• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans kill successful birth-control program in Colorado

...because it saves us money to do so. although I'd actually argue that subsidizing birth control is subsidizing good choices, unless you believe that birth control is a bad choice for someone to make.

No, it doesn't save us money, again the welfare funding will not be shrinking because a few unmarried teens don't have babies. And no, subsidizing birth control does not subsidize good choices, it simply shields from the consequences of bad choices.
 
right, but all of those other things you're talking about are immoral. giving folks the option to get birth control for free if they want it isn't immoral.

People sterilizing themselves isn't illegal.

And giving folks the option to get bicycles free isn't immoral either, but that isn't a reason to pass out free bicycles.
 
I really don't know what you're talking about. just because the welfare limit is set at one level today doesn't mean it couldn't be set at another level tomorrow. also, there are other programs other than welfare that are used to help the poor too. the bottom line, which you already know, is that this program saves taxpayer dollars. you're reaching.

Nope, the level, today or tomorrow with be set by what we can afford, what we are willing to afford, not the size of the problem. All those other programs come under the same funding restrictions. The bottom line is, it doesn't save **** for the taxpayer. Are you honestly trying to argue that if teen pregnancies drop the taxpayer will pay less come tax time? Naive.
 
right. the folks who disagree with me are the folks who say "no matter what we should never give anything to the poor for free, regardless of how it might benefit society." I'm perfectly fine with being on the opposite side of the issue as those folks.

Yeah, that only works if you believe your own script. You know that one you've built in your head that takes the place of having to actually listen to and understand others. It's advantageous of course, to build that mental strawman. So easily defeated, because you built it to be that way.
 
Nope, the level, today or tomorrow with be set by what we can afford, what we are willing to afford, not the size of the problem. All those other programs come under the same funding restrictions. The bottom line is, it doesn't save **** for the taxpayer. Are you honestly trying to argue that if teen pregnancies drop the taxpayer will pay less come tax time? Naive.

if teen pregnancies drop, there will be less children who require state assistance. that means less money the taxpayers will give out. that's not naïve, it's math.
 
Yeah, that only works if you believe your own script. You know that one you've built in your head that takes the place of having to actually listen to and understand others. It's advantageous of course, to build that mental strawman. So easily defeated, because you built it to be that way.

what points have anyone made that i have not acknowledged? in what way am i not listening to or understanding others?
 
People sterilizing themselves isn't illegal.

And giving folks the option to get bicycles free isn't immoral either, but that isn't a reason to pass out free bicycles.

sigh. giving out free bicycles won't save taxpayers money the way this program does blah blah blah.
 
Why are we paying people who cannot afford kids to have kids again?

I'm legitimately confused by this. giving people birth control for free is essentially paying them not to have kids.
 
if teen pregnancies drop, there will be less children who require state assistance. that means less money the taxpayers will give out. that's not naïve, it's math.

Now you're just doubling down on the naiveté. The funding for the programs is set by budget. State and federal program directors know to always spend all of their budgets, every time.
 
Now you're just doubling down on the naiveté. The funding for the programs is set by budget. State and federal program directors know to always spend all of their budgets, every time.

whether or not that is the case has no bearing on the merits of the program. that is a separate issue that should be addressed separately.
 
So go give out all of the free birth control you want. Who's stopping you?

i have a job i do that takes up a lot of my time. it makes more sense to run the program the way it's been run because it's been...you know...successful.
 
what points have anyone made that i have not acknowledged? in what way am i not listening to or understanding others?

Post #225 which I quoted, all you had to do was read your own post. Your envisioned strawman of the argument against giving out free birth control at state expense.
 
I'm legitimately confused by this. giving people birth control for free is essentially paying them not to have kids.

The problem isn't the fact it is BC it's that IUD can induce a form of abortion, which is for many tax payers, a no go. So much so that it's unconstitutional. So, your point, is moot.
 
whether or not that is the case has no bearing on the merits of the program. that is a separate issue that should be addressed separately.

The so-called "merits" of this program have been addressed and we have been discussing more than just the merits of the program.
 
whether or not that is the case has no bearing on the merits of the program. that is a separate issue that should be addressed separately.

The so-called "merits" of this program have been addressed and we have been discussing more than just the merits of the program.
 
i have a job i do that takes up a lot of my time. it makes more sense to run the program the way it's been run because it's been...you know...successful.

You're posting on a message board right now. I doubt this is your job. You could have sent money somewhere to buy free birth control for poor people while you've been here telling us how much money we'd save if we bought free birth control for everyone who wants it.
 
i have a job i do that takes up a lot of my time. it makes more sense to run the program the way it's been run because it's been...you know...successful.

Well the program has been run from a donation, and no one has argued that it shouldn't continue from donations. Get to it. Your excuses don't wash.
 
Back
Top Bottom