CreateDebate


Debate Info

182
197
Yeah, screw them No, let them be
Debate Score:379
Arguments:210
Total Votes:505
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah, screw them (112)
 
 No, let them be (98)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(36294) pic



Should people who are morally agaisnt abortions be forced to pay for those who w

In a nut shell:

Nancy Pelosi agreed to add a provision (in the public option health care bill) that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the purchase of plans that cover abortion in a new health care exchange.  Leaving out the amendment would force taxpayers (who are morally against abortions) to subsidize abortion.

Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29412.html

So..., the question is, should people who are morally against abortions be forced to pay for them?

Wink

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Joe_s_public_option_health_care_viable_proposal

Yeah, screw them

Side Score: 182
VS.

No, let them be

Side Score: 197
5 points

The Hyde amendment already prohibited federal dollars from subsidizing abortions, with the only exceptions of rape and incest. The first half of this current amendment is pretty much redundant as it's already federal law. It's the second part that's ridiculous. The amendment prevents people who are subsidized by the government to help pay for private insurance to purchase plans that include abortion coverage. This primarily hurts poor minorities twofold: it ensures that there will be higher birth-rates, helping in the increase in single-mother families and potentially poverty rates, and it will necessarily limit the variety of insurance they can choose.

To the question: yes.

Side: Yeah, screw them
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
5 points

Here's a novel idea to prevent unwanted pregnancies....don't have unprotected sex.

Side: No, let them be
1 point

Here here! I agree completely.

How about some accountability America?

Side: No, let them be
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

Here's a novel FACT...unwanted pregnancies happen even WHEN couples have "protected sex". Accidents happen yanno...wake up...

Side: Yeah, screw them

Here's another way. Abstain from sexual intercourse. It can't get any easier than that. ;)

Side: No, let them be
kamranw(230) Disputed
1 point

OR, they could not get pregnant! OR they could give the child up for adoption! OR they could save a little money to pay for the abortion themselves! When do we hold people accountable for their actions?!!!

Side: No, let them be

Well..., I sure hope you're not eligible to vote in this country cause I don't want you forcing me to do something against my will.

Side: No, let them be
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

You live in a larger society and it doesn't simply revolve around your will, but the good of the greater collective. While America prides itself on liberty, autonomy should never supersede solidarity.

Side: No, let them be
MisterGuy Disputed
2 points

Well, what happens when people start to have the option of opting out for paying for national "defense", the endless War on Drugs, prisons, etc., etc.??

Let's face it, abortions are totally legal medical procedures which women have a Constitutional right to, period!

This whole abortion issue is just a distraction from the main issue of health care reform. It doesn't amount to a roll of beans...

Side: Yeah, screw them
4 points

Taxes are like the zoo. You don't get a discount because you don't like giraffes.

Side: yes
kamranw(230) Disputed
1 point

Agreed. However, since when are taxes designed to pay for peoples personal choices? Taxes are to help provide necessities of society. Not personal choice.

Side: No, let them be
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

"Taxes are to help provide necessities of society."

No, taxes are a monetary source for our govt., period.

Side: Yeah, screw them

Agreed 100%. Abortion is a choice (not a necesity) that arose from the choice (not the necesity) to have sexual intercourse instead of other forms of sex. That's why they call it pro-choice ;)

There isn't a growing need for society to sponsor free abortions.

Side: No, let them be
3 points

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 wording 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.

It's not fair, it's taxes.

Side: Yeah, screw them

Here are two quotes:

"If anyone does feel forced, then they dont [sic] understand democracy."

Pineapple

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Thomas Jefferson

Now I ask the reader, who do you think is right? ;)

Not to sway the vote or anything but here's one more quote:

"It has been said the greatest volume of sheer brainpower in one place occurred when Jefferson dined alone..."

John Kennedy

;)

Side: No, let them be
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
4 points

As I can never trust your statistics or facts to be truth, I double checked that quote and found that it is not the real wording of Thomas Jefferson.

