CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
i dont even believe in abortion either way...but if it does happen, then she does not have the right to make anyone pay for her choice, unless, as mentioned before, it is due to rape, incest, etc. the only people responsible for the pregnancy are the parents, and they choose to take a chance, which is their problem, not the people's.
no i dont believe a woman has the right to make someone else pay for her abortion if it is her choice. although if it was the choice of the father then he should pay for it and in a situation of rape than the woman should not have to pay at all.
I think if you were grown enough to spread your legs and then careless enough to get pregnant then the problem is yours and no one elses. They should pay for their own mistakes.
If a woman doesn't have money for an abortion, then she can turn a few tricks to raise the money. I mean, it's not like she's going to get any more pregnant than she already is. Besides, she should have thought about that before spreading her legs. If she was willing to spread her legs once, what's a few more times in order to get the money she needs. ;)
There is no law that says "Go forth and have sex with every man you see in order to break the ice and make him love you." Abstinence is a valid argument in this and the longer that people like you deny that personnel responsibility, or rather the lack thereof, is the central issue of abortion the louder that people like Joe will shout.
Thats the whole point. You cannot force people to do anything. Therefore, they CHOSE to have sex, so they should deal with the consequences. Whether that means having the child OR paying for their abortion. When do we hold people accountable for their own actions?
"Whether that means having the child OR paying for their abortion."
And what happens when they cannot afford an abortion?? You burden them with a potential child that they don't want, regardless of how the woman got pregnant in the first place??
Uh... let me think about that for a second. Hmmmm...., (if she is not a rape or incest victim, and her health is not in immediate danger) YEAH!
Unless she fits one of the exceptions above, she gambled that she would not get pregnant and lost. No one covers my gamblng debts so no one should cover hers ;)
You say it is silly but you have no counter argument for it. You are just calling it silly to try and discredit the analogy. Your argument amount to name calling.
You say it is silly but you have no counter argument for it. You are just calling it silly to try and discredit the analogy. Your argument amount to name calling.
But aside from that. I never said that a person's Constitutional rights are not a necessity. So let me use another analogy.
I have the right of freedom of speech. Now, if there's a big convention in Washington DC and all the big wigs are going to be there but they don't support my view, are you saying that tax payer money should be spent in order to fly me out there so that I can exercise my Constitutional right and present my case? Or are you saying that you are the one who gets to pick and chose what tax money gets spent on? Are you going to tell me that it is a one way street? That she has the right to force people to pay for her abortion but I don't have a right to force people to pay for my trip to Washington in order to exercise my Constitutional right? That's just hypocritical.
When you stop trying to tell me that I am responsible to bail out everyone whenever they screw up.
You know, liberals are like little kids. They want all the fun and none of the responsibility. It is always someone else's fault. They can't take care of themselves so they want the government to take care of them.
Amen to that! This is why children are growing up without any sense of responsibility. We do not hold anyone accountable for their own actions! You CHOSE to have sex! Deal with the consequences!
While I believe health care is an essential right, abortions do not fall in that category. Abortions are simply choice and therefore, you should have to pay the expenses out of pocket. The only exception maybe being if the mothers life is at risk.
Abortions do NOT fall under a procedure that can save a life. It is a choice which the woman makes. As I said already, the only exception perhaps being if it will save the mother's life. Based on your logic, plastic surgery is a medical procedure as well. Should it also be covered? I should hope not as once again, it is a choice that person makes and should have to bear the financial burden for.
"Abortions do NOT fall under a procedure that can save a life."
Of course they do, sometimes. Many women have been saved when a pregnancy has gone horribly wrong. To put a fetus before the life of real, live human woman is simply insane.
"Based on your logic, plastic surgery is a medical procedure as well. Should it also be covered?"
Stop making the same, tired arguments again & again. NO ONE is advocating for silly plastic surgery procedures to be paid for by govt. money, period.
It only falls under the health care moniker if the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or it adversily affects the mother's health. Otherwise, the woman is responsible for her actions and cannot force anyone to pay her anymore than I can force anyone to pay for my gambling loses. She gambled that she wouldn't get pregnant and she lost.
I'm just telling you what the law currently is. Federal money cannot go towards abortions. The new health care program also has this wording in it. Abortionist want this new health care program because they get another shot at having that wording removed and achieve their wet dream of free abortions for all. ;)
Really. Prove it to me. Everything I've read says the same thing. Federal money cannot be spent on abortion.
"The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest."
I'm fine with abortion. I just don't wanna pay for someone else's abortion.
Just how I don't wanna pay for someone else's breast implants or laser eye surgery. What you do with YOUR body is YOUR business and I should not be forced into any of this shit. fuckers.
ya see, we live in a free country where people have the right to choose. you can either fuck or not fuck, have a baby or not have a baby. The government shouldn't be deciding for you, and it surely shouldn't be forcing others to comply with your bullshit beliefs.
I'm fine with abortion. I actually encourage it, but I still don't want to pay for it. End of story. It's your body, and the government should stay out of what happens between you and your baby/fetus.
So when a woman who has little to no money, and has been raped, she should be forced to sell everything she owns, suffer the social stigma of having an abortion, and become homeless?
Glad to know you people care about the welfare of society.
Then she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. I guess I should have made it clear- only people who NEED abortions or have been through difficult circumstances should be paid for.
However not to say it shouldn't be done, but it will be extremely difficult to administrate as a lot of women will lie about their position just to get a free abortion.
Thanks once again for showing that you (and apparently only you) are capable of determining when a low-income woman should be able to receive a totally legal medical procedure that's guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution...ugh...
