• 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

Crovax said:
I did expect an answer what you gave me was a deflection

care to try again, why should the govt fund charity that has been proven to be successful with private funding?
Click to expand...

...because it's a successful program and the private funding isn't there anymore. if they want to continue or expand it, they'll need to extract money from the taxpayers. how is that a deflection?
 
Anomalism said:
Republicans kill successful birth-control program in Colorado | Denver Sun Times

Republicans in the Colorado Senate killed an effort this week to set aside funding for a birth control program that provides IUDs to low-income women. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative has been praised for contributing to a 40 percent drop in teen births over the last five years. The program, previously funded by a private donor, won an award in Washington, D.C. just days ago.
Click to expand...

That's sectarian governance for ya. Now the cost of government paid health care is going to go way up. But hey, the church is satisfied.
 
bg85 said:
...because it's a successful program and the private funding isn't there anymore. if they want to continue or expand it, they'll need to extract money from the taxpayers. how is that a deflection?
Click to expand...

Have the tried to get donors? how much are you willing to donate to the program?
 
Republicans don't want to help poor people have access to contraception or abortions, and when their children are born they complain about poor people breeding.
 
we have a program which is privately funded, which reduces pregnancy by 40%,...so we have people who like the program and say....."lets expand it to the tax payers and make them pay also".
 
Crovax said:
if its so successful why do they need to extract money from taxpayers wont they voluntarily donate to such a worthy cause
Click to expand...

Because the public good isn't a profit-seeking business, and a lot of people are too stupid or too selfish to "voluntarily donate" to things that will improve society as a whole and in the longterm and doesn't immediately benefit themselves.
 
bg85 said:
it would be a lot cheaper of course! but what if we're talking about a population that lacks personal responsibility? shouldn't the rest of the citizens find ways to alleviate that so that we don't have to support their unwanted children with our tax dollars?
Click to expand...

We dont have to do it now, we choose to, and that could be changed as well.
 
Crovax said:
We dont have to do it now, we choose to, and that could be changed as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we could just let children born into a world they have no control over starve in the streets instead.
 
Crovax said:
Have the tried to get donors? how much are you willing to donate to the program?
Click to expand...

I don't earn enough to pay for the entire program myself, so I would need some help. If someone solicited a donation from me on the street and I had some cash on me, I'd probably throw them $20 or something like that because I can afford it, but what you're really trying to do here is have a conversation about taxation in general. it is valid to believe that government does not have the right to take money from people and give it to others, but if you accept that it's okay for a government to do that, then this program is an obvious example of a good way for government to spend its money because it actually saves the taxpayers money in the long run.
 
Anomalism said:
Yeah, we could just let children born into a world they have no control over starve in the streets instead.
Click to expand...

And it sad that their parents would do that to them, however you wish to enable those parents to continue a life of irresponsible choices leaving locked in a poverty cycle unable to learn from their failures.
 
Crovax said:
And it sad that their parents would do that to them, however you wish to enable those parents to continue a life of irresponsible choices leaving locked in a poverty cycle unable to learn from their failures.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should choose to be rich instead.
 
bg85 said:
it was funded by a private donor but wasn't a private program.
Click to expand...

Betcha that private donor was a beard for the company making the IUDs. Handy way to test and market your product, be relatively shielded if it goes wrong and get a tax write off to boot.

Teens are the worst candidates for IUDs. Chances of STDs are increased during those years, no stable relationship and sexual frequency is high (when given the free pass of BC).
 
Crovax said:
And it sad that their parents would do that to them, however you wish to enable those parents to continue a life of irresponsible choices leaving locked in a poverty cycle unable to learn from their failures.
Click to expand...

but by giving them birth control for free, isn't that effectively trying to end the poverty cycle by preventing unwanted pregnancies? you really picked a bad program to stake this argument on.
 
bg85 said:
I don't earn enough to pay for the entire program myself, so I would need some help. If someone solicited a donation from me on the street and I had some cash on me, I'd probably throw them $20 or something like that because I can afford it, but what you're really trying to do here is have a conversation about taxation in general. it is valid to believe that government does not have the right to take money from people and give it to others, but if you accept that it's okay for a government to do that, then this program is an obvious example of a good way for government to spend its money because it actually saves the taxpayers money in the long run.
Click to expand...

