The Instigator
natertig
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
jeremy1234
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Taxpayer Dollars Paying For Abortions

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 3 votes the winner is...
natertig
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,374 times Debate No: 36315
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

natertig

Con

I am challenging my opponent to a debate on whether or not taxpayer dollars should go to pay for contraceptives and abortions. I firmly believe that if a woman's reproductive decisions are her's and her's only, then no one should ever be forced to help pay for her choices. If taxpayers got some sort of say in the decision to abort, then I might have a different opinion, but if the government is truly supposed to stay out of the bedroom, then they shouldn't be funding the results of what happens in the bedroom.
jeremy1234

Pro

By not assisting women when it comes to reproductive choices, we are oppressing them. They need all the support they can get in such a trying time and the last thing they should have to worry about is greedy Conservatives like yourself who do not want to lend a helping hand. It is her business what she does, but if she does choose to abort her child, taxpayers should be expected to assist her. We have other social programs such as welfare and food stamps, so denying women the same benefits when it comes to abortion is sexist and oppressive.
Debate Round No. 1
natertig

Con

My personal beliefs are that abortion should only be used in extreme cases, so in turn I do not believe that the fruits of my labor should go to support something I am forcefully against. It is not oppressing anyone, but the innocent taxpayers who should have nothing to do with an abortion they have no say in. Would you be willing to pay for my mistakes or my decisions? Of course not. If someone wants an abortion, fellow citizens should NEVER be forced to help pay for that abortion. Refusing to give money to a cause I do not support is in no way greedy. I am quite positive my opponent wouldn't give his money to support Anti-Abortion bills. Does that mean he is greedy? Again, of course not. Other social programs have absolutely nothing to do with Abortion. There is a huge difference between food stamps and welfare (which I am NOT in favor for) than an abortion. All genders are allowed to benefit from welfare and social programs, while only women are the ones on the receiving end of your proposed taxpayer assisted abortions. I will then turn this same concept around on you. Since abortion assistance can only be given to women (because women are the only one's who would ever be receiving an abortion) then what program are men entitled to to assure it is equal. It sure doesn't make sense to me that women have the ability to receive assistance for their choices, but men do not. Obviously, I am not being serious, I am just putting this argument into context. Claiming that someone is somehow selfish because they do not want to devote their hard earned dollars to something they are 100% against makes absolutely no sense and comparing abortion to social programs and even claiming that the two could be hand and hand (by saying "other social programs") shows the lack of knowledge you have on this subject.

I rest my case for the time being.
jeremy1234

Pro

I cannot believe how Anti-Women you are!! A woman is going through an extremely emotional time and deserves all the help she can get. How hateful of you to deny a woman her reproductive rights just because she cannot pay for them. This is the problem with Capitalism and America today as whole, we are full of selfish bible-thumpers that just want to keep their money and help no one else. I would NEVER give my money to support Anti-Abortion bills because the baby isn't even a rel baby until 3 months into the pregnancy and women can do whatever they wish. There is also no pain felt ever by the children, so if there is no pain, it should be allowed to be terminated. I do not have the current source for this, but I remember hearing it somewhere. I am just so so appauled at how Anti-Women you are. Typical Conservative to be oppressing women as much as you are. You should be ashamed of your ways.
Debate Round No. 2
natertig

Con

I honestly cannot tell if you are serious or not. Your demeanor has obviously changed very dramatically. Again, I do not hate women and I am in no way Anti-Women. If the woman cannot pay for her actions, why should taxpayers be forced to assist her. How in the world is she ever going to learn not to do it again? I have no idea why you brought up Capitalism and called me a "Bible-Thumper". I will attempt to respond to your wild arguments. Are you being serious when you say the baby isn't a real baby? I have no idea what you even mean by that. You even admit that you have no source to back it up and that you just heard it somewhere. Scientifically speaking, after 6 weeks the heart is beating and there are detectable brain waves. After 8 weeks, the brain is functioning.

Week Six: The heart begins to beat

-The embryo has reached a size of about 8 mm (1/4 inch) in length.
-The spinal cord, which until now has been open, is beginning to close.
-The first blood cells and blood vessels are developing.
-Blood moves through these primitive vessels connected to the yolk sac.
-A pipe-shaped heart is formed and begins to beat.
-The brain begins to divide into 5 parts and brainwaves are detectable.
-Optic pits form the start of the developing eye.
-The cells destined to be the arms and legs are in place.

At this time the embryo is still smaller than the size of a raisin. Low on the sides of the head are two folds of tissue that will become the ears. Although not completely developed, all the major body organs and systems are formed. The heart also forms, and it begins to beat on the 25th day after conception (about 6 weeks after the last menstrual period), and a heart beat can already be detected.

