• 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!

Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.8%
  • No

    Votes: 57 58.2%

  • Total voters
    98
Through out the entireity of human kinds existance has there ever ONCE been a time when there was no poor in any give society? Of course not. Know why? Because it is a physical impossibility. Particularly when capitalism is involved. By its very nature, especially when combined with the human nature of greed, there will always be those that are poor. Not every poor person is lazy or doesn't try to get out of being poor. But between Capitalism and human Greed they stand no chance.

Everyone stands a chance. Those that choose not to do anything don't deserve federal help. There's plenty of work out there that people simply don't want to do because they feel it's beneath them. Pick up a newspaper and I'll bet you there's a bunch of ads in the classifieds section. Also, if people aren't skilled in anything, they can get a federal loan to go to school for 2 years and they'll be 100 times better off than they were before. People need to start taking care of themselves, not expecting other people to. The people that don't work and live off of welfare don't contribute anything back into society, they merely leech off of the contributions of others.

I understand that there will always be poor, but the ideology that there is a safety net and it's okay if you fail at life does absolutely nothing but tell the struggling that they don't have to struggle, they can just take what other people have and do nothing.

I suggest if not getting rid of certain social welfare programs, tighten down the circumstances to which one becomes eligible. Prove to the government that you're trying to better your life, and that doesn't mean working part time at McDonald's.
 
Everyone stands a chance. Those that choose not to do anything don't deserve federal help. There's plenty of work out there that people simply don't want to do because they feel it's beneath them. Pick up a newspaper and I'll bet you there's a bunch of ads in the classifieds section. Also, if people aren't skilled in anything, they can get a federal loan to go to school for 2 years and they'll be 100 times better off than they were before. People need to start taking care of themselves, not expecting other people to. The people that don't work and live off of welfare don't contribute anything back into society, they merely leech off of the contributions of others.

I understand that there will always be poor, but the ideology that there is a safety net and it's okay if you fail at life does absolutely nothing but tell the struggling that they don't have to struggle, they can just take what other people have and do nothing.

I suggest if not getting rid of certain social welfare programs, tighten down the circumstances to which one becomes eligible. Prove to the government that you're trying to better your life, and that doesn't mean working part time at McDonald's.

Even if everyone who can work in any way possible had a job, there would still be poor people. And that will never change.
 
Even if everyone who can work in any way possible had a job, there would still be poor people. And that will never change.

As I said, I understand that fact. Letting them know it's okay if they fail because someone else will pick up the tab is not going to help get people on their feet. It's going to give them the impression, "Oh, I don't have to work so hard because someone else will take care of me". This, America needs less of.
 
As I said, I understand that fact. Letting them know it's okay if they fail because someone else will pick up the tab is not going to help get people on their feet. It's going to give them the impression, "Oh, I don't have to work so hard because someone else will take care of me". This, America needs less of.

Letting them die of starvation or the cold or both isn't going to help them either.
 
Letting them die of starvation or the cold or both isn't going to help them either.

What makes you think that they deserve help? I don't get where people think that just because these people breed uncontrollably, that it's now society's problem to take care of them when they're unwilling to take care of themselves.
 
Letting them die of starvation or the cold or both isn't going to help them either.

You might find yourself amazed at what people can and will do, when it is necessary. One of the worst mistakes we make is in not letting people suffer the natural consequences of their bad decisions. Any woman who has an ounce of humanity and instinct will find a way to take care of her child.
 
What makes you think that they deserve help? I don't get where people think that just because these people breed uncontrollably, that it's now society's problem to take care of them when they're unwilling to take care of themselves.

Deserving or not is beside the point. Do those in prison deserve to be housed and fed and educated? Why should those in prison get all those things and yet someone thats followed the law not get those things? And seriously, the whole concept that poor people are all lazy needs to go. I would bet that the majority of poor folks do indeed work hard. Unfortenately it is always the few that truely do not try that get all the attention.

The point is that it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. There is more to life than money. IMO Those that think that we should stop helping those that are poor are just plain greedy and self centered.
 
You might find yourself amazed at what people can and will do, when it is necessary. One of the worst mistakes we make is in not letting people suffer the natural consequences of their bad decisions. Any woman who has an ounce of humanity and instinct will find a way to take care of her child.

And anyone with an ounce of humanity wouldn't mind helping those in need. We'll never advance socially if we just stay greedy.
 
De

The point is that it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. There is more to life than money. IMO Those that think that we should stop helping those that are poor are just plain greedy and self centered.

Is it the right and moral thing to do, to take from those who make good decisions and are responsible, to give to those who do not. Imo, no. It's not right and moral to sacrifice the productive and hard-working, for those who are not. In fact, I consider that not only wrong, but stupid. Whatever you pay for grows, and what you neglect shrinks. We're seeing it happen in our country right now, to our eventual detriment.
 
And anyone with an ounce of humanity wouldn't mind helping those in need. We'll never advance socially if we just stay greedy.

I am anything but greedy, but I am choosy with regard to whom I help. I will not help someone who refuses to help himself, as it doesn't really help him at all. I will gladly help someone who is giving it all they can to make it in life.
 
Is it the right and moral thing to do, to take from those who make good decisions and are responsible, to give to those who do not. Imo, no. It's not right and moral to sacrifice the productive and hard-working, for those who are not. In fact, I consider that not only wrong, but stupid. Whatever you pay for grows, and what you neglect shrinks. We're seeing it happen in our country right now, to our eventual detriment.

When it concerns poor people the evidence that the bold is true is flipped upside down. History shows that there were far more poor people than rich "successful" people. Indeed the difference between poor and rich was far larger than it is today, at least in the US. Of course even today you can see this also. Just look at third world countries where there is no welfare programs like we have in the States.

As for it being moral or not to take from the rich to feed the poor? I think it is. Most rich people are rich because of the poor. Not in spite of them. It is the poor people that do all the jobs that the rich deem are beneath them. It is the poor that parks the rich peoples cars or open the doors for a rich hotel owners guests. It is the poor that pick up garbage. Clean rich peoples homes and buisnesses. etc etc. I could go on and on. Without the poor people the rich would not be able to be rich. Rich people always forget that simple little fact.
 
I am anything but greedy, but I am choosy with regard to whom I help. I will not help someone who refuses to help himself, as it doesn't really help him at all. I will gladly help someone who is giving it all they can to make it in life.

You cannot make that distinction without getting to know the person first, which takes years to properly get to know someone. Are you really able to meet the millions of poor people in the US and make that determination?
 
You cannot make that distinction without getting to know the person first, which takes years to properly get to know someone. Are you really able to meet the millions of poor people in the US and make that determination?

Ummm, no. It does not take years to look at someone and figure out if they are trying to make it on their own.
 
Ummm, no. It does not take years to look at someone and figure out if they are trying to make it on their own.

There's an old saying..."You can't judge a book by its cover". I know people think that they can. But you honestly can't.
 
As for it being moral or not to take from the rich to feed the poor? I think it is. Most rich people are rich because of the poor. Not in spite of them. It is the poor people that do all the jobs that the rich deem are beneath them. It is the poor that parks the rich peoples cars or open the doors for a rich hotel owners guests. It is the poor that pick up garbage. Clean rich peoples homes and buisnesses. etc etc. I could go on and on. Without the poor people the rich would not be able to be rich. Rich people always forget that simple little fact.

No. Theft is wrong no matter how you want to justify it. People have a natural inclination to help the poor without government forcing them to. What we are doing is creating a huge dependent underclass, which is a different concept from "the poor". The poor weren't historically wards of the state, but honest hard-working people who had work ethic and pride in themselves, and in the jobs they did. Don't confuse them with the dependent welfare class we have today.
 
No. Theft is wrong no matter how you want to justify it. People have a natural inclination to help the poor without government forcing them to. What we are doing is creating a huge dependent underclass, which is a different concept from "the poor". The poor weren't historically wards of the state, but honest hard-working people who had work ethic and pride in themselves, and in the jobs they did. Don't confuse them with the dependent welfare class we have today.

Nothing is being stolen. Taxes =/= stealing.

Bold: You're right they do. That is obvious in the fact that we have charities and government programs that help people. Those could not come about unless there was an inclination to help poor people.

But it should also be noted that people are more often than not prejudiced in who they help. And most of the time that prejudice has nothing what so ever to do with a persons ability or non-ability or how hard they try or not try.
 
Deserving or not is beside the point. Do those in prison deserve to be housed and fed and educated? Why should those in prison get all those things and yet someone thats followed the law not get those things? And seriously, the whole concept that poor people are all lazy needs to go. I would bet that the majority of poor folks do indeed work hard. Unfortenately it is always the few that truely do not try that get all the attention.

The point is that it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. There is more to life than money. IMO Those that think that we should stop helping those that are poor are just plain greedy and self centered.

