• 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
Aunt Spiker said:
Yes - what's wrong with everyone who has this problem?

The pregnancy should be avoided if the couple or she is unable to support a child . . . duh.
Click to expand...

Octomom. They don't care if they can support a child. If anything, they'll use it to get the tax credits on their return. People need to be RESPONSIBLE for themselves, not leech the system for a handout that gets you out of trouble whenever you like.
 
Krystov said:
This is the federal government we're talking about here. I'm not sure they could handle managing several different types of contraception rather than 1 all encompassing plan. They like those.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the problem. I however will not let their incompetence in implementing plans prevent me from suggesting the proper course of action.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There is still a large contingency of American society that views sexually active women who don't wish to reproduce as whores who are trying to shirk their responsibilities. We still have this implicit, deeply rooted Puritanical sexism about it, despite the fact that almost everyone woman in America uses birth control at some point. When it's us or women we know, it's different. When it's some theoretical woman, they're just sluts looking for other people to pay for their "bad behavior."
Click to expand...

I don't care if I know you or not. If you go around sleeping with a bunch of different people just for fun, you're a slut. Man or woman makes not difference.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Let me start off by saying that I'm no fan of taxpayer supported services. However - we already pay for public assistance in many forms. Welfare, WIC, Medicaid, etc... what is the difference between using taxpayer dollars to support paying for birth control for those who need it, yet can not afford it?

My argument for supporting such a thing, is saving taxpayer dollars in the long run. We would no longer be supporting unemployed women/men with children that are using many different public assistance programs. Meaning, it would be cheaper preventing unwanted pregnancies and less of a drain on taxpayer money, the less people that broken system has to support to begin with.

I'm all about personal responsibility for women AND men. However, unless and until we fix the social programs that taxpayers are already shelling out millions of dollars for - I would think it would be beneficial overall to support prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

Although, it would still be up to the person(s) receiving 'free' birth control to actually USE it. That is a different topic entirely.
Click to expand...

No one NEEDS birth control. People make decisions that put them in situations where they would need it to prevent unwanted outcomes, but they could just as easily not make that decision. People need to be accountable and responsible for their decisions and "welfare contraceptives" basically say "it's okay, go ahead, I'll bail you out" at my expense.

That said medical conditions requiring BC pills can and should be covered by private healthcare companies to provide that aid. If the federal support system is going to also provide this, they need to really scrutinize who is eligible for it and why. But if they can't even do this with the basic welfare system I don't see how they can do it with BC pills too.
 
wolfman24 said:
I have no problem with their being some assistance for the poor. Planned Parenthood which is independant cannot do it all nor can any of the like organizations.
As far as generally I would have to say no.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the circumstances by which one can get on and stay on welfare should be more tightly scrutinized. Too many take advantage of the system and I have a problem support a family who won't support itself.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What are the numbers - that 12-15% of the population is without healthcare coverage of any type . . . leaving the remaining 85 - 88% covered. 85-88% of the country is rich? Hardly the case.

You're building a strawman out of false assumptions.
Click to expand...

No, most of the country has healthcare which covers the cost (to a point) of prescriptions. Mine does and I'm a college student. Not rich at all. Only the richest people in the country, the 1% can pay for healthcare without the need of an insurance company to support them.

Obamacare is going to be providing the lower 12-15% you mentioned. You must not have read my statement thoroughly enough. MOST of the country has insurance, but only the richest people can afford to pay for healthcare without insurance. The rest pay for the insurance themselves, not the state or the federal gov. Obamacare will pick up what's left.
 
minnie616 said:
That is just your opinion.

Here is a good Youtube video by a 13 year old girl who tells why it is wrong to call girls/women SLUTS.

Slut Shaming: 13-Year-Old Explains Why It's Wrong In YouTube Video
Click to expand...

If not a slut, then what is it that I defined? I'm pretty sure by today's standards a slut closely resembles what I described.

Also, her definition of a slut said nothing about the number of people which said person sleeps with, only the character by which that person can be described.
 
Krystov said:
No, most of the country has healthcare which covers the cost (to a point) of prescriptions. Mine does and I'm a college student. Not rich at all. Only the richest people in the country, the 1% can pay for healthcare without the need of an insurance company to support them.