The real quote is: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. "

If you ask for the opinions of others, don't doom them to sound ignorant before they even speak.

Side: Yeah, screw them
3 points

1. The Hyde ammendment took rights away, it did not keep the status quo at all.

2. The Bill without that shortsighted and completely useless ammendment keeps the status quo, it doesn't increase pro-choice rights at all.

So as is the case with every dabate Joe has ever made, it's based around an incorrect assumption, and tagged idiotically, and he will go on to answer disproofs with fallacies, and when all else fails he will begin making jokes.

Because the fact is, Joe is wrong, and instead of owning up to it, he will continue to hide behind "humor" then make an identical debat 3 days later only worded a bit differently.

That said,

I'm morally against the war in Iraq, and that killed people who were actually alive.

I still have to pay taxes.

This debate shows a fundamental misunderstanding of every aspect of democracy, and is quite pathetic.

Side: misunderstanding of democracy
3 points

This is how democracy works, Not everyone gets what they want, but the majority does. I may not like my tax dollars being sent to support Israel, I might disapprove of the war in Iraq, I may have a moral objection to a multitude of things my government spends money on, but that doesn't mean I only pay the taxes for the things i want. People have a right to health care, and just because some people don't think people should have that right, doesn't mean that those people can impede on the rights of those who want to exercise it. I think John Stewart put it well when he compared paying taxes to going to a zoo. If the charge is $20.00, you cant just pay $10.00 and say "I don't like zebras."

Side: Yeah, screw them
kamranw(230) Disputed
0 points

The majority of people want their tax dollars spent on other peoples choices? I somehow doubt that. Just because people are for abortion does not mean they will support funding it. I ask again, when will we begin to hold people accountable for their own actions?

Side: No, let them be
2 points

BTW whose money goes towards caring for unwanted orphans that dont get adopted? just wondering.

Side: Yeah, screw them
kamranw(230) Disputed
1 point

There is hundreds of families waiting to adopt. A parent cannot just abandon their child. That is illegal. Orphans are people are just children that have nobody.

Side: No, let them be
dacey(1046) Disputed
1 point

and many go un- adopted. parents do abandon their children regardless of what is legal. those poor kids, what must go through their minds watching selfish adults hand sellect their preference of child,mind you i am NOT disputing adoption nor am i criticising those selfless adults who do adopt in the interest of giving those children a loving nurturing enviroment. however in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy such as that of rape etc why should anyone have to pay for an abortion out of their pocket.and as far as you sexist pigs making your comments on how a woman should keep her slut legs closed- maybe your right -i mean then vile critters such as yourselves wouldnt have been born.- but seriously what about those forced pregnancies you insist on? you who dont want to pay for the abortion are happy to pay for this child to sit in an orphange pondering his existence. you evil selfish do-gooders

Side: Yeah, screw them
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

"A parent cannot just abandon their child. That is illegal."

Actually, there are a couple of states that do allow new parents to do this.

Side: Yeah, screw them

The tax payer. Now i propose we expedite the process of death row inmates in order to provide better facilitites to the innocent orphans.

Side: No, let them be
2 points

I am morally against murder, yet my tax dollars go into funding several wars. If you don't like what your taxes are being used for, call your senators and congresspeople, vote for representatives who share your views, or suck it up. In a democracy we have to accept when we are in the minority.

Side: Yeah, screw them
1 point

Exactly.................................................................................................................!

Side: Yeah, screw them
2 points

Should people who are morally against war be forced to pay for those who want one?

Besides, the bill don't do that abortion thing you are going on about.

Side: War - What is it good for
1 point

No, I don't think people who are against abortion should have to fund abortions. One, its against their moral convictions. Two, it is not a life saving procedure: it is simply a woman trying to rid herself of responsibilties.

Side: No, let them be
1 point

Agreed. Women have the option to rid themselves of such a responsibility but why should they be able to put the financial burden on the tax payers?

Side: No, let them be
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

"One, its against their moral convictions."

We don't get to pick & choose how our collective tax dollars are spent, through "morals" or otherwise, period.

"Two, it is not a life saving procedure"

...except that it frequently is...ooooppppssss...

Side: Yeah, screw them

Again,

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.

Side: No, let them be
1 point

Everyone keeps going on about the health of the mother ,but does anyone know anything about heroin babies, for an example.

Side: Yeah, screw them
1 point

http://www.ehow.com/about_5042764_effects-heroin-methadone-unborn-babies.html

Heroin is a highly addictive, semi-synthetic opioid drug. Heroin is sometimes used illegally for recreational use because it produces intense feelings of euphoria and relaxation. Tolerance to heroin often leads users to require more of the drug to produce the same effects over time.

Heroin is also available under other names for pharmaceutical purposes like relief from acute pain and treatment of heroin addiction. Heroin is only legally available on the pharmaceutical market in some countries.

Methadone is also a synthetic opioid drug. It is available for medical purposes, including pain relief and treatment of addiction to other drugs such as heroin and morphine.

When a pregnant women uses heroin, the child takes heroin into the blood stream via the placenta. In this way, a baby may become addicted to heroin before birth.

Heroin in Unborn Babies

Unborn children of mothers addicted to heroin are at increased risk for a premature or stillbirth, in addition to the complications they may face after their birth. However, mothers addicted to heroin should not attempt to stop heroin use without consulting a physician. To safely reduce the mother's dependence on heroin, a physician may use methadone.

Heroin Addiction and Withdrawal After Birth

A baby that is exposed to heroin is at high risk for a number of afflictions after birth, including hypoglycemia, intracranial hemorrhage, premature birth, breathing problems and low birth weight. While in withdrawal from the drug, the baby may experience tremors, seizures, vomiting, moodiness, achiness, difficulty sleeping, fever and diarrhea.

Methadone Treatment for Mothers on Heroin

Methadone reduces or eliminates an addict's craving for heroin while blocking the effects, thus allowing the user to transition from heroin addiction to a drug-free lifestyle with less severe withdrawal symptoms. This is especially important for pregnant mothers because the symptoms of withdrawal may cause contractions of the uterus, initiating a premature birth or even causing the mother to miscarry.

Methadone Withdrawal in Infants

Infants born of mothers who were taking methadone during pregnancy might experience withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms are similar to the effects of withdrawal from heroin. They include sleeping problems, lack of appetite, moodiness and fussiness, vomiting, tremors and fever.

Long Term Effects

It is not precisely known what the long-term effects of heroin and methadone are on children. Many children born addicted to heroin and methadone require special education classes in school, and some need to repeat one or more grades. Whether this is the result of exposure to drugs or for other reasons is unknown.

Side: Yeah, screw them
1 point

and you anti-abortionist will let an inocent baby be born into life like this?

Side: Yeah, screw them
1 point

im not saying, allow just anyone a free abortion ,put it in proper perspective.before calling me a baby killer.

Side: Yeah, screw them
1 point

oh your a real card you are joe.im not saying hand out abortions.i cant be any clearer on what my beliefs are....not my fault you dont have the knowledge to comprehend.

Side: Yeah, screw them

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said that you want to hand out abortions.

Side: No, let them be
dacey(1046) Disputed
1 point

But your whinging about paying for them, using excuses that are vulger, and not a fair representation of those situations where abortions may be legitamately required.Being against the idea of paying for someones promiscous behaviour is entirely different to the situations of which may arise from the results of some pregnancies.Telling people that they are sluts or baby killers is about the only thing ive heard people use as reasons for against why they should be forced to pay. If this is how callous you americans are, than no wounder most of you want gun ownership .

