The same could be said for gay marriage and a bunch more from the interfering federal government. Less government is best.

A new bureau was created just prior to the end of last year to prevent fake news by controlling what is said, by whom and in what market place in the name of preventing fake information getting out and influencing people. Millions of dollars are already allocated for it to pursue its goals. Can't remember what it was called besides the snide remark of a commentator calling it 'The Ministry of Truth'. Congress passed it and Barracula signed it and almost no one noticed it. The taxpayers are funding it compelling themselves to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas that they are not even aware of let along agree with.

Half the country wants to be 'stronger together" like Hillary said, and take from the rest of the people whatever they can.

Even though he had slaves and was a bit intellectually inconsistent, he sure nailed on the head this idea.

I dont want to contribute to obamacare, social security, entitlement payments, wars in afghanistan and iraq, foreign aid payments to pakistan and many other countries, and the list goes on.....

The simple answer to that question is that it becomes my business when I am forced to pay for it. That applies whether I am forced to contribute my earnings either to end the pregnancy or provide medical care to keep the pregnancy viable.

Over the years I keep going back to Stefan Molyneoux's (sp?) video "The Story of Your Enslavement". This video, to me, makes it all crystal clear...

Medical privacy is just a mirage. There really isn't such a thing anymore.

The government makes it so.

What is the list that some have reported Trump requested regarding money given to Mexico by various tenets of our vast government?

It should not be. The Supreme Court made it so by imposing fake law and fake privacy rights so money can be made at the expense of vulnerable women, often black women.

Jefferson also argued quite vociferously against welfare in his day. I believe that this quote came from a debate in which certain members of Congress were attempting to get a bill passed that would have provided funding for a religious group. Jefferson argued that any such would be a violation of the rights of the rest of Americans. If I am not mistaken, the bill failed and no like were proposed for another 50 years.

The question is whether or not it is part of a government's inherent mandate to protect life. Most governmental theorists argue that this is the first requirement of government and the second is to protect property. The question which arises in the debate is which of these is primary. Abortion-rights advocates argue that property rights are primary, while pro-life advocates argue that life is primary.

My question to both pro-abortion and/or pro-lifers is:
How is any woman's pregnancy any of my business, your business, or the government's business?

Unless our President is coercing Mexico to pay for the Wall.

Will do. Thanks.

If you have time watch the interviews (if you haven't seen them) at this link:
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

They are remarkably relevant considering they are from 58 years ago.

Good quote. Very relevant.

I still have a quibble about the start of a human being being a human being.
Why am I suddenly thinking Being! Being! of a pinball machine with a lisp?
We have no argument on your point about welfare.

And you don't have to be pro-choice to figure out that two cells do not constitute a human being.

I agree that no taxpayer should be forced to support Planned Parenthood or any other private group promoting or providing goods or services to the general public. It's a form of welfare.

The "Planned Parenthood" horrific mass murder abortion mills immediately springs to old dino's mind as the worst case of being forced to pay for something abhorrent.
You don't need to be religious to logically go figure that life begins at conception.

Federal government involvement in road construction is not necessary, nor is it a constitutional use of the peoples' scarce resources. It is a boondoggle supported by looters and corporate interests, just as taxes funding the railroads. The private sector can and does produce such infrastructure voluntarily and at much lower cost to the users of the infrastructure and to the people without coercion, or corruption of limited government function.
Is the function of a road network a good thing? Yes. However, it is not a legitimate constitutional function of limited government and it would have been done by business interests if the federal government had remained true to its constitutional functions.
If the US government had not given in to the military industrial complex after WW2 and funded a massive peacetime expansion of the military, would there have been an arms race with the USSR? No. Would the world have been a much safer place if government, banking, and defense industry propaganda had not created a boogie-man to fear in southeast Asia? Yes. If those trillions of dollars of the peoples' scarce resources remained in control of the people, what extraordinary products would we be using today that have not yet been invented?
Actions have unintended consequences. Every supposedly beneficial unconstitutional government action taken has prevented a more beneficial result being completed in the private sector.