I will include the actual sources that support my argument and because no pain can be felt, that makes it justified? Answer me this. If I gave you an extreme pain killer or I knocked you out with anesthesia like drugs and killed you, would that be okay because you couldn't feel any pain? Is that the criteria you are seriously going to use? Shooting someone in the temple also produces no pain as they die immediately. Is that now okay because in the long run, at least they didn't feel any pain? Again, you seem to be obsessed with forcing your agenda down my throat and labeling me as Anti-Women for simply being against the murder of innocent children in the womb. I am a Homosexual who is very skeptical of Gay Marriage and I have many African-American friends who are against Affirmative Action. Does that make me a Homophobe and my African-American friends racist? I know many women who side with me on this issue. Are they somehow Anti-Women as well? Your argument seems to have no basis except for a huge amount of attacks that have absolutely no backing.

We just concluded our debate on Civil Unions and I asked you to be a bit more Civil (no pun intended), but it appears as though you have ignored that request. Thank you for the debate and I look forward to viewing your response. May the best debater win.

Source: http://prolifeaction.org...
Source: http://www.baby2see.com...
jeremy1234

Pro

I do not understand your analogies or what you mean by half of the things you say. One of you sources was from a pro-life source, so how can it be trusted? It seems to me like you are content with oppressing women and denying their rights of abortions. When I say a baby isn't a real baby, I am saying that I cannot see it or hold it, so to me, it doesn't count as a life. Until it is out of it's mother, there is no reason that she shouldn't be able to put it down and continue on with her life and there is no good reason that you shouldn't be assisting her financially.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by natertig 3 years ago
natertig
It's not a claim. It's about protecting our innocent citizens and how do you know the mother is innocent? The baby literally hasn't had an opportunity to do anything wrong...the mother has. Are you going to call me on that thing?
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
I really don't understand people who claim it is better to ruin two peoples lives and potentially have death for another innocent person, then to just abort an "almost" life.
Posted by natertig 3 years ago
natertig
Okay...you're right, I am wrong...(not really, but I am tired) lol
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
Damn, I did not post my comment now I have to rewrite it. You strangely like to call something a human before it is even born. If we abort the baby before 8 weeks then it didn't have a life so your argument just lost.
Posted by natertig 3 years ago
natertig
There are plenty of circumstances that when a baby is 6 or 7 months old, it couldn't survive outside the mother. Should we kill that baby too?
Posted by natertig 3 years ago
natertig
Yes because bacteria particles are the same as human beings whose hearts are beating and brains are functioning. Is that your criteria? If it cannot live without the mother, it can be killed? I'm pretty sure a 1 or 2 year old couldn't survive without their mother either. Your comparisons are whack. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are our founding principles. So much for being a Libertarian. You don't even want to protect the first and more important one...life.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
Then you commit mass genocide everyday against bacteria, and you should be ashamed of it. Killing innocent microorganisms. It cannot live outside the fetus, so to say that is pretty dumb.
Posted by natertig 3 years ago
natertig
It is not a medical procedure like any other. It is the only procedure that effectively ends another life. No other medical procedure does that, so pretending like it's just another surgery is outrageous and just plain stupid. Scientifically speaking, after 8 weeks the heart is beating and the brain is functioning. That is considered a life by any definition of the word.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
It is a medical procedure just like any other, so it doesn't matter if you think it is right or wrong.
Posted by tryanmax 3 years ago
tryanmax
By the end of the debate, both opponents had gotten pretty afield of the topic. Whether the abortion is moral or not is a separate debate from whether taxes should fund them. Obviously, if the broader debate were settled, it would help to inform the more basic debate. However, I think the widespread difference of opinion on the morality should be plenty to inform the narrower debate. If it can be agreed that compulsion to act (or pay as the case may be) is not justified, then the matter is settled and tax monies should not pay for abortions. However, if some justification can be found--that is, something which offsets the grievance--then that should be identified for consideration. Alleviating the pregnant woman of her condition does not in any apparent way satiate the grievance of the taxpayer.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
natertigjeremy1234Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm pro-choice. I think that women should do whatever they want with their own bodies. But making people pay for something which they believe is wrong... THAT'S oppressive. If a woman wants an abortion, she should have to pay for it with her own money. And this debate isn't about whether or not abortion is right or wrong. This was about whether the government should pay for it. Which they shouldn't. Paying for food or shelter or medical care for the unfortunate is different, they NEED that stuff. The government should pay for it if the woman's health is in danger, but if she has an abortion just to get rid the fetus, that is not the government's responsibility.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
natertigjeremy1234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: pro wanted to commit to Ad Hominem attacks, instead of properly debate the issue in question. Con never seemed to lose his cool. ARGUMENT: Con literally schooled him, giving information on the subject in details beyond where the scope of this debate should have needed to touch on. Pro even admitted he did not understand the subject, or related information on pregnancy. SOURCES: Due to pro's insult I want to give this area to con, however only 2 sources were used, and they were not enough to tip the balance that far into con's favor. Pro, next time spell out why the source is questionable, rather than just calling it political.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
natertigjeremy1234Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro kinda focused on attacking the Con in R2... Calling him anti-women and acting surprised by everything (he misinterpreted) about Con's position. Con made an argument to stand on, while all Pro did was attack the argument... He never tried defending his own position, and admitted to not understanding the Con's analogies. Both had good spelling. Con used sources.