Side: Yeah, screw them
1 point

I have a friend who has no limbs.HE said,he wanted to swim with the dolphins,he said. So with a special vest he did indeed swim with the dolphins.AND HE WAS HAPPY.......NOW, there is a couple who, recently raked in a free holiday to a resort(courtesy of a charity for kids) so they could grant their dying, disabled, childs wish to swim with the dolphins. This child,( who cannot function to any degree without assistance,the child cannot even speak,laugh or cry to communicate for itself,WHO WAS BORN LIKE THIS )was fitted with a special vest and indeed was assisted to swim with the dolphins.BUT...did the child say that they wanted to swim with the dolphins?NO...WAS THE CHILD HAPPY ? WHO KNOWS!.........so is it ok to impose life onto someone ,who is born with this degree of disability?.Is it ok to insist that the parents have this child and then dictate to the child its life, despite not even knowing what the childs thought or feelings are?....THAT IS NOT LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yeah, screw them

It seems to me that liberals are the kind of people that (when they can't do something for themselves) try to force others into doing it for them.

If they can't afford health care, they want to force others to pay for it.

If they can't afford an abortion, they want to force others to pay for it.

Women have the right to get an abortion. They don't have the right to force other people to pay for it. Jeez.

What is it that is so difficult to understand? This planet is full of conflict because everyone is trying to force everyone else into something they don't want. And then those same retards act surprised when they experience an overwhelming backlash. My solution? Simple. Don't force anyone into anything they don't want to do. Just work around the problem given the resources you have at hand.

Don't you just love liberals ;)

Side: No, let them be

We all pay for things in the tax codes which we don't agree with and this must be one of the smaller measures of money I can think of. How about someone who has no children paying school taxes all through the years? It's all, or should be, for the greater good.

Side: No, let them be

Except that abortion has an ethical/moral side to it. Would you consider it to be for the greater good if your tax money was used to support the freedom of speech of an anti-gay group? What if they advocated killing gays? What if the amount of tax money used was "small?"

Side: No, let them be
2 points

eXCEPT THAT KILLING GAYS IS NOT FOR THE GREATER GOOD...BUT i HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT, jOE!

Side: Yeah, screw them
3 points

Umm, no??? What the heck, why would they have to?

If it has nothing to do with them, and they're not the ones wanting/needing an abortion in the first place, when WHY should they have to pay for someone else's (that they probably don't even know)??

Side: No, let them be
MisterGuy Disputed
2 points

I already responded there, and no I don't believe in Uncle Milty. :)

Side: Yeah, screw them

Oh for crying out loud. Take off those rose colored glasses of yours. ;)

Side: No, let them be
1 point

I do NOT want to pay for some bimbo girl to go get her 15th abortion! I don't care if it's $.01 or $1000! The only abortions I would help pay for are the ones that I believe are morally acceptable (endangerment of mother's health, rape, and incest) and honestly, only if it's for an immediate family member. I do NOT want my future taxes going toward abortion. Fuck them!

Side: No, let them be

But isn't that how they got pregnant in the first place? ;)

Side: No, let them be
3 points

Haha. I obviously need sleep because it took me 5 minutes to realize you were referring to "fuck them!" ;) Nighty night.

Side: No, let them be
MisterGuy Disputed
1 point

"I do NOT want to pay for some bimbo girl to go get her 15th abortion!"

No one gets 15 abortions...that's a strawman argument. In fact, no one that I know of sets out to have "abortions on demand".

Side: Yeah, screw them

If a woman doesn't have enough money for an abortion, then she's probably not working. If her abortion is payed for by the tax payers, then you are basically taking money from those who are willing to work and giving it to those who do not.

A great mand once said:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Thomas Jefferson

Side: No, let them be
1 point

No one should be forced to pay for someone else's anything.

That's it =/

Side: No, let them be

No, if someone is morally against abortion, they shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's abortion through taxpayer support money.

Side: No, let them be

After 195 days and countless of arguments to the contrary, I still think they should not be forced to pay. ;)

Side: No, let them be
0 points

I believe health care is a fundamental right. I do not believe abortions fall under that right unless the abortion is solely for saving the mothers life. Otherwise, you made your bed, lie in it.

Side: No, let them be