Public Funded Birth Control
Debate Rounds (4)
1. Save Money. The reason it would save money is because less welfare children would be born since the lower socio-economic groups would have access to birth control. Since there would be less welfare children born, the state would not have to spend on much on welfare as they currently do.
2. Less abortions. Since all people would have access to birth control, the amount of unintended pregnancies would drop. With less unintended pregnancies, there would be a correlating effect to less abortions.
3. Good for the Environment. With slower population growth, society as a whole would become more sustainable and put less strain on the environment.
4. Good for the economy. With all the money saved from having to spend on birth control, people could spend money on other items or services (or better yet save money) which would have a positive effect on the nation.
With positive economic, social, and environmental consequences, it seems unreasonable to argue that It would have a negative effect compared to the current status qua of not having birth control publicly funded.
FreedomBeforeEquality forfeited this round.
To your first point, the most effective form of birth control is ridiculously cheap and already available to everyone (Abstinence). For those who can't control themselves, condoms are a very very close second at <$10 for a box of twelve. You would be hard pressed to screw yourself into poverty at those rates ;-)
I can agree though that we could do away with welfare altogether though. Perhaps we can discuss that in another debate.
Second, abortions would also go down with less "Public Funded Birth Control" no doubt. If it is this same group that supposedly can't afford a condom from above, how else would they pay for such an incredibly more expensive procedure? Abortions can cost anywhere from $320-2000+ without insurance to cover any portion of that. With insurance, any co-pay you might have would again be more than probably 2 boxes of those condoms. So if you haven't completely abandoned your personal and social responsibilities already, you can hold your head high and say that you, at the very least, purchased insurance to help in such an instance. Even then, you're robbing everyone with that carrier because you abandoned your responsibilities.
To your third point, a somewhat slower population growth may help the environment, true. In many ways though, we are accelerating our capabilities to do things in a more Green fashion because of the rate we are at. There would have been little movement to make solar anything big, or make hybrid cars, or anything like that back in a time where the population was spread as thin as it was in the 1800's (and there wasn't).
And the fourth, I think it's hard for you to claim anything based on human nature as a "savings". Also, I'd like to mention how counter intuitive your financial plan for savings is. You plan to reduce your taxpayer base and also save money on the very thing you propose those taxpayers fund! If it is public funded it will be a tax. It will need management and gov't employees. I'd really like to see how you plan to reduce the cost of that $10 box of condoms for every person in the nation by 1) reducing the number of people as a whole helping to pay into this thing, 2) hiring people to distribute or at least administer hospitals to distribute these things freely and equally, 3) funding constant ad campaigns and classes to ensure the public knows about them. This is essentially what you're asking for.
Some points for you:
1) They don't use them now, what makes you think they'll use them later. I don't find many people telling me they didn't use protection because the cost was high honestly. They're more apt to say "I didn't know" or that "it doesn't feel the same", or something on those lines.
2) As far as money "saving" goes you're only counting the savings for people who are more prone to buy them. For someone who doesn't need them, want them, or is responsible enough to take care of their business ... every single one of them you make pay into this system is putting them in the red. Every single one of their dollars spent is towards a product they don't even get which is wasteful spending in my book. You can show the average cost to have gone down but you're subsidizing that discount on everyone else's dime.
Here's a link for those abortion cost claims I made above since I didn't know this info before the argument, and had always just assumed it. Apparently it was just common sense, though, that it'd be quite an expensive procedure.
2. You admit that publicly funded birth control would lower the abortion rate. I am glad we agree on that. A lower abortion rate would have huge societal benefits such as having less people go through the traumatizing experience of abortion and less people having to pay for an abortion which would help the economy since with all that extra money, they can spend it on other things they need or want (or save it).
3. True, there wouldn't have been any movement to do things in a certain way had it not been for high population growth. The past is the past though and we need to focus on the present. The world is projected to be able to support 8 billion people. We are at 7 billion right now, so as a world if we want to avoid a crisis or extreme inequality we should work and implement solutions (public funded birth control) now so that we can avoid the crises of tomorrow.
4. Colorado when they implemented this program, it was estimated that it saved the state 69$ million dollars alone for just the year of 2004. How they came up with this number was the cost that it saved both the healthcare system and the welfare system. Every year STD's cost the US healthcare system 17 Billion dollars. Publicly funded birth control in Colorado shows that it would save the US healthcare system money because in Colorado the STD rate dropped since the funding for birth control not only covered the oral contraception pill, but also condoms which prevent STD transmission. With this drop, the Colorado healthcare system as I said earlier said money. The Colorado welfare system also saved money because less welfare children were born. Since Publicly funded birth control would save both on healthcare cost and welfare cost, the savings would more then cover the cost of providing birth control to the public. Plus, not only will the program save the government money, it will also save the individual money so it is a win-win for everyone.
FreedomBeforeEquality forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||2|
Reasons for voting decision: Those forfeits are killer. Con actually had some good arguments, but without defending them, he fails to make them substantial in the debate. The cost issue seems to be central to the debate, though for some reason there's no discussion of any moral issues. In any case, Pro is winning by a slight margin here. Con points out that most of the poor can afford condoms, but fails to show that, even at that low cost, people commonly acquire them. Pro's evidence in the final round shows that they only acquire and commonly use them in a system where they're free. The pill should have been a bigger argument from Pro - there's a reason that many women take it regularly, and it has to do with hormone production, not just birth control. Overpopulation is a difficult issue to weigh, but it still goes to Pro, as Con only mitigated it partially. As Pro is winning the major arguments, Pro wins the debate. Sources go to Con, as he's the only one who provided one.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.