• 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!

Should We Pay for Sandra Fluke's Contraception?

Should we pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control?

  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .
ChrisL said:
I don't know Sandra Fluke, but I'd rather pay for her birth control than pay for her unwanted children or her abortion.
Click to expand...

I would rather her want the children that she has; barring that, I would rather pay for her unwanted children. Wanna jack up my tax rates to do so? I will gladly pay a big chunk of what I earn to ensure that all children are cared for properly when their parents don't care anymore.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
Action: don't pay for contraception
Result: more babies are born and increase the tax burden
Click to expand...

well that strikes me as unlikely. it seems more like

ACTION: Catholic insurance refuses to pay for contraception
RESULT: Sandra Fluke has to go to one of the approximately zillion places where you can get condoms free or for less than the price of a cup of coffee.
 
cpwill said:
well that strikes me as unlikely. it seems more like

ACTION: Catholic insurance refuses to pay for contraception
RESULT: Sandra Fluke has to go to one of the approximately zillion places where you can get condoms free or for less than the price of a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Well, this is true. Everyone is always singing the praises of Planned Parenthood. They should start handing out birth control to these women for free. Or maybe they already do; I don't really know.
 
cpwill said:
Agreed, but that does not mean that we have the right to force others to chip in against their will.
Click to expand...

I completely understand your point, but if we don't help pay for her BC, we WILL be paying for her children when they are getting public assistance, and that costs a helluva lot more than any BC pills or condoms.
 
Moot said:
Gender is inalienable because you do not get to chose your sex when you are born. It is by definition a pre-existing condition. Hysterectomys do not change a woman's sex anymore than a vasectomy changes a mans.

Soon there will be a birth control pill for men and I think health insurance should cover that as well. Seeing if men would take it would make for an interesting thread, too.
.
Click to expand...

You must be messing here. How can you believe in innate rights and think these things should be proved by insurance companies by the force of government? It really makes no sense to someone that actually DOES understand it.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
Action: don't pay for contraception
Result: more babies are born and increase the tax burden
Click to expand...

I have a solution for that problem, but you won't like it.

Or you know, they can go to places that CPwill is talking about :p

Like I said, instead of wanting government to be there for people, YOU be there for people. Stop acting like you care when you don't care.
 
cpwill said:
well that strikes me as unlikely. it seems more like

ACTION: Catholic insurance refuses to pay for contraception
RESULT: Sandra Fluke has to go to one of the approximately zillion places where you can get condoms free or for less than the price of a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...

Strange to see you're ok wagering our tax dollars against the "unlikely" chance that not every woman who would otherwise be taking BC pills will instead go out and get condoms. I had you pegged for a "reducing taxes is more important than maximizing the negative consequences of actions I disapprove" kind of guy.
 
Henrin said:
I have a solution for that problem, but you won't like it.
Click to expand...

Yeah and I'm sure 90% of the voters would side with me. So let's stop talking about your fantasy America and get back to discussing reality.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I would rather her want the children that she has; barring that, I would rather pay for her unwanted children. Wanna jack up my tax rates to do so? I will gladly pay a big chunk of what I earn to ensure that all children are cared for properly when their parents don't care anymore.
Click to expand...

Why would you give that money to government? Why not help them yourself with that money? It makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
ChunkySalsa said:
Yeah and I'm sure 90% of the voters would side with me. So let's stop talking about your fantasy America and get back to discussing reality.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not going to agree with you to save something I do not like. Get a new argument that I care about.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
Strange to see you're ok wagering our tax dollars against the "unlikely" chance that not every woman who would otherwise be taking BC pills will instead go out and get condoms. I had you pegged for a "reducing taxes is more important than maximizing the negative consequences of actions I disapprove" kind of guy.
Click to expand...

Because people having to take responsibility for themselves is so cruel. You liberals have really gotten worse over the years.
 
Okay, so obviously some people would rather pay for her unwanted children or for her abortion than for her birth control. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I don't even know what the argument is about. It's a no-brainer IMO.
 
Henrin said:
Because people having to take responsibility for themselves is so cruel. You liberals have really gotten worse over the years.
Click to expand...

People DON'T take responsibility for themselves. That's what you need to realize.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well then everybody should pay for every medical drug and procedure out of their own pocket.

After all it's their responsibility.

Let's do away with HMO's, they're socialistic anyway.
:lol:
Click to expand...
If the insurance company wants to offer that, that's their business. But it's not up the govt to be mandating what's in an insurance policy.
 
Henrin said:
Her sex? You mean her ability to have sex? Well sure, but she can't force people to make that possible? That is violation of their rights. If its just gender in general. That is just gender. That is just stupid to think changes anything.
Click to expand...
I mean women can't separate their gender from their health. We are talking about health insurance coverage that everyone must buy. What insurance coverage you buy is your business and what women buy is theirs. GOT IT!!!!!


You are attaching whatever you feel like as an inalienable right and then getting mad at me because I reject it nicely. You are acting like I don't know what I'm talking about but everything you are saying is build on self interest and using other people.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you are the one who keeps trying to force people to argue with your strawman. The only one showing self interest here is you.

You can't use your body to violate the body of another. Simple yes? Read the ideas behind it again. My conclusion is correct.
Click to expand...
No, your conclusion is false because it's based on a false premise. A woman can not be seperated from her own body and it is her body that is inalienable and possesses natural rights. A fetus inside her body is alieanable because it can be removed and separated. Once born, the fetus is inalienable in it's own right. Neither woman or man can give up the soveriegnty of their own body until they die.

Thank you. Now do you understand how what I said above falls under that?
Click to expand...
No, I don't and I doubt I ever will because you are wrong as I pointed out above.

I know, but they are positive rights and a violation of property rights :prof
Click to expand...
What is this property rights kick you're on? People "own" their own bodies and can treat it as property. But you don't own someone elses body and they don't own yours. But that is a subject for another thread because this thread is simply about health insurance covering birth control.

You can think whatever you want. That is your right. :D
Click to expand...
Thats good to hear because I don't need your permission to think whatever I want, either.


Is that the defense to using other people to provide you what you want and then call it an inalienable right? Ignorance is OK here, you know.
Click to expand...
Are you talking to your invisible chair agaiin? Why don't you educate yourself on what "group insurance" is so you can stop arguing from ignorance.

I never said they were. Lets try to be honest, ok? You are forcing property owners to provide you a service you want. Ownership is the right and ability to control something. In order to get your birth control pills you must make them do what you want. Birth control pills is not an innate right, but a human creation. You can not do that.
Click to expand...
Property owners? Who exactly do you think you own that you get to decide what kind of health coverage other people should or shouldn't get? Again, you are arguing from ignorance. Go do your homework, I'm tired of arguing with your strawman.
 
ChrisL said:
People DON'T take responsibility for themselves. That's what you need to realize.
Click to expand...

I realize that. I went over already that I give and even hinted at that I put my time into helping people personally. There is a lack of people that are willing to help from what I have seen, but there isn't a lack of people wanting to take from other people and give to the people of their choosing. I want to know how they can dare say they care when all they do is support policies that get other people to pay for their interests? At least someone in here was willing to shell up his own money to government which I pointed out was the wrong body to give that money to, but still, its a start and I guess I should feel good about that, but honestly I don't. If people want me to believe they care and they really want to take this high road of caring they need to prove it. There is apparently to some people in here 90% of people in this country that care about poor people, but there sure isn't 90% of people that give their time or money or just anything to the poor. I want to know why.

Sure, I'm considered wealthy by tax code, but even when I was not even well off I gave and I never took anything from government to get here either. Why is it that other people can not at least do the former? Give something, anything? Why do they keep demanding other people fill in the gaps of what they believe when they don't give? I just want an answer to that.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
Well then everybody should pay for every medical drug and procedure out of their own pocket.

After all it's their responsibility.

Let's do away with HMO's, they're socialistic anyway.

:lol:
Click to expand...

You're right, HMO's were created by federal legislation.

So much for the idea, that the medical insurance market was "unregulated."
 
Henrin said:
I realize that. I went over already I give and even hinted at that I put my time into helping people personally. There is a lack of people that are willing to help from what I have seen, but there isn't a lack of people wanting to take from other people and give to the people of their choosing. I want to know how they can dare say they care when all they do is support policies that get other people to pay for their interests? At least someone in here was willing to shell up his own money to government which I pointed out was the wrong body to give that money to, but still, its a start and I guess I should feel good about that, but honestly I don't. If people want me to believe they care and they really want to take this high road of caring they need to prove it. There is apparently to some people in there 90% of people in this country that care about poor people, but there sure isn't 90% of people that give their time or money or just anything to the poor. I want to know why.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, just because someone cares about poor people doesn't mean they aren't close to being poor themselves. Some people more than likely cannot afford to give away any money, especially in this economy. It is a shame that more people don't give, but that's life. People acting irresponsibly with their bodies is also life. Society will never be perfect and neither will the people. IMO, it's a good idea to pay for birth control and at least TRY to cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. That alone is worth it to me. Our taxes already support families on public assistance.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Insurance exists to cover unforeseen events, contraception, viagra and other maintenance medications, do not fall into "unforeseen events."
Click to expand...

Insurance exists to mitigate risks on foreseen, but less likely, events. If they were unforeseen, then how would people know they wanted insurance?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Insurance exists to mitigate risks on foreseen, but less likely, events. If they were unforeseen, then how would people know they wanted insurance?
Click to expand...

You can't predict if you will get a heart attack, stroke, etc.
That's why they're unforeseen, you don't know if it will happen.

Birth control and things of that nature are known and already very affordable.
All the "free birth control" thing did, was buy off middle and upper income women.
Poor females, tend not to have insurance in the first place.
 
Schutzengel said:
*trolling the Moot
Click to expand...
No, but it sure looks like you are, schutz.


inalienable - impossible to be taken away ... sex is inalienable? tell that to the LGBT community
Click to expand...
I did and they said their identity was just as inalieanble as their body which was created by God.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, for one thing, just because someone cares about poor people doesn't mean they aren't close to being poor themselves. Some people more than likely cannot afford to give away any money, especially in this economy. It is a shame that more people don't give, but that's life. People acting irresponsibly with their bodies is also life. Society will never be perfect and neither will the people. IMO, it's a good idea to pay for birth control and at least TRY to cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. That alone is worth it to me. Our taxes already support families on public assistance.
Click to expand...

How many poor people do you know, that can afford insurance, but not contraceptives?
The reasoning that this benefits poor people, just doesn't flow.
 
Henrin said:
Why would you give that money to government? Why not help them yourself with that money? It makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Ideally I would give it to a Catholic charity who would administer a foster/adoption program.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
How many poor people do you know, that can afford insurance, but not contraceptives?
The reasoning that this benefits poor people, just doesn't flow.
Click to expand...

You are probably referring to just condoms which are pretty cheap but not always very effective. I am talking more along the lines of the pill. I really have no idea how much it would cost without insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom