• 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
Donahue said:
None of us are suggesting we should pay for the results of unplanned pregnancies though.
Click to expand...

But that is what is occurring right now.
 
Krystov said:
Again, it's the entitlement ideology that needs to end. Supporting programs that give people free stuff, especially those who claim to need it, does nothing but enable that behavior.
Click to expand...

But you are only thwarting yourself. You don't like social welfare programs but you won't support a program that will reduce the biggest programs.
 
Donahue said:
By taking away all incentives not to.

It would be work or starve and I just don't see a problem with that.

Certainly there are some people who genuinely can't work and I don't have any problems with a government providing for those people. I also don't have any problems with a small, temporary safety net to get people back on their feet.
Click to expand...

What about the children of those who cannot work because child care renders the effort moot? I've been there.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There is only conflicting proof of the statement.
The fact is that free or reduced cost birth control was already available to low income/poor women.

Giving all birth control users (Upper, Middle and Low income) free birth control, doesn't help poor women get free stuff, that they could already get.
Click to expand...

The difference, as I read in the article, is that women were offered long term birth control, like the implant and IUD's. Those are not part of what is offered to low income women, at this time.
 
Donahue said:
If the goal is to cut abortion rates, wouldn't making abortions illegal be a vastly cheaper and more effective strategy?
Click to expand...

By what - increasing the number of unwanted children being born to unfit or unloving parents - or put into an already overflowing adoption and foster care system? . . . that's what happened elsewhere - Romania. Decree 770 illegalized abortion except for within a few types of situations - and they went to extremes to ensure that almost every child conceived was birthed.

It became a major crisis - TOO many children born to parents who just couldn't afford to raise them because the financial burden was too heavy for the government to cover as they promised they would do.

Romania repealed it's policy - legalized abortions . . . immediately after doing so they calculated nearly 1,000,000 abortions in 1989 (just after legalization) - but in 2009 that dropped to just over 100,000. So obviously other measures are proving ot be more effective at lowering the number without causing a serious crisis otherwise.
 
Gina said:
But that is what is occurring right now.
Click to expand...

And we're saying we shouldn't be.

It's simply not working and there's little real wiggle room there.

Incentivizing bad behavior only brings about more bad behavior and that has been proven ad nauseam since the '60s.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
By what - increasing the number of unwanted children being born to unfit or unloving parents - or put into an already overflowing adoption and foster care system? . . . that's what happened elsewhere - Romania. Decree 770 illegalized abortion except for within a few types of situations - and they went to extremes to ensure every child conceived was birthed.

It became a major crisis - TOO many children born to parents who just couldn't afford to raise them because the financial burden was too heavy for the government to cover as they promised they would do.

Romania repealed it's policy - legalized abortions . . . immediately after doing so they calculated nearly 1,000,000 abortions in 1989 (just after legalization) - but in 2009 that dropped to just over 100,000. So obviously other measures are proving ot be more effective at lowering the number without causing a serious crisis otherwise.
Click to expand...

Again, we're all clearly stating that the government should not be supporting this.

You and Gina are advocating for what amounts to incentivizing very bad behavior and the outcome has been a steady stream of increasingly worse behavior since the '60s.

It's not even like this is really debatable this point.

The social problems that the '60s tried to correct are almost all worse today then they were then.
 
Krystov said:
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.
Click to expand...

What about the freee ride the rich get on healthcare? poor pay and only the rich collect?
 
Krystov said:
Because the premise of this thread isn't just about whether or not women should have access to contraceptives, it's about the entitlement ideology and lack of responsibility.

I never said birth control was a short term problem. I said it was a long term problem and giving away free contraceptives is a short term solution to that problem.

Every day girls becoming sexually active should recognize the risks and take responsibility for their actions by either buying their own contraceptives, or refraining from the activity until they can. If they decide to go ahead with it anyways, well they should have listened in health class. Should have listened to her parents. Should have listened to anyone with an opinion about teen pregnancy. I don't feel sorry for people who screw up against all advice to the contrary. And if I'm not mistaken, several high schools give away condoms for that very reason.

So long as it doesn't come out of my pocket, I don't care.
Click to expand...

I won't quibble with short term solution vs. long term problem.

The fact is, shoulda, woulda, coulda, girls get pregnant. Even smart ones. Providing poor women with free contraception was shown in this study as a viable, successful, solution. Again, you can say they get what they deserve, but it is on your dime.
 
its simple cheap preventive care. Same as any other preventive care.

Bible thumpers can thump all they want. In there OWN CHURCH.

They have no right to tell me how to live..........

And when they do, I remind them of the millions of murders they are responsible for over 2000 years.
 
Gina said:
What about the children of those who cannot work because child care renders the effort moot? I've been there.
Click to expand...