A $20 we have our first donor, if every democrat that made over $50k in CO donated $20 you would have $14.7 mil in funding. Doesnt seem so hard, wonder if your fellow liberals are so generous.
 
bg85 said:
but by giving them birth control for free, isn't that effectively trying to end the poverty cycle by preventing unwanted pregnancies? you really picked a bad program to stake this argument on.
Click to expand...

no because birth control isnt %100 effective and eventually they do want children, they will end up with a kid anyways and teach them the same irresponsible behavior that they never learned was wrong
 
Crovax said:
Have the tried to get donors? how much are you willing to donate to the program?
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd like to contribute to "the Faith Based Initiative". My wallet would would breath a sigh of relief.
 
Anomalism said:
Republicans kill successful birth-control program in Colorado | Denver Sun Times

Republicans in the Colorado Senate killed an effort this week to set aside funding for a birth control program that provides IUDs to low-income women. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative has been praised for contributing to a 40 percent drop in teen births over the last five years. The program, previously funded by a private donor, won an award in Washington, D.C. just days ago.
Click to expand...

The conservative mind dwells in contradiction it seems.
 
Crovax said:
A $20 we have our first donor, if every democrat that made over $50k in CO donated $20 you would have $14.7 mil in funding. Doesnt seem so hard, wonder if your fellow liberals are so generous.
Click to expand...

well I'm no democrat, but I'm surprised you know how many democrats in CO earn over $50k.

how do you know that exactly? and again, what you're arguing against here is taxation in general. since we don't all get to pick and choose which programs our tax dollars go to, we all end up paying for certain programs we don't 100% support. it's how government works. I'd love it if I could direct my taxes 100% towards public education funding but I don't get to make that choice because that's how the world works.
 
ernst barkmann said:
we have a program which is privately funded, which reduces pregnancy by 40%,...so we have people who like the program and say....."lets expand it to the tax payers and make them pay also".
Click to expand...

I feel much better, my tax dollars funding program's that help prevent unwanted pregnancy then funding program's which constitute killing people and destroying property which conservatives hand full support. Wtf is wrong with people anyway?
 
Crovax said:
no because birth control isnt %100 effective and eventually they do want children, they will end up with a kid anyways and teach them the same irresponsible behavior that they never learned was wrong
Click to expand...

okay so if it's only 90% effective then it will help 90% of the people who get it. that's better than 0%. and wouldn't you agree that a child whose parents actually intended to have them has a better shot at being a productive member of society later on in life than one that was born to a teen mom who isn't yet ready?
 
Crovax said:
Having personal responsibility often leads to being rich, well not always rich but not poor
Click to expand...

Having personal responsibility also leads to jail, so what's your point?
 
bg85 said:
well I'm no democrat, but I'm surprised you know how many democrats in CO earn over $50k.

how do you know that exactly?
Click to expand...

Well its just an estimate. I took the number of voters in the 2012 presidential election in CO and then took the number that made over 50k (60% of them) and then took the number that voted for Obama (49% of that 60%). Obviously not everyone who voted for Obama is a democrat but most are, even if they dont admit it, and there were plenty who didnt vote, so I'd say the number is somewhere in the ballpark

and again, what you're arguing against here is taxation in general. since we don't all get to pick and choose which programs our tax dollars go to, we all end up paying for certain programs we don't 100% support. it's how government works. I'd love it if I could direct my taxes 100% towards public education funding but I don't get to make that choice because that's how the world works.
Click to expand...

No I'm arguing against a whole class of govt spending, charity, govt programs should try to be of some benefit to all. Charity is better left in private hands even with our taxation we still manage to give quite a lot of money to charities
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom