- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
That's not the analogy. Leaving the house and having sex are the equivalents. Both are choices made that can have potential problems. When leaving the house, and equally when having protected sex, the risk aspect is greatly reduced to a point where it shouldn't have a bearing on the decision to act.
So, the argument of not having protected sex if you can't afford an abortion is equivalent to saying don't leave the house if you can't afford any risks that may equally occur from that decision, such as being hit by a car.
Engaging in protected sex and leaving the house are both choices that can have negative consequences. Saying you should spend your life avoiding possibilities because of potential unlikely negatives is ridiculous.
"They still took the risk of pregnancy KNOWING that they may not be able to hold the burden. Why should we feel sorry for these people?"
Again I ask, are you advocating that finances should be a criteria in people having sex? Is that seriously what you're saying? Because to me, it looks like your argument is "don't have sex if you're poor."
Congratulations on the most stupid Reductio ad absurdum argument ever made. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"This has nothing to do with poor or rich people."
Unfortunately it does, because what is proposed is financial help for the poor towards the cost of an abortion; being rich or poor has everything to do with the argument. However, this is slightly different to what I am opposing, which is Joe's view that "People who cannot afford an abortion should abstain from sexual intercourse."
Clearly, this is advocating a criteria on those who should be allowed to engage in sex, which is both ridiculous and naive. Paying for the abortions of those who cannot afford them when they are patently required isn't going to encourage people to have sex. I doubt the cost of an abortion would ever be something that is going through someone's mind when they decide to engage in sex.
The thing you have to decide is: do you just ignore the problem, or try to combat it? Allowing this regression of poor kids born to poor families, not to mention the fact that these kids are most likely unwanted, unplanned, and unlikely to be born with the proper financial planning which should always be a factor when having or planning to have a child, means that, in the long run, this child will mostly likely have a poor quality of upbringing and be more of a financial burden then initially paying for the abortion.
Sex happens, and you can't stop it. What you can do, however, is make a decision about how you best combat the rising gap between the poor and the rich in America, and how your tax dollars are best spent. Do you want 18 years of supporting a child through welfare (and most likely far more than 18 years), or do you want a small one-time financial burden, not to mention stopping an unwanted child who will most likely have a poor quality of life being bought into the world?
Just as I thought, avoid the point.
Why do you hate poor people so much Joe? Are you seriously saying that your solution to this is that if you're poor, you can't have sex, because there is a small chance that contraception may fail? Just so we're clear, is that actually what you're suggesting? That there should be a minimum criteria that you must meet to engage in something that humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years?
"We shouldn't be spending our tax money frivolously."
"We should spend it on useful things like national defense instead of abortions for women to stupid to realize that if they can't afford an abortion they should abstain from sexual intercourse and opt for a facial instead."
Think about the amount you'd pay in taxes for a single abortion compared to a lifetime of taxation to support an unwanted child born to a poor family. Incidentally (back to your silly idea that people should only be taxed for things they support) I'd rather have my taxes spent on an abortion then funding a military any day.
"I can't believe that you are actually abdicating telling women to go out and have sex..."
I'm not. I just happen to have some grasp on the real world, unlike yourself, who seems to think that women only have sex because they know they can have an abortion afterwards, which is ridiculously idiotic thinking.
"...and if they get pregnant that we will pay for her to have an abortion."
Try to understand the difference between the fantasy world you live in and the real world. People do have sex. Women do get pregnant. Sometimes, those women can't afford a child or are not in a position to properly care for a child. I would rather fund an abortion then allow an unwanted child which will either not be properly cared for or will be born to a family to poor to provide for it to be bought into world, which ultimately, statistics show you'll end up paying far more for in the long run.
What we're talking about here is funding abortions for the poor. Statistically, a child born to a poor family will itself end up being poor, which means you'll end up paying for support taxes such as welfare.
"What bone headed way of thinking is that?"
It's a way of thinking grounded in reality, not in your pie in the sky fantasy land where as soon as people think they can have a free abortion they're going to go out and start fucking anyone who comes along.
And thus you prove the absurdity of your argument.
I bet there are lots of things that you support that lots of other people don't, and thus things you feel important, such as border control and national defence, could end up not having enough funding to be able to operate. This is why you don't get a choice in exactly which specific initiatives that your taxes go towards.
If we all chose to only fund those initiatives which we ourselves support, it would spell the end of democracy.
I think that point is; should people against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan be forced to pay for that? Should people who don't have kids be forced to pay for the schools that are giving your kids an education? Should people without cars be forced to pay for roads? Should people with cars be forced to pay for mass transport like trains and buses? Should people completely against the idea of war fund the military at all? Should people who believe in open borders fund border control policies? Should people opposed to the whole idea of the penal system be forced to put a single cent into funding it? A simple yes or no will suffice.