Child care doesn't render the effort moot. People just don't want to work when someone is offering them a handout.

It's amazing how it all worked out before those handouts became available.
 
Donahue said:
And we're saying we shouldn't be.

It's simply not working and there's little real wiggle room there.

Incentivizing bad behavior only brings about more bad behavior and that has been proven ad nauseam since the '60s.
Click to expand...

Ok, you are saying it shouldn't be, but it is going on, and it will go on. So now you have to deal with that. How do you do that? But clicking your heels and saying "there is no place like home" and hoping to be transported to this magical place where all people do what you wish of them? Or by acknowledging that there is a problem and you need to deal with it?
 
Gina said:
Ok, you are saying it shouldn't be, but it is going on, and it will go on. So now you have to deal with that. How do you do that? But clicking your heels and saying "there is no place like home" and hoping to be transported to this magical place where all people do what you wish of them? Or by acknowledging that there is a problem and you need to deal with it?
Click to expand...

It can't go on much longer.

We've run ourselves too far into debt to throw away money on people like you who just don't want to work.

Enjoy the gravy train while it lasts because it's going to come to an end.

Social programs all around the world are starting to be reduced and it's going to continue to be reduced until they're at more manageable levels.
 
Donahue said:
Child care doesn't render the effort moot. People just don't want to work when someone is offering them a handout.

It's amazing how it all worked out before those handouts became available.
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon. When my first child was born, I took home $50 a week over my child care bill. Why? Because I was trying to grow my own business.

So I call BS.

I know lots of women who worked under similar circumstances.

You don't know what you are talking about.
 
Donahue said:
It can't go on much longer.

We've run ourselves too far into debt to throw away money on people like you who just don't want to work.

Enjoy the gravy train while it lasts because it's going to come to an end.
Click to expand...


You have know idea who I am or my story. Or those of millions of working women. Your condescension is
insulting.
 
Last edited:
Donahue said:
Again, we're all clearly stating that the government should not be supporting this.

You and Gina are advocating for what amounts to incentivizing very bad behavior and the outcome has been a steady stream of increasingly worse behavior since the '60s.

It's not even like this is really debatable this point.

The social problems that the '60s tried to correct are almost all worse today then they were then.
Click to expand...

Yes. A married couple not being able to afford children *right now* while maybe he works and gets through med school or she's temporarily unemployed because her employer folded is very bad behavior.

You're saying such things as if only single slutty whores and hung jiggalos ever have unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. You know -a lot of people WANT to have children. Just *right now* is not the ideal time.

Now - unless you're only willing to have sex if you *are* actively trying to have a child you really shouldn't suggest that it's 'bad behavior' to not want a child *right now*

Right now - our economy sucks. Gas for me costs $3.59/gallon . . . milk is over $4.00/gallon. Bad would BE having children amid such a ****ty state where you simply cannot afford the medical costs and financial burden otherwise.

Pregnancy and child rearing does not happen in a financial-free bubble . . .and of course my post referred to ROMANIA as I tried to point out - the bad behavior was the government who banned abortion to raise the population count and who destroyed more families than they created by taking an already difficult situation and making it worse for everyone.

Nice attempt at a sidestep from my point, though - but regardless - having children costs more money than contraception - indeed it does. Nothing can scrub that fact out.

Donahue said:
It can't go on much longer.

We've run ourselves too far into debt to throw away money on people like you who just don't want to work.

Enjoy the gravy train while it lasts because it's going to come to an end.

Social programs all around the world are starting to be reduced and it's going to continue to be reduced until they're at more manageable levels.
Click to expand...

In that case - it's best not to have children you can't afford! Don't you agree?
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes. A married couple not being able to afford children *right now* while maybe he works and gets through med school or she's temporarily unemployed because her employer folded is very bad behavior.

You're saying such things as if only single slutty whores and hung jiggalos ever have unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. You know -a lot of people WANT to have children. Just *right now* is not the ideal time.

Now - unless you're only willing to have sex if you *are* actively trying to have a child you really shouldn't suggest that it's 'bad behavior' to not want a child *right now*

Right now - our economy sucks. Gas for me costs $3.59/gallon . . . milk is over $4.00/gallon. Bad would BE having children amid such a ****ty state where you simply cannot afford the medical costs and financial burden otherwise.

Pregnancy and child rearing does not happen in a financial-free bubble . . .and of course my post referred to ROMANIA as I tried to point out - the bad behavior was the government who banned abortion to raise the population count and who destroyed more families than they created by taking an already difficult situation and making it worse for everyone.

Nice attempt at a sidestep from my point, though - but regardless - having children costs more money than contraception - indeed it does. Nothing can scrub that fact out.



In that case - it's best not to have children you can't afford! Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well said Auntie! Pay for unplanned children>contraception. No way to argue that equation.
 
Gina said:
I beg your pardon. When my first child was born, I took home $50 a week over my child care bill. Why? Because I was trying to grow my own business.

So I call BS.

I know lots of women who worked under similar circumstances.

You don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

That's not why you took home $50 a week.

You could have done away with day care costs entirely and reduced your overall cost of living considerably by moving in with some of the "lots" of single mothers you knew and working different shifts to ensure there was a parent home to watch the children at all times. It's not an ideal situation of course but people used to make necessary sacrifices before the government started guaranteeing them a handout.

Now the thought of going without any amenity is seen as absurd.
 
Gina said:
You have know idea who I am or my story. Or those of millions of working women. Your condescension is
insulting.
Click to expand...

I do know. You just told me.
 
Donahue said:
That's not why you took home $50 a week.

You could have done away with day care costs entirely and reduced your overall cost of living considerably by moving in with some of the "lots" of single mothers you knew and working different shifts to ensure there was a parent home to watch the children at all times. It's not an ideal situation of course but people used to make necessary sacrifices before the government started guaranteeing them a handout.

Now the thought of going without any amenity is seen as absurd.
Click to expand...

Did you just tell her that's not *why* ??? Were you there? Heavens - are you her shrink or something? Are you in her head? And pray tell - tell me what's her favorite color.

You're being presumptuous and a bit annoying . . . it's easy to judge others, isn't it? When you'd never have to be in that situation.

And the government doesn't guarantee ****.
 
Donahue said:
That's not why you took home $50 a week.

You could have done away with day care costs entirely and reduced your overall cost of living considerably by moving in with some of the "lots" of single mothers you knew and working different shifts to ensure there was a parent home to watch the children at all times. It's not an ideal situation of course but people used to make necessary sacrifices before the government started guaranteeing them a handout.

Now the thought of going without any amenity is seen as absurd.
Click to expand...

Again, you know nothing of me or my story. I didn't say I was a single parent. Just shows where your thinking is. And, I went without lots of amenities.

Stop while you are behind.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Did you just tell her that's not *why* ??? Were you there? Heavens - are you her shrink or something? Are you in her head? And pray tell - tell me what's her favorite color.

You're being presumptuous and a bit annoying . . . it's easy to judge others, isn't it? When you'd never have to be in that situation.

And the government doesn't guarantee ****.
Click to expand...


Thank you Auntie. That reply was full prejudice.
 
Krystov said:
Your second paragraph lists things that people would normally use insurance to pay for and as I said, only the richest people in the country would be able to do so without insurance. What I'm saying is that those things require a healthcare professional to be properly addressed and cared for which costs a lot of money, hence the need for insurance. The use of a contraceptive (birth control prescriptions omitted) does not require some professional expertise, nor is it expensive. My complaint is why should I have to pay for it? Why should anyone else have to pay for it for the 12-15% who would be supposedly covered by this if it were amended to Obamacare? It's not my responsibility to bail someone out for their decision to have unprotected sex and doing so would reinforce that it's okay for them to do so. Entitlement and lack of responsibility are two ideologies we do not need spreading any further.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. Almost all birth control requires a doctor's prescription to get. I don't know of any oral BC that doesn't require a prescription, plus shots and patches and implants all require a doctor as well. A prescription means going to a doctor and usually having some form of exam or at least doctor questioning. The use of almost any birth control, with the exception of pretty much only condoms, requires a doctor, professional expertise. And most is absolutely expensive for most people. My low dose BC after my child was born, while I was still breastfeeding was over $120 for a three month supply. There are plenty of other birth control options that are more expensive and there are also plenty that will not work for certain women (low-dose is actually the only kind I can take due to a blood disorder I have).

This isn't about a "sense of entitlement". It is about people making mistakes or choices that could lead to bigger problems. And pretending that everyone would make the "right" decision if given "no other option" doesn't make sense. In their minds, they aren't thinking about what might happen when they have sex to begin with, not most people anyway. Many are just in it for the instant gratification. Right or wrong, it won't change anything if they end up pregnant from that choice. So it is best to try to prevent that pregnancy from entering into the picture at all.
 
Gina said:
But you are only thwarting yourself. You don't like social welfare programs but you won't support a program that will reduce the biggest programs.
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't solve the problem, it only stems if off. To solve the problem you need to empower people to get up and do something with their lives. Social welfare programs tell them "It's okay, you can do nothing and someone else will pay for you." If it's there, people will take advantage of it simply because they can. That is what brought on this problem to begin with. Back in the great depression people needed it. After it was over they said "Oh! I don't have to work, the government will pay for me!" Thus began a long line of moochers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom