• 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 the country pay for women's contraceptives?

Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.8%

  • No

    Votes: 57 58.2%
  • Total voters
    98
Jerry said:
Yes, and the tax-payer should have to pay for my tithing as well. Both are voluntary actions and protected behaviors, so if we're going to have an entitlement sociaty then let's just do it.
Click to expand...

Well I don't want to pay for your dental care which I think is a voluntary decision. You should pay for your own cleaning and fillings and quit demanding the taxpayer foot what is essentially a personal responsibility.
 
Jerry said:
Yes, and the tax-payer should have to pay for my tithing as well. Both are voluntary actions and protected behaviors, so if we're going to have an entitlement sociaty then let's just do it.
Click to expand...

I don't want an entitlement society. We cannot support a fully entitled society. The ideology of such an idea is something that we can't even be trusted with since so many people already take advantage of the system. We would bankrupt ourselves in a heartbeat.
 
spanky said:
Well I don't want to pay for your dental care which I think is a voluntary decision. You should pay for your own cleaning and fillings and quit demanding the taxpayer foot what is essentially a personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
I've earned TriCare, you can go fry an egg.
 
spanky said:
So you believe you are entitled...
Click to expand...
First, post 343 was sarcastic as I'm known for my support of the destruction of ObamaCare and social security.

Secondly, access to TriCare can only be earned through military or federal service. It's a reward for service, not an entitlement.

I earned what I have. Maybe learn something about someone before making it personal.
 
Jerry said:
First, post 343 was sarcastic as I'm known for my support of the destruction of ObamaCare and social security.

Secondly, access to TriCare can only be earned through military or federal service. It's a reward for service, not an entitlement.

I earned what I have. Maybe learn something about someone before making it personal.
Click to expand...

My comment was a general comment aimed at everyone, hell I had to look up Tricare to see what it was.
 
spanky said:
My comment was a general comment aimed at everyone, hell I had to look up Tricare to see what it was.
Click to expand...
Nice attempt to cop-out but you quoted me and used "you", that's no where near a general comment, that's very direct.
 
You're comment was sarcastic and so was mine.

Did you take it seriously? Dental care?
 
spanky said:
Ya, well you go to hell for that too. If you're going to do the time, might as well do the better crime.

Uhh, I think that's an argument for a different thread. This ones about giving those women contraceptives so the gubmint avoids writing that check.

I was going to write a response to this comment but I kept spitting up on my chin.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of folks think I deserve to go to hell for my opinions, but oh well.

And no, that isn't a subject for a different thread. How many many on this thread are making the argument that it is cheaper to provide contraceptives to women than it is to support the kids they will otherwise have? Well, if they don't benefit from having those kids, don't you think they will be far less likely to risk having a child they can't or won't suppport? You've obviously never experienced nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth. It is not something anybody would choose to do unless there was hope of reward of a baby at the end of the process.

And all you have to do is look at the honest situation in the projects, ghettos, and poorer inner city neighborhoods to know what life is like for most of those kids. The mothers are too often drugged out and simply don't take care of their kids. They leave it up to the schools to give them breakfast and lunch and don't care what happens to them after school. Beating rape, assault, murder become a way of life. Handing out free contraceptives will not correct this situation. Making it unprofitable to have kids you can't or won't take care of will.
 
Id rather pay a buck or two for contraception than pay for an abortion or to raise an unwanted kid...
 
lpast said:
Id rather pay a buck or two for contraception than pay for an abortion or to raise an unwanted kid...
Click to expand...

But handing out contraceptives hasn't reduced the number of kids we are supporting has it. Or reduced the number of kids who show up at school without a coat on a cold morning, without breakfast, without lunch money. So maybe it isn't a problem of whether women can afford contraceptives at all.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But handing out contraceptives hasn't reduced the number of kids we are supporting has it. Or reduced the number of kids who show up at school without a coat on a cold morning, without breakfast, without lunch money. So maybe it isn't a problem of whether women can afford contraceptives at all.
Click to expand...

I didnt think we were handing out contraceptives on a wide basis...and how do you know there would be alot more abortions and unwanted kids without it
 
lpast said:
I didnt think we were handing out contraceptives on a wide basis...and how do you know there would be alot more abortions and unwanted kids without it
Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned abortions because I didn't want to derail the thread and bringing that into it would almost certainly derail the thread. (That is unless DP is much different than all other message boards. I've been away from DP for awhile.)

Schools have been handing out condoms to kids for a number of years now. And yet beginning in 2006, teen pregnancies have been on the rise after a decade of some decline. Maybe a message of abstinance rather than implied advocacy via condoms is more effective? But that can be debated on another thread too.

And the reason I know increased access to contraceptives is not the answer to unwanted children is because women who want them have unrestricted and usually free access to contraceptives now and yet there are more deprived kids in the ghettos and projects and other inner city neighborhoods than ever.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I haven't mentioned abortions because I didn't want to derail the thread and bringing that into it would almost certainly derail the thread. (That is unless DP is much different than all other message boards. I've been away from DP for awhile.)

Schools have been handing out condoms to kids for a number of years now. And yet beginning in 2006, teen pregnancies have been on the rise after a decade of some decline. Maybe a message of abstinance rather than implied advocacy via condoms is more effective? But that can be debated on another thread too.

And the reason I know increased access to contraceptives is not the answer to unwanted children is because women who want them have unrestricted and usually free access to contraceptives now and yet there are more deprived kids in the ghettos and projects and other inner city neighborhoods than ever.
Click to expand...

Yes but very few schools..not even a majority and this poll was about womens contraceptives not children....Im personally for health insurers paying for contraception for women that dont want to have an unwanted child...makes more sense and money much better spent to me than insurers paying for viagra and the like for worn out old men an non performing juniors
 
AlbqOwl said:
I haven't mentioned abortions because I didn't want to derail the thread and bringing that into it would almost certainly derail the thread. (That is unless DP is much different than all other message boards. I've been away from DP for awhile.)

Schools have been handing out condoms to kids for a number of years now. And yet beginning in 2006, teen pregnancies have been on the rise after a decade of some decline. Maybe a message of abstinance rather than implied advocacy via condoms is more effective? But that can be debated on another thread too.

And the reason I know increased access to contraceptives is not the answer to unwanted children is because women who want them have unrestricted and usually free access to contraceptives now and yet there are more deprived kids in the ghettos and projects and other inner city neighborhoods than ever.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't access to contraceptives, it's that we have raised a generation or two of people who have no concept of personal responsibility. Nobody cares if they can afford to have a child, they know the state will send them money every month. Kids don't care either, if it happens, someone else will take care of them. Nobody is taught in school or by parents that some mistakes, if done, can never be undone and they may have life-altering or life-ruining effects.
 
lpast said:
Yes but very few schools..not even a majority and this poll was about womens contraceptives not children....Im personally for health insurers paying for contraception for women that dont want to have an unwanted child...makes more sense and money much better spent to me than insurers paying for viagra and the like for worn out old men an non performing juniors
Click to expand...

I am all for insurance companies covering what insurance companies want to cover. If they don't want to cover contraceptives, so be it. Women who want insurance to pay for their contraceptives will choose a different insurance company. Others will prefer to pay lower premiums for their insurance and pay for their contraceptives out of pocket.

I am 100% opposed to the federal government telling me that I have to buy anything for somebody else to have sex; and I am 100% opposed to the federal government telling any private business that they must provide anything free to anybody.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am all for insurance companies covering what insurance companies want to cover. If they don't want to cover contraceptives, so be it. Women who want insurance to pay for their contraceptives will choose a different insurance company. Others will prefer to pay lower premiums for their insurance and pay for their contraceptives out of pocket.

I am 100% opposed to the federal government telling me that I have to buy anything for somebody else to have sex; and I am 100% opposed to the federal government telling any private business that they must provide anything free to anybody.
Click to expand...

Oh lets not make any mistake...YOU will pay eventually...and if you have to pay for prison for an unwanted kid that could cost MILLIONS upon millions...have it your way :)
 
lpast said:
Oh lets not make any mistake...YOU will pay eventually...and if you have to pay for prison for an unwanted kid that could cost MILLIONS upon millions...have it your way :)
Click to expand...

I am already paying to feed, cloth, house, educate, and provide healthcare for children that the parents cannot or will not support. I am already paying to incarcerate the very high percentage of these kids who get in trouble with the law. And since no woman in the country who wants to have contraceptives is currently required to go without them whether or not she pays for them herself, I am pretty darn sure that the federal government requiring that everybody get their contraceptives without having to pay for them is not going to change that picture.

Far better to focus on creating a system that does not reward people for having children they cannot or will not support, and a system that does not leave children with such irresponsible parents. Again, if there is no profit to be had in producing children that it will be up to the rest of us to support, there will be far far fewer such children produced.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I am already paying to feed, cloth, house, educate, and provide healthcare for children that the parents cannot or will not support. I am already paying to incarcerate the very high percentage of these kids who get in trouble with the law. And since no woman in the country who wants to have contraceptives is currently required to go without them whether or not she pays for them herself, I am pretty darn sure that the federal government requiring that everybody get their contraceptives without having to pay for them is not going to change that picture.

Far better to focus on creating a system that does not reward people for having children they cannot or will not support, and a system that does not leave children with such irresponsible parents. Again, if there is no profit to be had in producing children that it will be up to the rest of us to support, there will be far far fewer such children produced.
Click to expand...

Ok...you need to have this conversation with someone else...Im not buying into your tears :) thanks
 
lpast said:
Ok...you need to have this conversation with someone else...Im not buying into your tears :) thanks
Click to expand...

No tears here, except for those poor kids. When you have worked with those kids for as many years as I have, you might have a different perspective too.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No tears here, except for those poor kids. When you have worked with those kids for as many years as I have, you might have a different perspective too.
Click to expand...

I worked very closely with those kids and kids that had a much worse plight...ive seen things I truly wished I hadnt...but thats not here or there...
Giving contraceptives to kids is one thing...if you dont give them to their parents who are going to keep producing the kids you feel so much for you will have even more and it will COST far more...thats my whole point.
You cant neglect the problem every step of the way whining about the cost...because there is an END of the line and the end of the line costs far far more in dollars and misery for them and everyone else....there are no other alternatives or outcomes
 
lpast said:
Giving contraceptives to kids is one thing...if you dont give them to their parents who are going to keep producing the kids you feel so much for you will have even more and it will COST far more...thats my whole point.
Click to expand...

The problem is, contraceptives and the like are just a bandage to cover up the real issue. We've raised a generation or two of kids to be totally irresponsible and now, when they're just doing whatever they want because they figure someone will come along and clean up after them, we're not smacking them in the head and educating them, we're just saying "here, take this and keep doing what you were doing".

The real problems are liberal irresponsibility and religion and nobody is doing a damn thing to address either.
 
lpast said:
I worked very closely with those kids and kids that had a much worse plight...ive seen things I truly wished I hadnt...but thats not here or there...
Giving contraceptives to kids is one thing...if you dont give them to their parents who are going to keep producing the kids you feel so much for you will have even more and it will COST far more...thats my whole point.
You cant neglect the problem every step of the way whining about the cost...because there is an END of the line and the end of the line costs far far more in dollars and misery for them and everyone else....there are no other alternatives or outcomes
Click to expand...

For me, the cost is not the issue. It is the principle of freedom and also good intentions producing unintended negative consequences. The federal government should never have the power to force one person to support another. The federal goverment should never have the power to force any public institution to furnish any tangible product for free and it certainly should not have the power to force any private business to provide any product or service for free. That does not negate anybody doing so voluntarily.

The bottom line is not a matter of cost, though of course how we spend the people's money must factor costs and results in order for us to use it wisely. But the bottom line is whether subsidizing or rewarding poor choices encourages more poor choices. I think the evidence is pretty clear that it does.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
Except for the fact that it isn't. Overcrowding is a problem, and resource shortages are a problem... and neither of those has to do with a shortage of space or resources. It's because our infrastructure and systems of distribution are inefficient. The Earth can support a population several times what it is currently... and current projections show that it will never exceed 10 billion people.
Click to expand...

How do resource shortages have nothing to do with a shortage of resources?
 
The whole notion that we must pay for contraception so we don't pay for the kids is ridiculous extortionist logic IMO. I am all for paying for fewer of the kids too,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom