The Instigator
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Defund Planned Parenthood

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 101096
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

CosmoJarvis

Con

This will be a debate assessing whether or not Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

I, Con, will argue that we should not defund Planned Parenthood, while Pro will argue that we should. Both sides are required to produce a well-organized and civil argument and a burden of proof.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Main Argument
R3: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
R4: Rebuttals (No new arguments)
Debate Round No. 1
CosmoJarvis

Con

Outline
I) Introduction
II) Services and Benefits of Planned Parenthood
III) Economic Benefits of Planned Parenthood
IV) Sources

I) Introduction

Before I start my argument, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my argument. The Market Libertarian and I have been in a debate or two in the past. I just hope this time that HE DOESN'T WIRE TAP ME DURING THE DEBATE LIKE HE DID IN THE PREVIOUS DEBATE.

I, con, will be advocating for Planned Parenthood. To do this, I will explain the benefits of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is, as defined by Google, "a nonprofit organization that conducts research into and gives advice on contraception, family planning, and reproductive problems."

II) Services and Benefits of Planned Parenthood

While one of the most notable services Planned Parenthood provides are abortions, it also offers a wanton of other services including but not limited to low cost or free breast, prostate, colon, cervical cancer screenings, UTI treatment, jock itch treatment, and STI and pregnancy screenings (S1). In fact, only a mere 3% of its services are abortions. Planned Parenthood offers an estimated three million women annually with birth control, breast exams, pap tests, and other health cervices (S2). Planned Parenthood is necessary for both men and women who are unable to afford healthcare, especially in such turbulent times where, if Ryan-Care (or Trump-Care) is ever approved, millions might be without any health insurance. As of now, approximately 22.3% of women are uninsured. Planned Parenthood, however, plays a crucial role in providing affordable yet reliable healthcare for these people (S3).


III) Economic Benefits of Planned Parenthood

Some may argue that Planned Parenthood is detrimental to society; conducting controversial abortions and taking away taxpayer money. Yet, contrary to these unfounded beliefs, Planned Parenthood boosts incomes, reduces poverty and eases the load on America's safety net. According to Andrea Flynn, a successful reporter and researcher of economics and politics, Planned Parenthood provided both medical and financial care for millions of unintended pregnancies, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, and certain types of cancer. Because of the affordable heathcare Planned Parenthood provides, people can get the medical services they need without going into debt or suffering the consequences of not getting medical help (S4). And according to a study conducted and reported by the Guttmacher Institute, in a survey of over 2,000 women who used family planning centers such as Planned Parenthood, 63% said that the services provided by family planning centers allowed them to take better care of themselves or their family, 56% said that it helped to better support themselves financially, 51% said that it helped to stay in school or finish their education, and 50% said that it helped to keep their job or pursue a different career.

IV) Sources
S1) http://www.iowastatedaily.com...

S2) http://students.com.miami.edu...
S3) http://students.com.miami.edu...
S4) https://www.theatlantic.com...
S5) https://www.guttmacher.org...
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

I will be arguing that Planned Parenthood should receive no public funds from a purely Libertarian perspective. I am pro choice and support women's, and men's, reproductive rights. With that, I would like to present a new objection to funding Planned Parenthood.

It seems to be that my opponent's Round 2 argument is that Planned Parenthood provides useful services which the public at large would much rather have, and pay the taxes to fund it. If this is true, then Planned Parenthood has no need for Federal Funding. If the majority of people believe that the money expended on Planned Parenthood is well worth, or more than worth, the services which it provides- they will voluntarily donate to it. The issue with imposing taxes to fund Planned Parenthood is that the cost is unfairly shifted onto people who disagree with that use of their money, and people who will likely never benefit from its existence. However, in the case of voluntary donations- the cost of the program will be shifted only onto those who believe it beneficial, and those who benefit from it.

This is the only fair way for Planned Parenthood to be funded.
Debate Round No. 2
CosmoJarvis

Con

Your primary and only argument is that Planned Parenthood should be defunded solely because it does not agree with your libertarian principles?

You argue that "if the majority of people believe that the money expended on Planned Parenthood is well worth, or more than worth, the services which it provides- they will voluntarily donate to it." This, however, may not be the case. Planned Parenthood is shrouded with controversy and criticism over its abortion policies. In fact, that is why Planned Parenthood is largely known. Honestly, I thought Planned Parenthood's only purpose was to provide abortions. Little did I know that, before I researched more of it, only 3% of what it provides are abortions. According to a CNN poll in 2014, 38% of Americans say it should be legal in few circumstances, and 20% say abortion should always be illegal (S1). This weariness of the public makes it seem unlikely that the solution you propose, to fund Planned Parenthood with voluntary donations, would ever succeed.

Sources:
S1) https://townhall.com...
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Actually my main argument was that it is unfair to shift the cost of Planned Parenthood onto a large number of people who disagree with this use of funds, and who will likely never benefit from it. For example- I'm male, I'm not going to have an abortion any time soon- and yet I would be forced to pay for them! Planned Parenthood certainly benefits some people, and so the cost of its activities should be support it, and those who benefit from it.
If what my opponent is saying is true, then a minority group is imposing unfair taxes upon the majority, as to force them to pay for somethng that they ought to pay for themselves. If Planned Parenthood were funded by voluntary donations, only those who support it will bear its cost, as opposed to forcing others to pay for it for them.
Debate Round No. 3
CosmoJarvis

Con

My opponent, based on his libertarian views, believes that Planned Parenthood should lose all of its funding from the Federal Government because the "minority group [using Planned Parenthood] is imposing unfair taxes upon the majority, as to force them to pay for something that they ought to pay for themselves," suggesting that Planned Parenthood should be funded by "voluntary donations, only those who support it will bear its cost, as opposed to forcing others to pay for it for them." Nowhere does my opponent object to the services it provides, nor does he deny that these services are positive and are for the best interests, safety, and welfare of Americans.

My opponent believes that, because a taxpayer does need a certain service, their tax money should not be used to support it. Yes, taxes are a strain on all people, but they help provide us and others necessary resources to objectively improve the community. Taxes help support resources and services such as police, firefighters and the military. It also helps fund education, road construction and repair and the construction of public facilities such as libraries. They are also used to help the less fortunate and Americans at or below the poverty line.

To say that a person's tax money should not be allocated to a service because it does not improve the life of the taxpayer is like not paying for taxes that improve education because you're not going to school nor do you want to pursue an education.

Taxes are the duty of all Americans; we give the government our tax dollars in exchange for legal protection, public services and for the defense against international and local threats.
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Taxes are only a duty with regards to things that are a duty for us to do- paying for the military is a duty because it is necissary for the defense of your property- the same goes for the police. It is everyones responsibility to enable the future generation to have as much of an oppurtunity to succed as they can- thus paying for education is a duty. It is not, however, the duty of everyone to make sure that you get an abortion. Planned Parenthood benefits a select group of people- it is not a public institution, it does not preserve our freedom, and it does not benefit everyone.
Even if, for example, you don't have kids to send to school- you still benefited from the Public Education system, which enabled you to get an education, and thereby gave you some oppurtunities to succeed.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mharman 10 months ago
Mharman
Planned Parenthood is a business. It is not the government's responsibility to fund businesses. Thus, Planned Parenthood should fund itself.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 10 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
That's good
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
I do not support it because the child is not old enough to make the decision himself. If the child grows up and is at a mature age where he can make his own decision, then if he wants it, I guess he has the right to do so.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 10 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
Circumcision without medical necessity.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
How so? Do you mean in certain cases such as religion? Or when a person wants to change their sex?
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 10 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
What of Male Genital Mutilation?
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
By the way, do you feel guilty knowing thAT YOU CLEARLY WIRE TAPPED ME IN THIS SACRED DEBATE?!
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 10 months ago
TheMarketLibertarian
Yes.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Aside from how Planned Parenthood is funded, do you think that the services it provides are good?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Political.Questioneer 9 months ago
Political.Questioneer
CosmoJarvisTheMarketLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate between these two is quite a good one showing both the pros and the cons of Planned Parenthood really causing me to think. The main reason I mostly agree with the Pro's argument is that it is not against abortion or claiming that it is evil as others do, but it is pointing that if people as populace would want it they would be more voluntary in supporting it. However, the failure of providing sources and examples of businesses like planned parenthood make me question the validity of volunteerism. The con points out certainly the benefits of volunteerism and appears to try and refute the Pro's claims by saying it's only based on the Libertarian principles, but not proving the Libertarian views wrong in any way. However, does show that volunteerism could have its problems with lack of funds. Which from the debate I have come to believe that federal funding should only provided in the instance that a fair majority (about 60%) of people agree with it. Thank You.