• 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

The real question is how to cut down on teen pregnancies and not just give out free birth control (free to them, not to me). I mean, will these people only use BC if it's free? Is it really that expensive? Whatever is done, it should discourage teen pregnancy, not give them free stuff. They should be made to pay for it in some way.

iUDs really are that expensive.
The up front cost if one is not insured is between $800 to $1000 to have an IUD inserted.
 
If you gave them houses, cars, and a $50,000 yearly tipend, why think of the economic boom! Oh, and throw in food stamps, and free health insurance. Why think of how wonderful it could all be...

...but that wouldn't be saving the state money in the long run. how is your post at all relevant to what we've been talking about?
 
What's that pro-choice slogan? Get the government out of the uterus?

That's a very interesting post cp. And thought provoking. Stay out of my body and my reproductive choices.....except when I want you to pay for it.
 
...but that wouldn't be saving the state money in the long run. how is your post at all relevant to what we've been talking about?

Oh, I thought this was all about free **** to people because they have a right to it, I see now it's "potential saved money" because that fits todays meme.
 
Oh, I thought this was all about free **** to people because they have a right to it, I see now it's "potential saved money" because that fits todays meme.

yeah, you think that because you're unable to view the world in a reasonable, objective way. the discussion has always been about the fact that it's a successful program which has reduced unwanted teen pregnancies, which reduces the need for welfare, food stamps, etc.
 
yeah, you think that because you're unable to view the world in a reasonable, objective way. the discussion has always been about the fact that it's a successful program which has reduced unwanted teen pregnancies, which reduces the need for welfare, food stamps, etc.

I view it in a different way than you do, that does not negate my views, it means they are different.
 
I view it in a different way than you do, that does not negate my views, it means they are different.

in my opinion, your failure to look at the issue objectively does in fact negate your views. doesn't mean I get to have more of a say than you do or anything but yeah, your views on this issue are ****.
 
That's a very interesting post cp. And thought provoking. Stay out of my body and my reproductive choices.....except when I want you to pay for it.

It's an interesting state-first approach when state funding is considered equivalent of "allowing" and the state ceasing to fund is considered the equivalent of "banning" or "killing".

But yes, the dichotomy between those who insist that we fund their uteruses, but not ever assume that with money comes decision-making capability is entertaining.
 
in my opinion, your failure to look at the issue objectively does in fact negate your views. doesn't mean I get to have more of a say than you do or anything but yeah, your views on this issue are ****.

Interesting, you miss the reason the program was stopped. Why was is stopped by the GOP?

A: They hate poor people

B: They hate anything not Christian Marriage

C: The state constitution forbid spending on abortion inducing procedures, medicines or other causes.

I'll let you show us your world view.
 
Interesting, you miss the reason the program was stopped. Why was is stopped by the GOP?

A: They hate poor people

B: They hate anything not Christian Marriage

C: The state constitution forbid spending on abortion inducing procedures, medicines or other causes.

I'll let you show us your world view.

okay. your views on this issue are still ****. you keep harping on the "giving away stuff for free" issue when that's not what people are discussing. we've been discussing the benefits of the program.
 
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.

Another government program, who would have thought? We've been running deficits for that last 100 yrs, with no end in sight. The program was previously funded by a private donor, as it should be.
 
okay. your views on this issue are still ****. you keep harping on the "giving away stuff for free" issue when that's not what people are discussing. we've been discussing the benefits of the program.

The benefits of the program is not one of concern of tax payer dollars. It was privately funded keep it that way.
 
okay. your views on this issue are still ****. you keep harping on the "giving away stuff for free" issue when that's not what people are discussing. we've been discussing the benefits of the program.

That's immaterial, it was unconstitutional.
 
okay. your views on this issue are still ****. you keep harping on the "giving away stuff for free" issue when that's not what people are discussing. we've been discussing the benefits of the program.

No, we've been discussing the funding of the program. You and others here think it's just terrible we haven't fallen for this rather obvious sales ploy by an IUD manufacturer. Further you believe that IUDs are harmless considering you or someone you know used one once and they/you are okay. You do know that not all the thalidomide mothers had flipper babies, right? Some touted it as a wonder drug.

Lots of programs could be very effective, heck forced sterilization will reduce unwanted pregnancies nearly every time, and it's cheap. Don't think it hasn't been suggested, and by luminary figures (eugenics). But we don't do that for moral reasons. Just as we don't fund elective birth control.
 
No, we've been discussing the funding of the program. You and others here think it's just terrible we haven't fallen for this rather obvious sales ploy by an IUD manufacturer. Further you believe that IUDs are harmless considering you or someone you know used one once and they/you are okay. You do know that not all the thalidomide mothers had flipper babies, right? Some touted it as a wonder drug.

Lots of programs could be very effective, heck forced sterilization will reduce unwanted pregnancies nearly every time, and it's cheap. Don't think it hasn't been suggested, and by luminary figures (eugenics). But we don't do that for moral reasons. Just as we don't fund elective birth control.

are you telling me what I believe? did I say IUDs were harmless?
 
are you telling me what I believe? did I say IUDs were harmless?

Read back in the thread, that is precisely the argument others for this program are using. And if you do not consider them harmless, why are you so hot to continue this program which is all about installing IUDs?
 
Read back in the thread, that is precisely the argument others for this program are using. And if you do not consider them harmless, why are you so hot to continue this program which is all about installing IUDs?

then you should address those posters who have said IUDs are harmless if you want to talk about that topic.

i'm hot to continue the program because it's successful. "not harmless" doesn't equate to "so dangerous that no one should use them".
 
then you should address those posters who have said IUDs are harmless if you want to talk about that topic.

i'm hot to continue the program because it's successful. "not harmless" doesn't equate to "so dangerous that no one should use them".

then the person that started it should in fact keep it going with private donations and charity contributions. taxpayers shouldn't be buying people contraceptives.
sounds like a personal responsibility to me.
 
then you should address those posters who have said IUDs are harmless if you want to talk about that topic.

i'm hot to continue the program because it's successful. "not harmless" doesn't equate to "so dangerous that no one should use them".

So, you're okay with some people being harmed as long as you can get your free birth control. Nevermind that the target population for this program are ones most likely to be harmed by IUD use (teens).
 
then the person that started it should in fact keep it going with private donations and charity contributions. taxpayers shouldn't be buying people contraceptives.
sounds like a personal responsibility to me.

Hah, yeah, except the only motivation for the "donation" to begin with was to open up a state paid market to a product.
 
Looks like Colorado Republicans want to go with the Crane Public School in West Texas model of “Abstinence-Only” education... you know, the one where there was an eventual outbreak of Chlamydia.

In this case it appears they are looking for a sister idea that will balloon teen pregnancies.

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
 
So, you're okay with some people being harmed as long as you can get your free birth control. Nevermind that the target population for this program are ones most likely to be harmed by IUD use (teens).

no, i'm okay with some (whatever that means) people being harmed as long as the program is successful overall which includes the idea that most people won't be harmed. people who participate in the program should be properly educated about its risks. this argument is similar to saying we should do away with the military entirely because some civilians have been killed as a result of their actions.
 
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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom