• 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

Which is why we need to end welfare

okay, but we do have welfare programs in place, so you do end up footing the bill, so you do have a financial stake in whether or not his daughter gets pregnant.
 
okay, but we do have welfare programs in place, so you do end up footing the bill, so you do have a financial stake in whether or not his daughter gets pregnant.

Actually no. If we nuked welfare tomorrow, he'd still be paying the same amount in taxes. As it is welfare is restricted and the funding is restricted, so the only ones affected are those who are in the legitimate welfare pool of recipients. Less money in the pool the more participants.
 
not immaterial to the discussion we were having and you were participating in.

Hey this program, its unconstitutional for the state to pay for, but we think it did good things, so **** the constitution!

/boggle
 
his daughter's sex life IS your problem though because she might have a kid who ends up on welfare and then you end up footing the bill.

And that, is the greatest travesty of all, that we believe we have too foot the bill for others poor choices and people like you, instead of asking "why are we footing the bill" demand tax payers shell out more.
 
okay, but we do have welfare programs in place, so you do end up footing the bill, so you do have a financial stake in whether or not his daughter gets pregnant.

I shouldn't be responsible for other ppls babies, bottom line. My voting reflects that belief.

Colorado republicans are correct on this issue
 
Hey this program, its unconstitutional for the state to pay for, but we think it did good things, so **** the constitution!

/boggle

did I say **** the constitution? we were talking about the merits of the program. then you realized you had no position, so you've started harping on a different issue.
 
I shouldn't be responsible for other ppls babies, bottom line. My voting reflects that belief.

Colorado republicans are correct on this issue

maybe you shouldn't be, but whether you like it or not you so have a financial stake in whether or not his daughter gets pregnant. that's not a matter of opinion, just looking at the issue objectively.
 
And that, is the greatest travesty of all, that we believe we have too foot the bill for others poor choices and people like you, instead of asking "why are we footing the bill" demand tax payers shell out more.

we're footing the bill because it saves us money! if we didn't foot the bill we'd end up paying more! it's not a question of should or shouldn't it's a question of math.
 
maybe you shouldn't be, but whether you like it or not you so have a financial stake in whether or not his daughter gets pregnant. that's not a matter of opinion, just looking at the issue objectively.

Very minimal stake, honestly
 
maybe, but you'd have even less of a stake in the free birth control program. it's cheaper than welfare.

Doubt it. But in either case, it's the principle of the matter. Other people's sex lives are not my responsibility, and I won't support free govt handouts of contraception under any circumstances.

I also don't believe in welfare as I think soup kitchens and shelters do just fine.
 
Doubt it. But in either case, it's the principle of the matter. Other people's sex lives are not my responsibility, and I won't support free govt handouts of contraception under any circumstances.

I also don't believe in welfare as I think soup kitchens and shelters do just fine.

and there we have it. you don't care what works or what the reality of the situation is. it's just your ideology that matters.
 
did I say **** the constitution? we were talking about the merits of the program. then you realized you had no position, so you've started harping on a different issue.

The merits are immaterial in regards to tax payer funding.
 
we're footing the bill because it saves us money! if we didn't foot the bill we'd end up paying more! it's not a question of should or shouldn't it's a question of math.

Or, we could ask "why are we subsidizing poor choices"
 
and there we have it. you don't care what works or what the reality of the situation is. it's just your ideology that matters.

"It's cheaper than welfare" isn't a compelling reason to pay for someone else's birth control. Exposing children at birth is also cheaper than letting them live and be on welfare, too. So is selling babies to other countries. Or sterilizing people on welfare.
 
My tax dollars don't need to be paying for your kid's contraception.

Be a parent and teach her to keep her legs closed until she can afford her own condoms.

Your daughter's sex life isn't my problem or responsibility

Reasonable ideology, but impractical. And I am not asking for someone to pay for my kids contraception, this is not something personal where anecdotal notions mean much.

Just a reality of society that "abstinence" only attitudes end up causing a rise in teen pregnancies in today's society. Colorado adopted a mentality and an initiative that contributed largely to a 40% drop in teen births over a five year period. In concert with wise education what they accomplished was remarkable. Then Republicans come along with your ideology and dismantled it. There is only one plausible outcome, a rise in teen pregnancies.

This is reality, which supersedes your ideology. Your best intentions perhaps works in a family setting, perhaps as well in certain communities and perhaps church settings. But, has no expectation of being something reasonable to apply to the whole as Colorado proved being smart about this (over being ideological about it) made a difference.

Unfortunate that in this case ideology trumped basic logic and empirical data.
 
"It's cheaper than welfare" isn't a compelling reason to pay for someone else's birth control. Exposing children at birth is also cheaper than letting them live and be on welfare, too. So is selling babies to other countries. Or sterilizing people on welfare.

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.
 
we're footing the bill because it saves us money! if we didn't foot the bill we'd end up paying more! it's not a question of should or shouldn't it's a question of math.

Once again, no. The welfare funding is limited and set to a certain amount. We're just talking about how many folks will have access to the same dollar pool. Cramming more in the pool doesn't change the overall physical size of the pool itself.
 
Or, we could ask "why are we subsidizing poor choices"

...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.
 
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.

In your opinion perhaps, but obviously quite a few folks disagree with your take on morality.
 
Once again, no. The welfare funding is limited and set to a certain amount. We're just talking about how many folks will have access to the same dollar pool. Cramming more in the pool doesn't change the overall physical size of the pool itself.

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.
 
...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.

You still are advocating enabling bad life choices.
 
In your opinion perhaps, but obviously quite a few folks disagree with your take on morality.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom