- 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
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.
"Nationalized health care is not for the benefit of the U.S."
That's opinion, and seeing as America is only 36th in the developed world for healthcare (behind a load of countries with nationalised healthcare, including the UK and Canada), it's clearly an uneducated opinion at that. Please explain how countries with nationalised healthcare are ahead of the US in the WHO rankings if nationalised healthcare can not be of benefit to a country?
"Stop trying to subvert this country with your socialist views. We didn't like the way the Brits ran their government before during and after the revolutionary war and we still haven't changed our minds. ;)"
Falling back on "blah blah communism/socialism" is admitting that you actually have no real arguments to make. Like Godwin's law, but less informed of political theory. Such a shame. And I don't like the way our government is run either, because it's run far too much like yours.
"I which [sic] the federal government did only those things spelled out in the constitution."
Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
You mean like imposing a tax to provide for the general welfare of the United States by ensuring that all citizens are provided with healthcare?
So your idea of a truly free society without the horrific burden of taxation would be one where people can only go within walking distance, or, alternatively, the millions of people in the US dependant on going further than within walking distance would have to depend solely on businesses operating horse and cart services along dust tracks? What you're proposing with a society ithout taxation is a return the middle ages. That sound great. Sign me up.
I agree that that would be a fair argument, had the poll not asked about the salaries and social status of those questioned, which it did. One thing I did notice was a slightly larger number of people who voted for Obama, but also noticed (as a counter-balance) a larger number of people describing themselves as having conservative views.
"Polls have very little importance to me, when any."
I know I may have used it as a source, and I admit it was mainly show-boating on my part, but I agree with that completely. When you understand how easy it is to pose a question to be answered in the way you want it to be answered, polls (and referendums, for that matter) lose any real significance.
On reflection, I retract the poll and the argument made with it.
"Well actually I can because my tax dollars went towards it, whoops. ;) Had my tax dollars not gone towards it I would have paid for the service, just like I'm doing now, whoops. ;)"
I was clearly referencing my challenge to spend a week not using any services that were provided for or by through taxation. Without taxation, there would be no roads to drive on to get to work, there would be no internet to work from home. And you wouldn't be paying for the service because the service only existed because of the pulling together of funds. No matter how much you may like to think otherwise, you could not individually pay for the all the things that make your life the way it is.
Your continued insistence that you could survive and build a society similar to the one we have without taxation is incredibly naive.
"Yeah..., I noticed. What cracks me up is that you took the time to contribute content to my debate which means that it was entertaining enough for you to participate lol"
I suppose I do find some strange entertainment value in shooting down your arguments every single time.
"Why would an Englishman care enough (one way or another) about U.S. politics to spend any time on it? It is all very interesting, no?"
The subject matter is interesting, and some of us are still interested in having an actual debate about the subject, because America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and therefore it's important that the example it sets is the right one. And, believe it or not, I believe everyone should be given certain rights, whether they're American, British, Canadian, Indian, etc, that's why the fact that this debate is occurring in America is irrelevant to me.
America is wrongly held up as a beacon of hope and liberty and something to strive for for developing nations, and that annoys the crap out of me. It annoys me that what is considered the most powerful and free country in the world still does things that defy belief. It annoys me that you try to help Africa with one hand, and implement policies that cripple it with the other. It annoys me that you attempt to fight terrorism, pulling us in for the ride and causing a terrorist attack in my city, whilst at the same time nearly every single terrorist organisation has been funded by the US. It annoys me that, even when your own country suffered a terrible natural disaster, no one cared because it happened to poor people (I'm talking about Katrina). And yes, it annoys me that citizens of a country that continually talks about freedom and liberty can't be bothered to give a few dollars out of their pay packet (though, they would be paying less, but we'll ignore that for now and assume that it would cost you a bit extra) to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, can get healthcare treatment when they need it. That's why I get involved, and try to do my part (regardless of the fact that no one really cares on this site any more) to get involved in the debate and make my view heard.