Obamacare is going to be providing the lower 12-15% you mentioned. You must not have read my statement thoroughly enough. MOST of the country has insurance, but only the richest people can afford to pay for healthcare without insurance. The rest pay for the insurance themselves, not the state or the federal gov. Obamacare will pick up what's left.
Click to expand...

So what point are you trying to make - If most people HAVE insurance . . . and only a small % don't even need healthcare to cover their medical expenses.

So what's your issue - what was your point. If someone has insurance they can go to a healthcare professional nd seek out adequate care.

You said:
Krystov said:
Because everything you mentioned requires some sort of healthcare professional that only the richest people in the country could afford without insurance. And people who go to those places generally have insurance (not counting emergency room scandals) paid for by themselves, not everyone else.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I guess I don't get how that /\ relates to the post you first responded to \/

Aunt Spiker said:
Why is reproductive health an individual responsibility - but nothing else is?

Surgeries, dental care, neuropsych, psych meds, physical and psych therapy, even some types of cessation care, pain relief, antibacterial efforts, hospital stays and emergency room visits (even the stupid ones from someone being a total idiot like when my husband was 17 and he fell off the cab of a moving truck), broken bones . . .etc.

But having a child or not having a child - the most extreme life altering path that could ever be taken because it's creating a new life that's entirely dependent on the parents for countless years . . . that is nothing but a personal 'problem'

And why just reproductive care being an individual responsibility - we cover all things related to pregnancy itself. Even DNC if the mother miscarries. Prenatal vitamins, pap smears, sonograms, urine testing, glucose screening, diabetes treatments, nutritional supplements, therapy for those who have odd cravings, Lamaze is even covered by some insurance companies.

You're dumbing it down to being like diapers and formula (which some are covered if it's of a special-nature)
Click to expand...
 
This entire thread is predicated on the idea that having sex without the specific intent to reproduce is "bad behavior" or "irresponsible". That's a viewpoint that I just cannot get behind. I can't see how adopting that viewpoint or enacting policy as if it were universally universally adopted helps society in any way. Sex isn't a bad thing. People who have sex, for whatever reasons they like, are not bad people. The idea that a person needs to "take responsibility" for sex by courting the risk of unintended pregnancy is just weird. We should absolutely embrace technological innovations that can prevent unintended pregnancy. And we should embrace them wholeheartedly, including distributing them as much as possible. The idea makes about as much sense as making people take responsibility for the dangers of car travel by not wearing seatbelts. We invent these things to make us safer. Do seatbelts make us more reckless drivers? Do air traffic controllers inspire our pilots to fly without care? Do helmets make kids ride their bikes like they're Evel Kneivel? Of course not. People just don't do that. We use birth control out of a desire to be safer, not out of some pathological need to be as reckless as we can.

Society is better off if no one becomes a parent unless they actually want to. That's all there is to it.
 
Krystov said:
Octomom. They don't care if they can support a child. If anything, they'll use it to get the tax credits on their return. People need to be RESPONSIBLE for themselves, not leech the system for a handout that gets you out of trouble whenever you like.
Click to expand...

I agree - but how many mothers are really LIKE her? Not many - most people are not like that.

The average welfare recipient is on it temporarily - and for a short period.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So what point are you trying to make - If most people HAVE insurance . . . and only a small % don't even need healthcare to cover their medical expenses.

So what's your issue - what was your point. If someone has insurance they can go to a healthcare professional nd seek out adequate care.

You said:


:shrug: I guess I don't get how that /\ relates to the post you first responded to \/
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I agree - but how many mothers are really LIKE her? Not many - most people are not like that.

The average welfare recipient is on it temporarily - and for a short period.
Click to expand...

I hate to use an anecdotal reference, but I see plently of them at walmart. That said, I don't know anything about their current living situation, I can only judge by their character and their appearance, which I know is flimsy to go on. Generally speaking though, successful people don't dress trashy.
 
Krystov said:
If not a slut, then what is it that I defined? I'm pretty sure by today's standards a slut closely resembles what I described.

Also, her definition of a slut said nothing about the number of people which said person sleeps with, only the character by which that person can be described.
Click to expand...

If you listen to the video she says:

Anyway, if you’ve given your consent, if you’re emotionally and physically ready for it, if you’re using proper protection, and if you feel safe and comfortable with your partner, then sex is good.

It is nobody’s business but your own how many people you’re having sex with, or how much sex you have, and you don’t deserve to be hated on for being sexually active with more than one partner.
Click to expand...

http://feministing.com/2012/01/09/thirteen-year-old-badass-slams-slut-shaming/
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
If you listen to the video she says:
Click to expand...

You're right, it is none of my business but I somehow manage to find out about it. These people who are labelled sluts are labeled as such because they don't usually keep it to themselves, or it gets out by the other person. And if you do dress revealing, you're going to get attention. That, after all, is the purpose of dressing in that manner.

That also wasn't part of her definition, which is what I stated when she defined "slut shaming".

But whatever, this is getting derailed.
 
Krystov said:
You're right, it is none of my business but I somehow manage to find out about it. These people who are labelled sluts are labeled as such because they don't usually keep it to themselves, or it gets out by the other person. And if you do dress revealing, you're going to get attention. That, after all, is the purpose of dressing in that manner.

That also wasn't part of her definition, which is what I stated when she defined "slut shaming".

But whatever, this is getting derailed.
Click to expand...

I posted the transcript in my Previous post.

I have a hard time understanding why people are still using the word SLUT to degrade girls/woman.

Why are men considered studs or party guys if they have had a number of parters but women are Sluts if they have had several partners?

This 60 plus year woman (me) wants to know why there is still a double standard.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yes. My rghts and libertes are more protected when women can get the inexpensive, or free BC pills even if my taxes pay for them. Yup, a practical solution.
Click to expand...

They do that now even without government funds. This is just a solution without a problem.

And birth control pills has nothing to do with a government function.

note: I'm assuming that a woman having sex w/o bc is bad behavior, i.e. if you don't have the money for BC pills stay away form men. Sure.
Click to expand...

Again, women can get birth control pills for cheap right this very minute.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I posted the transcript in my Previous post.

I have a hard time understanding why people are still using the word SLUT to degrade girls/woman.

Why are men considered studs or party guys if they have had a number of parters but women are Sluts if they have had several partners?

This 60 plus year woman (me) wants to know why there is still a double standard.
Click to expand...

Because nature is still exactly the same?
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The Constitution allows lots and lots and lots of wiggle room for what we can tax for.
Click to expand...

No, it most certainly does not.

You are confusing the fact that government routinely disobeys the Constitution to a serious degree, with the fallacy that the Constitution allows for these violations.
 
minnie616 said:
I posted the transcript in my Previous post.

I have a hard time understanding why people are still using the word SLUT to degrade girls/woman.

Why are men considered studs or party guys if they have had a number of parters but women are Sluts if they have had several partners?

This 60 plus year woman (me) wants to know why there is still a double standard.
Click to expand...

In case you didn't notice I pegged men as being slutts too. I don't think the excessive sex with several different people for the purpose of fun is a good thing regardless of gender.
 
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...

Irresponsible? On what planet is planning a pregnancy irresponsible?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Any woman who qualifies for medical assistance should be able to get birth control under that insurance. If we ever managed to join the developed world and have a single-payer system, birth control should be covered on that as well.

Using contraception is not "bad behavior," and the mind-blowing degree of ignorance it requires for someone to think that is just so beyond me I can't even comprehend it. Using contraception is good, responsible behavior.
Click to expand...

I've had just about enough of THIS bull****. I suggest you join the developed world as you see it. Please!!!
 
Yes it should be covered under a national pharmacare plan.
 
American said:
I've had just about enough of THIS bull****. I suggest you join the developed world as you see it. Please!!!
Click to expand...
It's not exactly a disparaging remark, just a quip regarding how far behind the eight ball we are in this respect. An overwhelming chunk of the developed world have turned to single payer or other publicly funded healthcare systems due to cost concerns. We've held out for this long due to outdated thinking and managing to disregard virtually every empirical study on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
They do that now even without government funds. This is just a solution without a problem.

And birth control pills has nothing to do with a government function.

Again, women can get birth control pills for cheap right this very minute.
Click to expand...

How cheap is the doctor's visit, script and follow up? (We must have been overcharged.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom