The debate "Long lasting birth control should be free" was started by
August 16, 2015, 3:03 pm.
By the way, Yuki_Amayane is disagreeing with this statement.
40 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 19 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
sloanstar1000 posted 11 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
danielfello posted 7 arguments, goldfox1987 posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
sloanstar1000, PsychDave, jacksonparty, Abraham, musejay1, kittrapper, ayesha97, nwenn24, DanielleR123, gouthamabi, historybuff, ResIpsaLoquitor, sidhant, Hellrazor, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, KicknRush, DannyknowsItAll and 23 visitors agree.
Yuki_Amayane, Musstta, Exirdraz, danielfello, sabrina, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, goldfox1987, ReedSchneider, Ryan, Katana_MC and 9 visitors disagree.
because very few people are Warren Buffet, it's not that hard to see why making it voluntary to pay taxes might be a problem, very few people would pay it. So people won't receive the benefit of the actual program.
it is a problem because I don't think people should be forced to pay taxes, but I also think people are very very stupid and don't take into consideration the pros and cons of social programs that would benefit everyone, that's why it has to be enforced.
there is a dichotomy here, the idea of force being good. not the merits of the pill bur the way in which it is procured. I have a moral argument but that is not the main thrust of this debate. the issue is force. if it was truly a good idea, why the need for force? if it was truly a good idea, then all people would be willing to chip in for it. in fact why not use this idea for all entitlements, if you believe in them you can chip in to pay for them. I am sure you could find millions of people who would be willing to sacrifice their paychecks and trust funds to back the idea....wait, no you wont. why? because the people that want it only want to receive whilst those who work for a living want a choice on where their money goes.
for an additional example, Warren Buffett says he doesn't pay enough taxes so we should change the code to raise the rates. why not just donate the enough he thinks he should be paying?
so, if you want the pill to be free, fine, make a donation funded account to pay for them all. don't use force. like mothers used to say, don't hit when you don't get your way...
and my point is... is it cheaper for society as a whole to feed, educate and raise children to be productive members of society despite being born to parents that can't support them, or is it cheaper to buy a pill? it's an actual dichotomy that exists.
I'll go out on a limb and say pill.
well there has been anarchy before and you are right that it doesn't work. that being said, neither does that mean that a government without social entitlements is a government of anarchy. police, firefighters, the military, and foreign relations are exactly the reason we should have a government. there is a middle ground, one where the government serves and protects, not controls its people.
as for who pays for it? the rich do not...unless you count people like me who make less than $50k a year as rich. problem is the rich write the laws to exempt themselves. either way forcing one group to pay for others was also tried that before as well, it was called communism and that worked out so well for the Soviets.
Offering free medical services is not control, it is choice. as for taxing to provide services, that is the government's job. I'm not going to shed any tears for millionaires providing health care for the poor. they got there on the backs of those poor people they can certainly afford to protect them a little.
I Mostly/partially agree, too many people have become dependent on government programs, and it should be stopped. the problem with these systems is there is no current function for socioeconomic rehabilitation, and I think government benefits should run out given a certain period of time if that person(s) doesn't attempt taking care of their social responsibilities.
That doesn't mean that all government programs should be done away with. there's seems to be this false dichotomy in people's heads where there is either ultimate government control and large tax rates, or no government at all. I'm saying that there has to be a middle ground. if you live in a society and have a shred of empathy, you should want that society to have safety nets for people that fall through the cracks of our non-perfect economic system and rehabilitation programs. These programs are there to prevent an even bigger drain on our economy, like human beings starving because a teenager got pregnant.
Complete anarchy with no government intervention has been tried before, now we just call it the Stone Age.
yet the point still remains that you want to force others to pay for the new program. this is wrong. it is wrong for medicare, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and every other social entitlement out there. it does no long term good and instead makes those depending on the entitlement more dependant and less free. the giver of the entitlement can exercise a great amount of influence and control over the recipient. do we really want a government to have control over yet another part of our lives? I for one want no part of the government in any sort of control of my life.
only idiots think that it's actually free and few do. it's a tired point. most ppl know its paid through taxes.
honestly it's depressing every time I see this crap, its a digression and has already been discussed on this thread, READ.
Devoid moral argument on whether bc should be used or not, the question framed is an oxymoron. Nothing is free, someone has to pay for it. in this case the people paying and the people receiving are two separate groups. The most likely to use are the least likely to pay. The reality of the question is one of the free market system and governments role in it. Should the government be allowed to force one group of people to give something to another group of people? The simple answer is no. Force is never acceptable in a moral, no, a just society that is self governed. If you want something, get it yourself. Don't make me get it for you.
every disagreement in a public forum either fails or succeeds. I didn't come after you personally obviously because I don't know you. I just assume people will use their best arguments. don't get offended, it wasn't personal, but you put yourself out there. I can't help that.
I'm not going to continue this much further, but I will say this. You just said that i'm just trying to make myself feel better. Even though you have consistently made direct comments about me personally, which I have not done to you. Simply put, its a form of puffery, your trying to make yourself feel superior by degrading me personally rather than disproving my position.
I feel as if I made my point concerning the topic put forth, if you agree or disagree with me, good for you either way. Just please refrain from commenting on me personally, because simply put, you don't know me.
so you're just ignoring the fact that in Colorado, where they've actually had access to free pregnancy prevention. The birthrate among teenagers fell by more than 40% in 4 years with a similar drop in abortions?
That's actual data from Walsenburg, Colorado that you can look up(among other places).
making broad assertions about how birth control is being used more than ever is pointless. We know it works, and people who ignore facts to make themselves feel better are the ones impeding societal progress... good job there
The fact of the matter is, more people today use birth control
than ever before, however teen pregnancy is also at a high. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that free birth control would reduce pregnancies. In fact, the opposite is more likely to occur.
So your solution is to do nothing, as I thought. Just more and more children born to people that can't take care of those children.
you can pretend that this wouldn't have any effect on your life, even in your mystical anarchist/libertarian dreamworld where human nature magically sorts out it's own problems, and children born to teenagers aren't just starving to death.
In the meantime, us who want to live in a society can pool together and create programs that would ultimately limit the damage done. birth control costs less than raising and feeding a human being. Expecting children to just be responsible for their own actions is nice, but I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
I don't plan to stop them from having sex, but I also don't intend to pay for their personal choices. They are responsible for their actions, therefore they should pay whatever the cost to accommodate their lifestyle choices. No one should be forced to foot the bill for them.
First of all, roads exist because people want them. Government exists because people wanted and created it, its not some extraterrestrial being that controls us.
anyway, how do you plan to stop teens from having sex?
Also, we would have roads regardless of whether government constructs them. If people have a need for a road, they'll build a road, we don't need government to do that for us
rampant teen pregnancies is the result of rampant teen sex, not because of lack of birth control.
furthermore, historically police were ran by militias not by the government.
Call it theft or a social contract, it doesn't matter, I gladly pay my taxes because we live in a society, I like having transportation systems and basic infrastructure. I've never heard an argument other than "waaaah it's theft" when discussing social programs. I agree that people like you should be able to opt out of all societal benefits provided however, Though you still use tax funded roads and benefits regardless. Police and fire departments are funded by tax dollars, your red herring about some fire departments being funded be fees to homeowners is beside the point.
You accept help from tax funded police when in need, but that's a different matter than the subject.
do you not think there are too many teen pregnancies and if you do, why would you not want to fund a program that would reduce that harm since your going to pay for it in the long run anyway?
sloanstar, To take from one person to give to another is theft, regardless of the government programs that exist because of said theft.
Fire departments are traditionally ran through volunteers and donations. only in bigger cities is it governmentally funded. and in many of those cities its funded by fees applied to homeowners, rather than just being funded by taxes.
daniel, you don't think social programs paid with taxes should exist then? no fire department or anything?
No one has the right to someone else's property.
We should prevent more human beings from being born at all costs, I'll throw tax money at that.