• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

Do Men Have the Right to Control Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?


  • Total voters
    41
Insurance covering things like BC, etc, should never really be part of insurance.

I guess that should apply to all preventative medications, huh?

And appearently you, like many other men don't know that BCPs are also used for a variety of medical treatment.
 
You argue well and don't let emotion get the better of you, which puts you in the upper crust of debate, so I appreciate that. It looks like we've arrived at point where you have one view, I have another, we've both made our cases, and that's that.

I would suggest, though, that you consider the idea that you have the right to decide what to do with your body (which I agree with, so don't read this incorrectly) isn't based in science, but is a value judgment.

It is that too. I factor science into the equation, because it helps us answer a lot of questions about the relevant factors - what is and isn't a person, for example.

But the scientific basis of this is only one half of the debate for me. The other half is indeed a value judgment.

I would probably make the case either way that the ZEF is an aggressor upon the woman's body. And that instantly entitles her to defense, in much the same way she can protect herself from attack or parasites. However, the context of the debate would change significantly if there was any reason to believe a ZEF qualified for personhood. My stance would probably be more strict and I would conduct my sex life differently. Just like my stance would shift if any aspect of reproduction were different from how it actually is.

I think it is ethically difficult to make the case that someone cannot defend themselves against an aggressor. People do it - pacifists, for example. But it's a hard sell, and not something I buy in any other arena, so there's no reason I'd buy it here.
 
I guess that should apply to all preventative medications, huh?

And appearently you, like many other men don't know that BCPs are also used for a variety of medical treatment.

I'm aware of that, but covering maintenance medication is still, not an insurable event.
 
Should women be allowed to have an opinion about abortion when the fetus is male?
 
I'm not even slightly trying to be "cute." I meant it.

So you are a Libertarian who's in favor of the government telling grown adults what safety equipment they must, under the law, wear, telling food manufacturers what they must eliminate from their products, telling restaurants what they are and are not allowed to serve, and basically controlling with an iron fist every facet of every citizen's personal life and personal decisions. Gotcha.
 
Taxes or legislative mandates.
Things like that.

Affording one a benefit, at the expense of another, while not allowing them a say, is morally wrong.
How do your tax dollars go toward paying for abortions? Nvm
So since 1973 you personally may have paid for one abortion. You would rather pay for the care of all those unwanted children. I can understand that you would much rather pay ten times the amount you have paid toward abortions for their care. Okay you have a valid point thanks.
 
I would probably make the case either way that the ZEF is an aggressor upon the woman's body. And that instantly entitles her to defense, in much the same way she can protect herself from attack or parasites.

The ZEF is part and parcel of the woman's body working correctly, in the organ which exists specifically to grow it. Parasites and "attackers" aren't.

If you try to make your case, it has nothing to do with science.
 
How do your tax dollars go toward paying for abortions? Nvm
So since 1973 you personally may have paid for one abortion. You would rather pay for the care of all those unwanted children. I can understand that you would much rather pay ten times the amount you have paid toward abortions for their care. Okay you have a valid point thanks.

I don't care if women have abortions.
People purposefully terminating their progeny are likely doing me a favor.

I'm just saying, that I should have a say, when someone requires me to pay for part/all of it.
 
No ...most like he doesnt
Unless he pays an extraordinary amount of taxes he may have funded one abortion since 1973. He may donate a few cents toward it every year. You could find that much on the ground since 1973 in small coins. LOL
 
Really? You mean like insulin, AIDS meds, etc?

Do you know what insurance is?
It's a hedge against catastrophic loss, not a prepayment plan.

Insurable events, aren't things you know will happen.
Paying for maintenance medication is a definite loss to the insurance company.
 
Should women be allowed to have an opinion about abortion when the fetus is male?
I am awed that any woman would want to have sex with a male. It must be a powerful drive that heterosexual urge.
 
The ZEF is part and parcel of the woman's body working correctly, in the organ which exists specifically to grow it. Parasites and "attackers" aren't.

If you try to make your case, it has nothing to do with science.

Actually attackers and parasites are extremely natural and, in a state of nature, you could certainly argue they are beneficial.

But we don't exist in a state of nature, therefore there are other considerations. Same with pregnancy.
 
I don't care if women have abortions.
People purposefully terminating their progeny are likely doing me a favor.

I'm just saying, that I should have a say, when someone requires me to pay for part/all of it.

So if $100 of you tax dollars go to the women's health related care - you have the right to control thei health and reproductive rights os ALL women?
 
I am awed that any woman would want to have sex with a male. It must be a powerful drive that heterosexual urge.

Not all men are like this. I have never been involved with a man who is in my entire life. I weed them out right from the start.
 
yes, i do... i'm a voter.
You are completely disconnected about how our form of government works. If you did really have a say...I bet the way government Runs might be different. Dream on!
 
I don't care if women have abortions.
People purposefully terminating their progeny are likely doing me a favor.

I'm just saying, that I should have a say, when someone requires me to pay for part/all of it.
There is a lot that I would like to have a say in and don't. Why do i pay toward military at all when I do not believe in that. I do and i don't complain. As a nation why do people pay for education when they may not have children. Why does a person who lives in a rural area with no road access pay road taxes. But we all do.
 
Do you know what insurance is?
It's a hedge against catastrophic loss, not a prepayment plan.

Insurable events, aren't things you know will happen.
Paying for maintenance medication is a definite loss to the insurance company.
If so why does insurance pay for childbirth?
 
Back
Top Bottom