California to force taxpayers to fund abortion pills, with Christian tax dollars. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

California to force taxpayers to fund abortion pills, with Christian tax dollars.
in News




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • No. They're using Christian tax dollars to fund ecological energies (supplied by God), to power the state. They are using liberal tax dollars to fund abortion pills, contraceptives for the poor, and the like. That way we are ALL happy …. that's the way liberals try to reduce the division in the country, we only use the tax dollars of certain people to fund what THEY want. Isn't that nice?? :love:
    SkepticalOne
  • There is no such thing as "christian tax money", there is only tax money...
    SkepticalOneall4acttPHaze
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @YeshuaBought

    I agree with Plaffelvohfen - it is not "Christian tax dollars".

    Even if it were, Christian's are generally opposed to social programs to help deal with the consequences of bringing hundreds of thousands of babies into inadequate homes or the stunted lives of their families. Not to mention, abstinence only, 'natural family planning', and calls to defund planned parenthood (all Christian positions) contribute to greater instances of unintended pregnancies (and STDs). It is a problem exacerbated by Christians, so I have very little sympathy for their delicate sensibilities.
    PlaffelvohfenPHaze
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2952 Pts
    edited October 2019
    My (technically Catholic) university's administration recently used some of the changes in the business freedom laws to revoke the abortion-related expense coverage from its sponsored healthcare plan. The public outcry was immense, and the administration was caught in before the Catholic lobby and the "progressive" lobby, constantly rolling this change back and introducing it again. It was all about university newspaper headlines, and nobody seemed to bother researching what the change actually affects. I did research that, and the coverage of abortion-related expenses actually was negligible to begin with. The whole debate was not about the proposal, but about the ideology behind it.

    Personally, I do not care about ideologies. What I care about is that my university is a private institution, and it should be able to decide what healthcare coverage to sponsor for its employees and students, if any. I also understand the fact that nothing is ever free, and providing this coverage costs the university money, which it will take back by raising the tuition fees. So, in the end, it is the students who will end up subsidising everyone's abortion expenses, while the employed university members - the ones who, ironically, were the least interested in discussing the change - and who do not pay tuition in the first place, get to enjoy some extra money.

    There is so much irrationality in the public debate on controversial issues, such as abortion rights, gun laws or immigration system, and so little discussion on more fundamental things, such as individual rights and freedoms, that really matter. Everybody gets upset every time some governmental subsidy of a controversial expense is introduced or removed, but nobody seems to care about a more fundamental issue: whether it should be the government's business in the first place. As well as what the actual effects, instead of the intended ones, of a given subsidy are.
  • @Plaffelvohfen I agree tax dollars are tax dolars, period.

    @MayCaesar

    I think in certain circumstances such as, the morning after pill for someone who is raped or molested (which granted is still rape) should maybe subsidised.  Also supsidies should be in place for pregnancy prevention pills or proceedures for those who can not afford it.

    All other forms and even the morning after pill should be paid for be the individual whose behavior lead to their pregnancy.
  • @SkepticalOne

    I agree there isn't a such thing as Christian tax dollars.  However not all Christian denominations ban contraceptives, most I have spoken to are just against the pills designed to prevent implantation not fertilization.

    Also being opposed to forcibly being responsible for anothers actions I don't think is wrong.  Most are against government social programs, but Christian Churches are very giving with money and time to help children born into these situations.

    All Christian positions lead to greater unintended pregnancies and STDS...well that is false.  They are against homosexuality and sex before marriage.  I'm pretty sure that would get rid of almost all STDs.  Planned parenthood shouldn't be funded by the government.  1. The large portion of their work is abortions. 2. I shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives anyways.  You can get them other places than planned parenthood.




  • @SkepticalOne

    I agree there isn't a such thing as Christian tax dollars.  However not all Christian denominations ban contraceptives, most I have spoken to are just against the pills designed to prevent implantation not fertilization.

    Also being opposed to forcibly being responsible for anothers actions I don't think is wrong.  Most are against government social programs, but Christian Churches are very giving with money and time to help children born into these situations.

    All Christian positions lead to greater unintended pregnancies and STDS...well that is false.  They are against homosexuality and sex before marriage.  I'm pretty sure that would get rid of almost all STDs.  Planned parenthood shouldn't be funded by the government.  1. The large portion of their work is abortions. 2. I shouldn't be paying for other peoples contraceptives anyways.  You can get them other places than planned parenthood.




