• 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!

Is This Going Too Far?

Are These Additional Restrictions on Abortion Funding Going Too Far?

  • Total voters
    24
X Factor said:
I don't disagree with you except that sex ed has been going on for a long time now, it just doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
Click to expand...

It depends on the demographic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the populations where most abortions are likely to occur (i.e. inner-city urban black) the sex ed isn't quite up to par. If i'm wrong, then perhaps it's economics/poverty that actually plays a greater role and the ability to acquire contraceptives. I actually remember awhile back Barack was pro-abstinence education in some specific school district, i'm not sure where exactly. The moral of the story is, if you get raped I have sympathy for you, and perhaps in some extreme cases I would support federal dollars for funding abortions. But if you're pregnant cuz you like to ****, then ur **** outta luck. That's the way I believe it should be.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
On the contrary, that's exactly what it's doing. Why would we want to promote that?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, we need to overhaul our sexual education system from teaching abstinence only to a comprehensive sex education where they are taught how to use condoms, birth control, etc, and be given access to these things. That is what is going to reduce abortions, and STI's.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Or immigrants. Personally I'm not sure if having a kid is such a good idea, maybe I'll change my mind when I get older.
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to the fact you are a liberal.

source
.........Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.......
Click to expand...
 
StillBallin75 said:
I personally think the whole abortion debate is too focused on symptoms and not on causes. If you want to stop 50 million babies from being killed, you should first of all think about how to stop people from getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place, eliminating poverty, increasing sex education and/or abstinence, etc. People like to focus on the most emotionally-charged issues but nobody feels like addressing the root of the problem. Just like immigration, people like to talk about illegals taking away jobs, building fences, increasing ICE raids, but the root of the problem is that Mexico sucks. Nobody seems to be talking about these things, instead just focusing on the surface.
Click to expand...

I also think that solutions need to be focused on, like if abortions are far more limited than they are, currently, how will folks deal with the huge amount of potential adoptions, a foster care system that alreadly operates poorly, now receiving many more unwanted chidren, potential abuse issues stemming from children who are unwanted, and financial issues around families with children they cannot afford. People talk too much about "saving lives" but nothing about what to do after that life is saved.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
So, then you agree that the term "pro-abortion" doesn't apply, correct?
Click to expand...
No, I don't agree. They support the "right", they support the act. Call me whatever you want. If "anti-choice" means "anti-choice to kill your baby" then I'd still rather be that than "pro choice to kill your baby".
 
X Factor said:
I don't disagree with you except that sex ed has been going on for a long time now, it just doesn't seem to be helping, does it?
Click to expand...

It's actually hard to say. The only evidence that we have either way, is comparing comprehensive sex ed programs to those who use abstinence only programs. Kids in sex ed programs are less likely to contract STD's or have unwanted pregnancies than those in abstinence only programs. Knowledge is a weapon.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I also think that solutions need to be focused on, like if abortions are far more limited than they are, currently, how will folks deal with the huge amount of potential adoptions, a foster care system that alreadly operates poorly, now receiving many more unwanted chidren, potential abuse issues stemming from children who are unwanted, and financial issues around families with children they cannot afford. People talk too much about "saving lives" but nothing about what to do after that life is saved.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is SO true. I agree, people often focus on the wrong thing. It also SEEMS common place that the same people dont care what happens, dont acknowledge what happens and certainly dont want and "socialist" programs helping them afterwards or at least dont want taxes to pay for it. Doesnt make sense.
 
Dutch said:
Which brings us back to the fact you are a liberal.

source
Click to expand...

Yeah...so? Is someone choosing not to have kids at all so bad? Perhaps I just like the idea of my family being me and my girlfriend/wife? Sure as hell better than getting a baby and then realizing I can't support it. In my opinion that's just called thinking ahead rather than having a baby cuz u want one. If I ever decide to get a child I'll probably adopt and be part of the solution rather than the problem.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
It's actually hard to say. The only evidence that we have either way, is comparing comprehensive sex ed programs to those who use abstinence only programs. Kids in sex ed programs are less likely to contract STD's or have unwanted pregnancies than those in abstinence only programs. Knowledge is a weapon.
Click to expand...

I remember starting the thread on the report on this, and the flurry of comments that arrived. You are correct. Unwanted pregnancies are highest in states without sex ed or with abstinence only sex ed.
 
Dutch said:
I believe Pro-Life is more discriptive and therefore more accurate.
Click to expand...

That's nice. Doesn't alter that you are incorrect. By definition, you are limiting choices... and if you are OK with abortions for those who are raped, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger, you are NOT pro-life. You just have a few more choices.

See what happens when you start screwing with definitions? In the end, you screw yourself, too.
 
Your Star said:
We aren't robbing Mexico of people, they are coming here because Mexico sucks, and if we made abortion illegal tomorrow, it would have no effect on illegal immigration. Your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
 
X Factor said:
No, I don't agree. They support the "right", they support the act. Call me whatever you want. If "anti-choice" means "anti-choice to kill your baby" then I'd still rather be that than "pro choice to kill your baby".
Click to expand...

OK then. Anti-choice it is.

Oh, and how can you be pro-life if you support the killing of a baby in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life?

Like I told Dutch, you start screwing with definitions, ultimately, it will be you who gets screwed.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's nice. Doesn't alter that you are incorrect. By definition, you are limiting choices... and if you are OK with abortions for those who are raped, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger, you are NOT pro-life. You just have a few more choices.

See what happens when you start screwing with definitions? In the end, you screw yourself, too.
Click to expand...

Not at all, by definition I'm preserving life by being pro-life.
 
Redress said:
I remember starting the thread on the report on this, and the flurry of comments that arrived. You are correct. Unwanted pregnancies are highest in states without sex ed or with abstinence only sex ed.
Click to expand...

of course because people are GOING to have sex no matter what but not teaching them just lets them play russian roulette with sex and believe silly things like "if you do it in a pool/tub/water you wont get pregnant
and "if the girl is on top its safe"

people make the false claim that if you educate them the amount of kids doing it will go up exponentially but it never does, what it does do, is those kids that were going to do it anyway now at least have a clue how to be safe even though may choose to ignore it

full education is logically better
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
That's nice. Doesn't alter that you are incorrect. By definition, you are limiting choices... and if you are OK with abortions for those who are raped, incest, or if the woman's life is in danger, you are NOT pro-life. You just have a few more choices.

See what happens when you start screwing with definitions? In the end, you screw yourself, too.
Click to expand...
Well wait a second, you're being contradictory. Didn't you say earlier that, if you're for restricting abortion at all, then you're anti-choice, but now you're saying if you're for some choices, then you're not pro-life?
 
Centrist77 said:
of course because people are GOING to have sex no matter what but not teaching them just lets them play russian roulette with sex and believe silly things like "if you do it in a pool/tub/water you wont get pregnant
and "if the girl is on top its safe"

people make the false claim that if you educate them the amount of kids doing it will go up exponentially but it never does, what it does do, is those kids that were going to do it anyway now at least have a clue how to be safe even though may choose to ignore it

full education is logically better
Click to expand...

People also ignore that comprehensive sex ed also includes teaching that abstinence is superior. Comprehensive just goes beyond that as well with more information.
 
Dutch said:
Not at all, by definition I'm preserving life by being pro-life.
Click to expand...

No, by definition, you are limiting choices when discussing how to handle a pregnancy.

And as I said, you are not pro-life if you support abortions due to rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger.
 
Dutch said:
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
Click to expand...

Oh - so you prefer to use the poor populace to do the hard and unskilled labor that no one else wants to do, hmm?
So pro-life is really about population propulsion, not living quality?

In your view we'd be no better off than China or Russia.
 
Dutch said:
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
Click to expand...

I know supply, and demand pretty well, and for your scenario to work it would mean that the unemployment rate in this country would always have to be at natural unemployment( where everyone who wants a job has a job) and well that obviously isn't the case.
 
Dutch said:
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
Click to expand...

Supply and Demand is exactly right, Dutch. For people in Mexico, there is a huge DEMAND to get the hell out because it sucks and there's a better life somewhere else (aka right across the border). And even with immigration we STILL have a surplus of labor, meaning supply is exceeding demand because the demand for getting the hell out of Mexico is so great.
 
X Factor said:
Well wait a second, you're being contradictory. Didn't you say earlier that, if you're for restricting abortion at all, then you're anti-choice, but now you're saying if you're for some choices, then you're not pro-life?
Click to expand...

Read what you wrote more carefully and you will have the answer to what I'm saying. Of course, it's not the purpose of why I'm saying it. These are two very different things.
 
Last edited:
Dutch said:
They're coming here for jobs. Jobs they are getting btw. As for my argument "makes no sense" in order for you to comprehend it you would have to accept the capitalist ideas of supply and demand. We have a demand for workers and mexico, not us, has a supply of workers. Had we not had roe v wade we'd pretty much have all the workers we needed.
Click to expand...

yeah lets just be very narrow sighted and leave out that these immigrants get jobs because they work under the table for very low wadges and commonly do jobs Americans DONT want, not to mention these business dont have to pay taxes or health care for the majority of them

shhhhhhhhh we'll just ignore that common sense and logic because if you comprehend capitalism its a non-factor:doh

yep without all those abortions we would have just made Americans that would ALSO work under the table for less than minimum wadge, no health care and do jobs that the majority of Americans DONT want, thats brilliant:lamo
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
of course because people are GOING to have sex no matter what but not teaching them just lets them play russian roulette with sex and believe silly things like "if you do it in a pool/tub/water you wont get pregnant
and "if the girl is on top its safe"

people make the false claim that if you educate them the amount of kids doing it will go up exponentially but it never does, what it does do, is those kids that were going to do it anyway now at least have a clue how to be safe even though may choose to ignore it

full education is logically better
Click to expand...

AHAHAHAHA i've never heard that one before lmfao.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom