abortion. A discussion of abortion policy has been thrust upon us whether we like it or not, and I’d like to take this moment to blow the discussion wider [...]

By: What Women Are Saying About the Stupak Amendment « The Czech

What Women Are Saying About the Stupak Amendment « The Czech — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:35:04 +0000

[...] Sarah Jaffe at Global Comment: Hey Stupak, women’s bodies are not bargaining chips [...]

By: surchur

surchur — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:58:24 +0000

Steve, Thank you.

And I mean thank you, for everthing.

By: surchur

surchur — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:51:37 +0000

thx steve, jersey

Isabel, P, k thats hard one. But I feel one has a least a say in where tax dollars are spent, through voting. So to that extent they are not arbitrarily imposed.

By: surchur

surchur — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:45:14 +0000

Isabel: I know.. therein lies the difficulty

thx steve

No P I think your writing, and is a argument then could use thinning

No marches for me I think.

thx jersey
so need to reread lowdown… guys split? or just for now

By: True Jersey Girl

True Jersey Girl — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:42:07 +0000

Excellent piece. Makes me want to march on Washington. When do we go?

By: Required Reading « ’NYC Unrated & Unfiltered

Required Reading « ’NYC Unrated & Unfiltered — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:26:45 +0000

[...] Journalist Sarah Jaffee has a fantastic opinion piece about the Stupak-Pitts [...]

By: Poeschl

Poeschl — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:14:05 +0000

@Isabel

I see the point you’re making, but, according to U.S. law, it’s your own logic that’s off, not Sarah Jaffe’s.

The reason why Sarah Jaffe’s tax payments do NOT imply her moral support for war is because all tax payments, by law, are made WITHOUT the implicit prior consent of the individual taxpayer — i.e., a U.S. taxpayer has no legal power to refuse to pay taxes due. Since a U.S. taxpayer cannot legally choose not to pay taxes, then he is not implicitly “choosing” to pay taxes when he pays them.

His legal power to choose whether or not to pay taxes due was taken away from him in the Constitutional Convention in 1789 (which gave the U.S. Congress to right to levy and collect taxes). Since 1789, taxes have been levied and collected without the legal necessity of the individual taxpayer’s further consent. That is, since 1789, a U.S. taxpayer has no legal choice in the matter.

So, since a U.S. taxpayer is not implicitly “choosing” to pay taxes, a taxpayer is not implicitly morally supporting even government itself, much less any specific policy (war, abortion, etc.).

Sorry for this overlong comment. But since tax payments are, legally, without the individual taxpayer’s consent, tax payments don’t represent a ’silent vote’ in favor of unethical policies.

So Sarah Jaffe’s logic is correct after all.

By: Way to go, Democrats « Natalia Antonova

Way to go, Democrats « Natalia Antonova — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:26:32 +0000

[...] “Survivor Samoa” episode VIII: the women finally get it togetherHey Stupak, women’s bodies are not bargaining chipsAvast me hearties! IRMA’s tactics are as illegal as piracy itselfWhat Rabin’s legacy means for [...]

By: Isabel

Isabel — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:03:22 +0000

I am pro choice, but the logic of one of your statements is totally off and I think it is really worth mentioning. I know that this is not what you are trying to get at, but I think you should think twice before making this argument again. If you think that war is wrong, then don’t fund it with your tax dollars. Why do people just accept the status quo? That’s why there are demonstrations, protests, people writing letters and generally taking action to stop funding unethical practices (I am talking about war here, not abortion). If you let yourself, for example, pay for the war, you are implicitly supporting it, regardless of your objective moral stance.