    I'm not going to address every rabbit hole here. Suffice to say, the Christian views I mentioned do contribute to greater instances of unintended pregnancies and STDs, and, like it or not, we all pay for it sooner or later.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @SkepticalOne

    You didn't address any of them.  While thought of as a sin by Catholics they don't condemn the pill or condoms.  You said "(All Christian positions") not just the ones you presented.  If all christian positions were actually followed there would be close to zero STDS.

    We could force you or anyone to pay for peoples medical treatment, contraception, healthier food, gym membership, ect. and that would make more people healthy.  Does that mean its right?
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 390 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @SkepticalOne

    You didn't address any of them.  While thought of as a sin by Catholics they don't condemn the pill or condoms.  You said "(All Christian positions") not just the ones you presented.  If all christian positions were actually followed there would be close to zero STDS.

    We could force you or anyone to pay for peoples medical treatment, contraception, healthier food, gym membership, ect. and that would make more people healthy.  Does that mean its right?
    Michael, I didn't suggest "All Christian Positions" contribute to unintended pregnancies and STDs. All the positions I mentioned are Christian views currently being implemented and are demonstrably faulty. If you'd like to address my argument, we can continue.
  • @SkepticalOne

    My mistake.  I took All Christian positions to mean these and All Christian position contribute, not that you were labeling the previously mentioned comments as Christian positions.  My beef with you still is that Christians don't want to get rid of contraception.

    Also my second point still remains.


  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 390 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @SkepticalOne

    My mistake.  I took All Christian positions to mean these and All Christian position contribute, not that you were labeling the previously mentioned comments as Christian positions.  My beef with you still is that Christians don't want to get rid of contraception.

    Also my second point still remains.


    People who call themselves Christian/Catholic are opposed to contraception. (Whether another sect considers them to be Christian is a different argument.) You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned they consider it to be a sin. I mean, Christians are opposed to "sin", right?!  

    Your second point doesnt follow from my position. Government, out of necessity, is going to be responsible for keeping society healthy to an extent and it does: food stamps, housing, WIC, ChiPs, ACA, etc. 

    My point - this is an expense we are already burdened with, but we have a choice: cheaply address it before it becomes a problem or be reactionary to the problem at a higher cost.
  • @SkepticalOne

    Sure they are opposed to it, but that doesn't mean they want to make it illegal.  I mean sex outside of marriage is a sin, but the majority of Christians I know still do and aren't making it illegal.

    Food Stamps ect keep people alive.  It is a necessity of life, where sex and contraception is not.  If a person gets an STD 1. It is a preventable, so their fault.  2. Shouldn't have much effect on the rest of the populace.  Also as far as equal outcome goes from the other discussion, you don't find it unfair that tax dollars given to planned parenthood primarily only support women.
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 390 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @SkepticalOne

    Sure they are opposed to it, but that doesn't mean they want to make it illegal.  I mean sex outside of marriage is a sin, but the majority of Christians I know still do and aren't making it illegal.

    Food Stamps ect keep people alive.  It is a necessity of life, where sex and contraception is not.  If a person gets an STD 1. It is a preventable, so their fault.  2. Shouldn't have much effect on the rest of the populace.  Also as far as equal outcome goes from the other discussion, you don't find it unfair that tax dollars given to planned parenthood primarily only support women.
    Legality of contraception was never an issue, but preaching against birth control and/or implementing religiously motivated lack of sex-education/contraceptives (in California [Link]) in which abstinence is the only strategy or a primary strategy is harmful in multiple ways. [Link

    Comprehensive sex-education, birth control, and, yes, even abortions, improve the quality of life for women. This is not an unfair consideration exclusively for women though. Men directly benefit from education, birth-control, and, yes, even abortions. Beside this, society in general benefits by having individuals more capable of success and better able to care for the next generation.

    We are a sexual species - we should be embracing that fact rather than pretending 'don't have sex' is a reasonable edict or an effective means of birth control. It is time we grow up.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • although i get the point it is better to just keep paying the taxes. I might not like something but I should still obey the law. everybody dislikes something about the law
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 196 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @SkepticalOne

    *** preaching against birth control and/or implementing religiously motivated lack of sex-education/contraceptives...is harmful in multiple ways

    That would only be true is they were telling you to have sex and not use those things.  1. You are also told not to have sex until marriage, once married natural family planning yes is the primary choice in preventing children.  2. I went to a catholic school and they don't leave out the use of condoms or birthcontrol as part of sex ed.  People are not told by the Catholic Church, if your going to have sex with people your not married to, you should also avoid using contraceptives.  I.e If your going to do something wrong you don't also have to be about it.