No, thank you for telling us all that only you and your liberal friends have the right to force the rest of us to pay for whatever it is that you guys determine is the right thing to do.
Here's the thing. If you are a low-income woman, the last thing you need is a baby. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, this means that you should abstain from sexual intercourse. Facials, blow jobs, etc. are OK. The law states that you can legally have an abortion within a certain period of time. The law does NOT guarantee that an abortion will be provided for you, free of charge.
But, by all means, try and prove me wrong. Go and get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) and then try to get a government sponsored free abortion ;)
"No, thank you for telling us all that only you and your liberal friends have the right to force the rest of us to pay for whatever it is that you guys determine is the right thing to do."
Nonsense. I could make the same argument about tax cuts for the rich, the Iraq War, etc., etc., but the FACT is that we don't get to specifically decide how our tax dollars are spent by the govt., period.
"If you are a low-income woman, the last thing you need is a baby. Since contraceptives are not 100% effective, this means that you should abstain from sexual intercourse. Facials, blow jobs, etc. are OK. The law states that you can legally have an abortion within a certain period of time."
LOL...so, low-income people should not have sex, but higher income people should. LMAO! That's some indefensible position you've laid out there...lol!
"But, by all means, try and prove me wrong. Go and get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) and then try to get a government sponsored free abortion"
Oh, by all means, I do not submit that the laws are the way that I would like them. Far from it...yet... :)
No, you can't make the same argument because National Security is a necesity and an abortion is a choice (remember... pro-choice).
She chose to gamble that she would not get pregnant and she lost. No one covers my gambling loses and no one should be forced to pay for her gambling loss ;)
low-income people should settle for facials, blow jobs, etc. They should not risk pregnancy by having sexual intercourse. So they can have all the sex they want, just not sexual intercourse because that amounts to gambling that they will not get pregnant. That is a choice. And if it turns out to be the wrong choice, if they lose the gamble, then tax money should not be used to cover that.
Lets say I chose to gamble. Will you be willing to pay for my gambling loses through taxes?
"No, you can't make the same argument because National Security is a necesity"
...and so is someone's Constitutional rights!
Enough already with the silly gambling analogies!
"low-income people should settle for facials, blow jobs, etc. They should not risk pregnancy by having sexual intercourse. So they can have all the sex they want, just not sexual intercourse"
Wow, and you choose to repeat the indefensible position of limiting how much sex low-income people can have. You really can't be serious with that nonsense.
You say that the gambling analogy is silly but you have no counter argument for it. You are just calling it silly to try and discredit the analogy. Your argument amount to name calling.
But aside from that. I never said that a person's Constitutional rights are not a necessity. So let me use another analogy.
I have the right of freedom of speech. Now, if there's a big convention in Washington DC and all the big wigs are going to be there but they don't support my view, are you saying that tax payer money should be spent in order to fly me out there so that I can exercise my Constitutional right and present my case? Or are you saying that you are the one who gets to pick and chose what tax money gets spent on? Are you going to tell me that it is a one way street? That she has the right to force people to pay for her abortion but I don't have a right to force people to pay for my trip to Washington in order to exercise my Constitutional right of freedom of speech? That's just hypocritical.
that is too harsh. most, if not all, on this side have mentioned the acception of rape. besides that, it is not society's problem that two people took a chance-fully aware of the outcomes-and negative effects took place.
The law currently state that Federal money cannot go towards abortions. The new health care program also has this wording in it. Abortionist want this new health care program because they get another shot at having that wording removed and thus achieve their wet dream of free abortions for all. ;)
Under the original policy, established by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, U.S. funds for contraception and other family-planning services could not go to organizations that advocate, counsel or offer abortion. Opponents call it the "global gag rule."
I'm talking about this:
The Hyde Amendment, implemented in 1977, restricts the use of federal funds for abortion. These public funds can only be used when an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother, or when the pregnancy results from assault rape or incest.
As far as the rest... Good God man! Don't you read the news?
Here they go again. The churches excersizing their right to representation without taxation.
I would be glad to pay for abortions and would in no way feel forced (which is very strong and obviously biased wordig which leads to an unfair and untrue debate, btw).
If anyone does feel forced, then they dont understand democracy.
For as long as I have been paying taxes, they have been going to support a war I have never believed in. I have, just as effectivly, paid for this war as anyone would have to pay for abortions.
Be careful Pineapple. If you follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion you will become a conservative ;)
If the people of this nation were united in telling the government that we do not need (nor do we want) government assistance (and intervention) and that they should start doing away with their government programs, then taxes would either be reduced or go directly towards cutting the deficit and balancing the budget. If we limit the cash flow available to the government (i.e., keep them from printing more) then they would think twice about going to war. Especially an offensive war instead of a defensive war (like WWII). This, of course, would improve how countries see us. And you wouldn't have to pay taxes for a war you don't believe in. ;)
That wasn't my point at all, and I'm unsure of how you formulated that my opinion was that government should go die a cold death. I'd really rather that you didn't respond to my arguements, I feel obligated to respond but I don't really have the time to deal with you.
This has nothing to do with things people do not like. The bottom line is that an abortion is a personal choice that is not a necessity. People should not have to pay for their choices.
and you blokes are wondering why there are lesbians..........do you blame them...how bout since you are such the smart ones you keep your silly willy without a brain in your bloody pants or take some responsibility and wack a condom on it.how about we get some honest law abiding good christian prostitutes on here to open everyones eyes up to the reality of how all-sorts of folk, husbands and wives,judges and priests in fact just about any walk of life seek their services and boy you should hear what people get up to. How about you all go to a mirror now and see if you can look your self in the eyes ...bout time some more hypocrates got put in their place.