• 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
This is a tough one. I would rather say no and its not because I don't want to pay. I wouldn't even notice since I am in the top tax bracket, however one of my side hobbies is a Hormone Replacement Therapy Consultant. I help people live VERY HIGH quality lives. Since insurance doesn't pay for this (because it actually works) only people who have some change can get this service. I teach people how to not NEED pharmaceuticals because thats what the insurance and dr and pharm company wants u to use...because they all have one thing. They keep you coming back (script refills, dr. visits, etc.) and they are doing more damage to your body then good. I'm sure you all see lawyers advertising on tv for drug law suits. Birth control drugs are actually a hot one right now that they are filing law suits on. I don't want our women (especially young) to have such easy access to these drugs that they have no clue what the are really doing to their hormone and endocrine system. They think its just a magic pill that stops you from getting pregnant.

Some of you might ask me for proof to support what I'm saying...I work in the industry. I am a broker for research chemicals. After I make the deals, whatever the pharmaceutical company does with it is not on my hands, and lets just say your health is not really their concern. The only thing that is, is your money. Hopefully some of you realize that. Next time you go to your doctor ask them why aren't you getting better since you've been coming to them and why he/she only spends 5-20 minutes with you and says "just take 2 a day of this. it will lower your blood pressure."

If women want to take something like this, they should pay for it themselves. I don't want to support hurting the women of this country. And trust me....if you want me to get all chemist on you and I will break down the chemical structure of all birth control pills and show you how it's not worth it.
 
This is a tough one. I would rather say no and its not because I don't want to pay. I wouldn't even notice since I am in the top tax bracket, however one of my side hobbies is a Hormone Replacement Therapy Consultant. I help people live VERY HIGH quality lives. Since insurance doesn't pay for this (because it actually works) only people who have some change can get this service. I teach people how to not NEED pharmaceuticals because thats what the insurance and dr and pharm company wants u to use...because they all have one thing. They keep you coming back (script refills, dr. visits, etc.) and they are doing more damage to your body then good. I'm sure you all see lawyers advertising on tv for drug law suits. Birth control drugs are actually a hot one right now that they are filing law suits on. I don't want our women (especially young) to have such easy access to these drugs that they have no clue what the are really doing to their hormone and endocrine system. They think its just a magic pill that stops you from getting pregnant.

Some of you might ask me for proof to support what I'm saying...I work in the industry. I am a broker for research chemicals. After I make the deals, whatever the pharmaceutical company does with it is not on my hands, and lets just say your health is not really their concern. The only thing that is, is your money. Hopefully some of you realize that. Next time you go to your doctor ask them why aren't you getting better since you've been coming to them and why he/she only spends 5-20 minutes with you and says "just take 2 a day of this. it will lower your blood pressure."

If women want to take something like this, they should pay for it themselves. I don't want to support hurting the women of this country. And trust me....if you want me to get all chemist on you and I will break down the chemical structure of all birth control pills and show you how it's not worth it.

Forget Birth Control Pills and their side effects...They are not very reliable or effective anyway.

Hopefully with free birth control program more women and teens would choose IUDs.

From this article:

Why Have Teen Pregnancy Rates Dropped?


A new study shows how to reduce them even more.


<SNIP>
Peipert’s study included almost 10,000 women given their choice of free contraception.
It was funded not by federal grants (which almost never pay for contraception research), but by a private foundation endowed by the iconoclastic wife of investor Warren Buffett.
The study points a clear way forward for reducing unwanted pregnancies.
To begin with, when contraception was free, almost three-quarters of teens and adult women chose intrauterine devices like Mirena or ParaGard, which last five to 10 years, [/B]over alternatives like the pill, contraceptive patch, cervical ring, or Depo-Provera.

(Modern IUDs can be implanted easily in young teens and do not carry additional risks of pelvic infection.)
Similarly, IUD adoption doubled in California when the devices were made free.


But the most dramatic result of Peipert’s study was that the risk of contraceptive failure was 22 times higher with the pill than with IUDs in adult women, and double that for teens.



Just imagine, Peipert recently told me, if a miracle drug suddenly slashed cancer deaths or heart attacks by 95 percent.
Every patient would demand it and no one would want the older therapies. The parent in the above example would sleep better at night knowing the teen’s risk of pregnancy was only 0.3 percent, instead of 10 percent.


However, only 2 percent of teens and 4 percent of American women now get IUDs.

More couples than that rely on withdrawal, which has an estimated 25 percent risk of failure, as their preferred contraceptive method.


Peipert makes another persuasive argument. Though this aspect of his research is still in peer review and awaiting publication,
he suspects that the abortion rate can drop by half when women are given free access to IUDs.


Again, imagine if a magic treatment suddenly made half the country’s abortions unnecessary. For what good reason would anybody be opposed.


Preventing unwanted pregnancies: Forget sex ed and compare the pill to IUDs. - Slate Magazine
 
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

I can think of one. Cut them off. No more support and they'll stop having kids because they realize they're not getting anything but expense from it. Oh and maybe it will force them to get a job, which they should be doing in the first place. And what a concept, if they're working, they can then support themselves, their children, and the buy their own contraceptives!

Logic and common sense can be found too few, and too far between.
 
I can think of one. Cut them off. No more support and they'll stop having kids because they realize they're not getting anything but expense from it. Oh and maybe it will force them to get a job, which they should be doing in the first place. And what a concept, if they're working, they can then support themselves, their children, .....


They won't stop having babies just because they can't afford them.

You need to look no further than Mexico to understand being poor does NOT stop pregnancies.
Mexico's government has limited resourses and yet the Mexican poor keep having lots of babies.
If the USA stops entitlement programs like food stamps
even more of our poor children will end up in the foster care system because with no food stamps their parents will not be able feed them.

Elvis recorded a song years ago that decribes the cycle of proverty.

Lyrics to

IN THE GHETTO:
In The Ghetto lyrics
Songwriters: Mac Davis



As the snow flies on a cold and gray Chicago mornin'
A poor little baby child is born in the ghetto

And his mama cries 'cause if there's one thing that she don't need
It's another hungry mouth to feed in the ghetto

People, don't you understand the child needs a helping hand?
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day

Take a look at you and me, are we too blind to see?
Do we simply turn our heads and look the other way?


Well the world turns and a hungry little boy with a runny nose
Plays in the street as the cold wind blows in the ghetto
[ From: IN THE GHETTO Lyrics - ELVIS PRESLEY ]

And his hunger burns, so he starts to roam the streets at night
And he learns how to steal and he learns how to fight in the ghetto

Then one night in desperation a young man breaks away
He buys a gun, steals a car, tries to run, but he don't get far
And his mama cries

As a crowd gathers 'round an angry young man
Face down on the street with a gun in his hand in the ghetto

As her young man dies on a cold and gray Chicago mornin'
Another little baby child is born in the ghetto

And his mama cries

IN THE GHETTO Lyrics - ELVIS PRESLEY

Here is the Youtube of elvis singing with the lyrics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGixg2FC_k4
 
Last edited:
I can think of one. Cut them off. No more support and they'll stop having kids because they realize they're not getting anything but expense from it. Oh and maybe it will force them to get a job, which they should be doing in the first place. And what a concept, if they're working, they can then support themselves, their children, and the buy their own contraceptives!

Logic and common sense can be found too few, and too far between.

You couldnt be more wrong of course...no one is going to stop having sex...and if your the irresponsible type your going to make unwanted children
 
You couldnt be more wrong of course...no one is going to stop having sex...and if your the irresponsible type your going to make unwanted children

Then you ought to be held to a certain minimum standard for child care and either you meet it or your children are taken away from you and you are surgically neutered until such a time as you can prove you have the means to do so. I'm willing to give everyone one chance. Blow it and put the burden on the taxpayer, the taxpayer now has a right to regulate your breeding.
 
No I'm not. The stupidity of calling contraceptive use "bad behavior" is totally separate from the issue of whether or not we should provide it to impoverished women. I was simply pointing out that it is, indeed, stupidity.

It is certainly foolishness. It enables bad behavior; it is not in and of itself bad behavior.

We should provide it to impoverished women because it's economically and socially prudent to do so

Free and cheap birth control is already widely available. It is, in fact, nigh on universally available; without government expense or unnecessary expansion of government reach. Why are those so eager to keep government out of the womb so eager to shove it into the vagina or around the penis?

and because poor people are entitled to a certain standard of quality of life too, which is why we have medical care for the poor to begin with.

No, they are not. Simply being born in a certain way does not entitle you to the labor of others - that theory was called slavery and we fought a big ole war over it. We may choose to extend certain benefits to our poor, but that does not create a right to those benefits.
 
You couldnt be more wrong of course...no one is going to stop having sex...and if your the irresponsible type your going to make unwanted children

That's fine. They can live with the consequences then, as long as it's not on my money.
 
It is certainly foolishness. It enables bad behavior; it is not in and of itself bad behavior.



Free and cheap birth control is already widely available. It is, in fact, nigh on universally available; without government expense or unnecessary expansion of government reach. Why are those so eager to keep government out of the womb so eager to shove it into the vagina or around the penis?



No, they are not. Simply being born in a certain way does not entitle you to the labor of others - that theory was called slavery and we fought a big ole war over it. We may choose to extend certain benefits to our poor, but that does not create a right to those benefits.

In other words, I don't owe the poor anything and they have no right to demand it of me.
 
In other words, I don't owe the poor anything and they have no right to demand it of me.

In a real sense, that is exactly right. You are not responsible for the poor, unless you had a part in their conception and birth, thus you owe the poor nothing, except the right to equal treatment and opportunity under the law.
 
In other words, I don't owe the poor anything and they have no right to demand it of me.

Legally that is correct. Morally I should say that those who have the ability to give, should. But equally morally I would say that one should not set that rate for another.
 
Legally that is correct. Morally I should say that those who have the ability to give, should. But equally morally I would say that one should not set that rate for another.

I'd say people have a moral responsibility to get the hell off welfare and on their own two feet so they don't have to depend on others. Funny how few actually do that.
 
I'd say people have a moral responsibility to get the hell off welfare and on their own two feet so they don't have to depend on others. Funny how few actually do that.

Yes. It's also funny how many people think it's perfectly okay to take the money that other people have earned, if a middle-man takes it and gives it to them, but also believe that theft is wrong, and would willingly fight to keep someone from stealing their stuff.
 
I'd say people have a moral responsibility to get the hell off welfare and on their own two feet so they don't have to depend on others.

I would agree, and I would go further and say that it is wrong of us not to care if we design an idiotic welfare state that makes it harder and punishes them for attempting to do so.
 
I say no. Being able to get these things at the expense of others not only enables bad behavior, but reinforces the entitlement ideology. Men and women should take responsibility for their decisions, not get a free ride to be irresponsible.

You must want to pay welfare for the population growth that will be unemployable because we will exceed the carrying capacity of our nation. It's a small price.
 
You must want to pay welfare for the population growth that will be unemployable because we will exceed the carrying capacity of our nation. It's a small price.

That's another discussion. I don't agree with paying the poor anything unless they're actively trying to better their lives. We're talking about contraception, but I realize that exposure to poverty is a consequence of unplanned pregnancies; but so should the people having the babies.
 
You must want to pay welfare for the population growth that will be unemployable because we will exceed the carrying capacity of our nation. It's a small price.

not at all - production begats production; the notion that we should worry about overpopulating ourselves (when the opposite is a more realistic worry at this point) is a chimera.
 
I would agree, and I would go further and say that it is wrong of us not to care if we design an idiotic welfare state that makes it harder and punishes them for attempting to do so.

Oh, absolutely, but blame the liberals for that, they're the ones who buy votes by giving freebies to the poor. Hell, blame both parties for that anymore since both the Democrats and Republicans are fiscally liberal parties anymore.
 
not at all - production begats production; the notion that we should worry about overpopulating ourselves (when the opposite is a more realistic worry at this point) is a chimera.

The US has more births than deaths and our material and energy for sustainability is finite. My argument is no chimera.
 
I say no. Being able to get these things at the expense of others not only enables bad behavior, but reinforces the entitlement ideology. Men and women should take responsibility for their decisions, not get a free ride to be irresponsible.

The government pays for mens condoms. So why not womens contraceptives?
 
The US has more births than deaths and our material and energy for sustainability is finite. My argument is no chimera.

we have a fertility rate of 2.1 which is barely replacement, and that only because we have a large, low-education low-skilled immigrant populace with a higher birthrate. Your argument is absolutely a chimera. We need to be having more children, not less.
 
we have a fertility rate of 2.1 which is barely replacement, and that only because we have a large, low-education low-skilled immigrant populace with a higher birthrate. Your argument is absolutely a chimera. We need to be having more children, not less.

The planet is already overpopulated, we don't need to be having more children, we need to stop the poor from having so many.
 
we have a fertility rate of 2.1 which is barely replacement, and that only because we have a large, low-education low-skilled immigrant populace with a higher birthrate. Your argument is absolutely a chimera. We need to be having more children, not less.

You are right it's at 2.1 now.

Yes, population increase is due mostly to migrants.

Just on immigration alone, we don't need any more babies, because we are not increasing our jobs, so you only are adding welfare babies.

Even if our population growth were negative, you still don't have an argument because of the cost of living in America.

In order to brings jobs, we have to lower the cost of doing business in America, which won't happen until we begin with one of the primary solutions of city redesign which has a closer carbon footprint to the people in countries who have taken our jobs.

Half the country is on entitlements and you propose increasing the entitlements by suggesting we should increase or birth rate? This will only make life harder for everyone until the present energy and economic circumstances are solved. To solve them, we must replace a majority of the existing entitlements with employment. Significant solutions exist, but they are not being taken seriously, not to mention, not being implemented.

Now, I've proven based on the present statistics you will only add welfare cases and lower the quality of life for everyone. Until you prove the statistics wrong or that funding birth control will be more expensive than the welfare cases, you have lost the argument.
 
None of the governments business
 
Back
Top Bottom