    Men directly benefit from education, birth-control, and, yes, even abortions.  That depends on the men you ask.  Also my statement was about planned parenthood.  What proportion of their clients are men?  From what I see not many men receive any form of education, or birth control from planned parenthood.  You may say birth control given to woman may help the man avoid a child, but a condom would do the same on the flip side.  Planned parenthood subsidizes women contraceptives, not mens.  Also I shouldn't have to pay for someones contraceptives.

    Not having sex is an effective means of birth control...I think you mean its not practical to many.


  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 390 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @SkepticalOne

    *** preaching against birth control and/or implementing religiously motivated lack of sex-education/contraceptives...is harmful in multiple ways

    That would only be true is they were telling you to have sex and not use those things.  1. You are also told not to have sex until marriage, once married natural family planning yes is the primary choice in preventing children.  2. I went to a catholic school and they don't leave out the use of condoms or birthcontrol as part of sex ed.  People are not told by the Catholic Church, if your going to have sex with people your not married to, you should also avoid using contraceptives.  I.e If your going to do something wrong you don't also have to be about it.

    Men directly benefit from education, birth-control, and, yes, even abortions.  That depends on the men you ask.  Also my statement was about planned parenthood.  What proportion of their clients are men?  From what I see not many men receive any form of education, or birth control from planned parenthood.  You may say birth control given to woman may help the man avoid a child, but a condom would do the same on the flip side.  Planned parenthood subsidizes women contraceptives, not mens.  Also I shouldn't have to pay for someones contraceptives.

    Not having sex is an effective means of birth control...I think you mean its not practical to many.


    I think we're getting bogged down on the religious aspect of this post.  The notion that religious arguments have a place in the workings of a secular government is faulty.  Where government is concerned (at least the US government), religion provides no legitimate justification for any course of action. So the whole question of how a policy might run contrary to X or Y religious view is completely irrelevant. Either a policy has merit or it doesn't.

    That being said, the facts strongly argue for comprehensive sex-education and family planning strategies (including contraception and abortion). Strategies which favor abstinence and natural family planning (like the rhythm method) undeniably lead to higher rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.  In short, society (that includes men) is benefited by empowering women, and harmed by denying women knowledge and power over their own bodies.  It is simple to say 'abstinence *could* completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies', but reality is: it doesn't.  
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @SkepticalOne

    Sure, but who said anyone wanted to deny women knowledge or power.  I don't know the people you speak that specifically avoid contraception as part of sex ed.  You can go to specific classes that preach about natural family planning, but that is the choice of the person.  Hardly anyone is saying that contraceptives shouldn't be taught in general sex ed.  Naturally family planning strategies/ abstinence education is geared for people who want to follow the religious way of doing things. People would much rather people use contraceptives if they are going to have sex than get an abortion.

    I just don't want to pay for things that aren't a necessity for people to live.  One could argue that I would pay less handing out free contraception in the long run, but I don't agree with it.  It breeds an attitude of irresponsibility, if something is a want you pay for it yourself.  
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 390 Pts
    edited October 2019
    @MichaelElpers

    As of 2016 in my home state of Texas, 83% of school districts taught abstinence only programs. Many of these distort the facts on abortion and deny the effectiveness of condoms. 25% of Texas schools don't teach sex-ed. Last I checked, Texas was 7th highest in the nation for teen pregnancy and STDs rate have been steadily rising. What's worse, since Texas is a large state textbooks used here influence materials used in the rest of the country. [Link]

    Whether it's intentional or not, Texas is effectively denying knowledge to young men and women across the country. 
  • @SkepticalOne

    Sure I would agree lying or purposefully leaving out information is wrong.

    I really dont think sex ed is too hard to find either.

    The culture of have sex whenever you want, might be contributing as well.
  • @SkepticalOne

    Not giving kids some information at school is not the same as "denying them knowledge". "Denying knowledge" implies some form of active blocking of information. Simply not delivering this information is not the same.

    I do not even understand why they teach sex ed at schools. It is not like these things are hard to figure out for oneself. I read a book when I was 3 which explained everything. If I could understand it at the age of 3, then anybody can understand it and learn it on their own.

    Schools should teach more relevant skills, ones that are harder to learn on your own. Such as logic, economics, finances, law, mathematics, physics, writing, critical thinking, etc. And it so happens that schools are absolutely awful at teaching those; in fact, some of the things I mentioned are not taught at all.
    The whole debate on abortion would not exist in the first place, if kids learned something about individual rights and autonomy. The principle "be and let be" is one of the first things schools should teach. 
  • @MayCaesar

    If you know there is better information and you don't share it in an education setting, then you are effectively denying knowledge. I mean, imagine if we didn't tell chemistry students some of the materials they may be handling were hazardous? 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch