• 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
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...

Oh - I see . . . I misread her post . . . so my response to her didn't make much sense. I thought she was referring to people on insurance having to still cover it out of pocket.
 
Krystov said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL - doesn't mean they're like her - obsessively having children.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
LOL - doesn't mean they're like her - obsessively having children.
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't want to use an anecdotal reference. None the less, I see trashy people at walmart. Either they're trashy looking because they're poor and can't afford more, or they're choosing to look trashy. I think there's a fair distribution of both.
 
Krystov said:
That's why I didn't want to use an anecdotal reference. None the less, I see trashy people at walmart. Either they're trashy looking because they're poor and can't afford more, or they're choosing to look trashy. I think there's a fair distribution of both.
Click to expand...

Well - honestly - I'm not sure what you mean by trashy.

Iv'e seen trashy defined in several ways . . . dressing 'too revealing' - like 'trampy'
VS a few steps below casual - just unkempt and unconcerned - holy sweats, uggs and . . . some nameless top thing.

What exactly are you referring to?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - honestly - I'm not sure what you mean by trashy.

Iv'e seen trashy defined in several ways . . . dressing 'too revealing' - like 'trampy'
VS a few steps below casual - just unkempt and unconcerned - holy sweats, uggs and . . . some nameless top thing.

What exactly are you referring to?
Click to expand...

I mean like looking unkempt, wearing either dirty clothing, or inappropriate clothing for the public, such as extremely baggy pants and a "wife beater". I once saw someone walking around with 3 pairs of pants on with the sole purpose of keeping his underwear/legs from showing while still allowing his pants to sag. It was one of the dumbest looks I've ever seen.
 
We, I do not want women having children they do not want to have, and the cost of such children are many, many thousands of times more costly to the country than the trivial costs of contraceptives.
 
Krystov said:
I mean like looking unkempt, wearing either dirty clothing, or inappropriate clothing for the public, such as extremely baggy pants and a "wife beater". I once saw someone walking around with 3 pairs of pants on with the sole purpose of keeping his underwear/legs from showing while still allowing his pants to sag. It was one of the dumbest looks I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Wow - I have never seen that with the pants thing. . . down here it's just scummy clothes - old sweat pants with a crummy T or something. . . or PJ's. LOL - just unkempt. But I think some people think it's sexy or cuty. . .:roll:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Wow - I have never seen that with the pants thing. . . down here it's just scummy clothes - old sweat pants with a crummy T or something. . . or PJ's. LOL - just unkempt. But I think some people think it's sexy or cuty. . .:roll:
Click to expand...

Certain outfits can have it's certain appeal in certain places. In random public places though I think people should at least dress casually. If and when I go to Walmart, I try to go late at night to avoid the eyesore.

Derailed! Lol.
 
I do think that we should pay for contraceptives. Although my initial reaction was, no, the more I thought about how we pay for liver treatments for people who drank to an oblivion and cancer treatment for people who smoked all they wanted and emergency care for those drink, drive and wreck themselves. It seems that at least contraceptives will prevent further addition to our communities that we have to also...pay for. If we have deemed them poor enough for us to provide all their living expenses and medical care anyway, we might as well pay for contraceptives too. If not for any other reason than our own protection against further children being born for us to take care of in society.
 
melons said:
I do think that we should pay for contraceptives. Although my initial reaction was, no, the more I thought about how we pay for liver treatments for people who drank to an oblivion and cancer treatment for people who smoked all they wanted and emergency care for those drink, drive and wreck themselves. It seems that at least contraceptives will prevent further addition to our communities that we have to also...pay for. If we have deemed them poor enough for us to provide all their living expenses and medical care anyway, we might as well pay for contraceptives too. If not for any other reason than our own protection against further children being born for us to take care of in society.
Click to expand...

But how many things are we going to say "we might as well pay for that too" to? The idea is to get people off government dependency, not reinforce the idea that there is a safety net for everyone.
 
Krystov said:
But how many things are we going to say "we might as well pay for that too" to? The idea is to get people off government dependency, not reinforce the idea that there is a safety net for everyone.
Click to expand...

I do see your point and I actually feel the same way. But I would rather pay for someone's contraceptive versus their oreo cookies or their cell phones but I guess the initial question didn't allow me that luxury of choosing. It is actually a confusing question because it is tempting to say "yes I would pay for it so that maybe they would have less babies that I had to pay for" and on the other hand there is the point that you make, it doesn't help anyone get away from being dependent.
 
melons said:
I do see your point and I actually feel the same way. But I would rather pay for someone's contraceptive versus their oreo cookies or their cell phones but I guess the initial question didn't allow me that luxury of choosing. It is actually a confusing question because it is tempting to say "yes I would pay for it so that maybe they would have less babies that I had to pay for" and on the other hand there is the point that you make, it doesn't help anyone get away from being dependent.
Click to expand...