It depends on what you mean by "deserve". Have they done anything to actually earn such a thing? If so, I don't know what it is. Further, you're making a moral argument and most times, people make moral arguments that simply make them feel good, not that are well-thought out or rationally derived. Who says it's the right thing? Who says it's moral? Where do you get that information?
 
It depends on what you mean by "deserve". Have they done anything to actually earn such a thing? If so, I don't know what it is. Further, you're making a moral argument and most times, people make moral arguments that simply make them feel good, not that are well-thought out or rationally derived. Who says it's the right thing? Who says it's moral? Where do you get that information?

Oh please, the other side uses the moral arguement all the time also. Indeed the very use of "deserving" implies morality just in itself. Not to mention the use of "No. Theft is wrong no matter how you want to justify it." when refering to taxes being used to help poor people being a morally based arguement. (lizzie just said those exact words)
 
Deserving or not is beside the point. Do those in prison deserve to be housed and fed and educated? Why should those in prison get all those things and yet someone thats followed the law not get those things? And seriously, the whole concept that poor people are all lazy needs to go. I would bet that the majority of poor folks do indeed work hard. Unfortenately it is always the few that truely do not try that get all the attention.

The point is that it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. There is more to life than money. IMO Those that think that we should stop helping those that are poor are just plain greedy and self centered.

Helping the poor isn't a bad thing in itself, but with the regulation we have currently, the poor can take advantage of the system. Rather than do away with social programs all together, simply tighten the requirements to qualify. That way, the poor who are actually trying, working hard, don't get penalized and still get the support they need. The lazy poor on the other hand, get cut off. That will either force them to start giving a damn, or live with the consequences.

Any way we look at it, people have to be held accountable and need to be responsible. Giving out more freebies does not reinforce that notion. In fact, it tells people they don't have to try so hard because someone will help them if they fail. People need to try their hardest not to fail for fear of the consequences, not be okay with it because of this all encompassing safety net.
 
Oh please, the other side uses the moral arguement all the time also. Indeed the very use of "deserving" implies morality just in itself. Not to mention the use of "No. Theft is wrong no matter how you want to justify it." when refering to taxes being used to help poor people being a morally based arguement. (lizzie just said those exact words)

I'm not one of those people. If you want to debate those subjects with them, go for it. I just asked you a question, one that you entirely dodged.
 
Oh please, the other side uses the moral arguement all the time also. Indeed the very use of "deserving" implies morality just in itself. Not to mention the use of "No. Theft is wrong no matter how you want to justify it." when refering to taxes being used to help poor people being a morally based arguement. (lizzie just said those exact words)

You are the one who brought morality into the discussion. Please justify theft on moral grounds- strictly moral grounds. Right and wrong are concepts used to describe things which are constant in meaning, and do not require specific circumstances to justify their own relative morality. Theft is considered wrong, is it not? What makes theft right, depending on the circumstances of he who steals?
 
You are the one who brought morality into the discussion. Please justify theft on moral grounds- strictly moral grounds. Right and wrong are concepts used to describe things which are constant in meaning, and do not require specific circumstances to justify their own relative morality. Theft is considered wrong, is it not? What makes theft right, depending on the circumstances of he who steals?

THere is a big diffence between theft and being helped .
Helping your fellow man and or woman obtain their basic needs in bad times is NOT aiding a theif.
 
Last edited:
THere is a big diffence between theft and being helped .
Helping your fellow man and or woman obtain their basic needs in bad times is NOT aiding a theif.

If someone is taking from one, to give to another, it is theft by its very nature.
 
If someone is taking from one, to give to another, it is theft by its very nature.

I'll take that further. Taking from one against their will, regardless of intent of use, is theft by its very nature.
 
Helping the poor isn't a bad thing in itself, but with the regulation we have currently, the poor can take advantage of the system. Rather than do away with social programs all together, simply tighten the requirements to qualify. That way, the poor who are actually trying, working hard, don't get penalized and still get the support they need. The lazy poor on the other hand, get cut off. That will either force them to start giving a damn, or live with the consequences.

Any way we look at it, people have to be held accountable and need to be responsible. Giving out more freebies does not reinforce that notion. In fact, it tells people they don't have to try so hard because someone will help them if they fail. People need to try their hardest not to fail for fear of the consequences, not be okay with it because of this all encompassing safety net.

I have no problem with requiring something of those that get help from the government. I've posted before that they should be required to do some sort of community service. At least the ones that can anyways. IE if you're healthy, you do community service.

What I am against is getting rid of welfare entirely.
 
Back
Top Bottom