And if you're wondering...
"Maybe he's thinking about moving to the U.S."
No, he's not. I don't want to live under your ideal of freedom and liberty to all (if you can afford it). Why the hell would I want to move to a country that doesn't give a crap about anyone else and continually tries to push its form of government down everyone's throat, even when they don't want it?
And you know what's really entertaining? The fact that every time we enter into an argument, you fall back on comedy rather than seeing through the actual debate. That just solidifies in my mind, with every single debate with have, that my views are right, moral, and justifiable. I can back mine up whilst you fall back into a corner and play the comedian card. At least have the balls to back up your views and see it through.
There was a time on this site where you actually used to fight your corner, but I suppose rather than modify your views in response to arguments that are obviously too compelling for you to be able to form arguments against, you'd rather just back down, forget about it, and continue to hold the views you do even though they've been tested time and time again and found to be lacking.
Pineapple had you absolutely pegged when she said: "Based on previous conversations, I am entirely convinced that you know nothing about this bill or the state of the country and the reasons we need it. Nor do I feel that you care to learn about it. Therefore, I don't accept your opinion as educated or valid." And it's a real shame.
Well, actually, you can't. You can't use the Internet as it was an innovation produced mostly by ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), both of which are agencies of the United States Department of Defense, and therefore publicly funded.
"I am NOT enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury of a highway because it is more of a parkway during rush hour traffic."
Then stay at home and don't use it. After all, you don't agree with taxes. Maybe you should spend a week not using any services that are paid for through taxation? That would be fun.
"Nor am I enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that take more than an hour to respond to anything."
That because they're dealing with all the gun crime. ;-)
"I don't have to actually read the primary sources myself because the fact is that I don't want to be tax at a higher rate, period."
Did you not read the part about all insurance premiums going down?
"Anything less than that is highway robbery."
Talking about highways, how are you enjoying that socialised and paid-through-taxes luxury? Talking about robbery, how are you enjoying the socialised and paid-through-taxes police that keep you safe? :-)
Here's exactly how the poll was carried out. If you can find fault, do so (rather than just ignoring it because of who it is).
And again, here are the questions that were asked.
Please, I beg you, provide a meaningful rebuke to the poll's questions or methods. I did so with your source, so do me the pleasure of returning the favour.
I actually check my sources first.
“Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.”
You pay a tax to support a service. If tax needs to be increased or decreased to modify the service to better suit the needs of the population, what exactly is the problem with that? The amount of tax you pay changes often depending on the state of the country and reform to services provided. This is whining for the sake of whining. Anyway, let's go to the actual text to really see what's being said:
"MANNER OF NEGOTIATION- The Secretary shall negotiate such rates in a manner that results in payment rates that are not lower, in the aggregate, than rates under title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and not higher, in the aggregate, than the average rates paid by other Qualified Health Benefits Plan offering entities for services and health care providers." [source]
So, you won't be forced to pay any more than the average going rate for healthcare, ever. That is written in to this bill.
“Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.”
There is no section 59. It starts at section 101. Incidentally, there is also no 159, 259, 359, or 459 to speak of. Great source you got there Joe.
“On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17 percent of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20 percent of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.”
This is absolute crap. Do you actually read the primary sources yourself or do you rely on poor journalism to give you incorrect facts about the sources?
Here is what the report actually says:
"CBO estimates that the combination of provisions included in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States relative to what they would be under current law. The average reductions would be larger in the markets for small group and individually purchased policies,
which are the focus of many of the legislation’s provisions. In the small group market, which represents about 15 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 7 percent to 10 percent compared with amounts under current law. In the market for individually purchased insurance, which represents a little more than 5 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by an estimated 5 percent to 8 percent compared with amounts under current law. And in the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law, according to CBO’s estimates. The figures are presented for 2016 as an illustrative example. " [source]