It was more than just the dependency, it was about instilling an idea of responsibility and consequences for action. I think someone feeling the fear of the possibility of having an unwanted baby is more palpable than just having the ability to get free condoms. Negative reinforcement works better in my opinion.
 
No, and neither should insurance, though I wouldn't prohibit them from providing it.
 
Yes and in fact if you take food stamps, WIC, welfare, section 8, it should be a requirement.
 
Krystov said:
The idea is for people to be more responsible. Some poor people have the kids just so they can get the credits on their tax returns. I don't think they're too worried about the kid if they're doing that.
Click to expand...

The word "responsible" means different things to you and me. I think it means "uses contraceptives", you seem to think it means "don't have sex unless you want a kid."

What percentage of poor people having kids do you think are having them for the tax credit? Lazy mooches exist, but I'd estimate they're in the vast minority. Crafting spitefully punitive policies around that small fraction which hobbles millions in the collateral will deprive the country of hundreds of thousands of the right-wing's acclaimed "net-taxpayers."

Are you unwilling to countenance policy tacitly endorsing morally distasteful behavior, or is it that you disparage the economic boon we're asserting?
 
Krystov said:
Entitlement and lack of responsibility are two ideologies we do not need spreading any further.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. Really, this is the core of the entire controversy being discussed in this thread. “Entitlement and lack of responsibility…”
 
melons said:
I do think that we should pay for contraceptives. Although my initial reaction was, no, the more I thought about how we pay for liver treatments for people who drank to an oblivion and cancer treatment for people who smoked all they wanted and emergency care for those drink, drive and wreck themselves. It seems that at least contraceptives will prevent further addition to our communities that we have to also...pay for. If we have deemed them poor enough for us to provide all their living expenses and medical care anyway, we might as well pay for contraceptives too. If not for any other reason than our own protection against further children being born for us to take care of in society.
Click to expand...
Wow. Logic overcoming dogma.
And, if I could, with an adquate process, keep an injured drunk driver out of the ER I'd consider it; but, I don't think it can be done. Too bad.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
The word "responsible" means different things to you and me. I think it means "uses contraceptives", you seem to think it means "don't have sex unless you want a kid."

What percentage of poor people having kids do you think are having them for the tax credit? Lazy mooches exist, but I'd estimate they're in the vast minority. Crafting spitefully punitive policies around that small fraction which hobbles millions in the collateral will deprive the country of hundreds of thousands of the right-wing's acclaimed "net-taxpayers."

Are you unwilling to countenance policy tacitly endorsing morally distasteful behavior, or is it that you disparage the economic boon we're asserting?
Click to expand...

I think it means "don't have sex unless you can afford the preventative tools, or are prepared for the consequences".

Your argument about taxpayers is invalid. They reside within the 47% of people who don't pay taxes. As with people who mooch the system, people who make money and pay taxes who also need welfare are also in the minority. The country is only spending money on that 47%, not making any.

It's not that I want to subject people to less than desirable circumstances, it's that I want people to take responsibility for themselves. Show them that there are real, negative consequences for irresponsibility (financially and sexually) so that they're afraid to be put in that position. This all encompassing safety net we've developed removes that fear and people stop caring if they fall into poverty. 12 million more people are on social care programs now than there were 4 years ago. We can attribute most of that to the economy, but there are those that simply say, "well I can get something for free, so why not?".
 
Krystov said:
But how many things are we going to say "we might as well pay for that too" to? The idea is to get people off government dependency, not reinforce the idea that there is a safety net for everyone.
Click to expand...
So we're alligned in "The idea is to get people off government dependency". Women often have no effective choice when it comes to coitus; especially the ones on the dole. So if pregnant or with a baby what are their chances of getting off the dole? Be logical, not dogmatic.
 
Krystov said:
I think it means "don't have sex unless you can afford the preventative tools, or are prepared for the consequences."
Click to expand...
Yea. It's so simple. But, please explain: How does a women not have sex? I know only one way that works in in all situations that poor women find themselves in. Can you guess what it is?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yea. It's so simple. But, please explain: How does a women not have sex? I know only one way that works in in all situations that poor women find themselves in. Can you guess what it is?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say to themselves, "Hmm, if I have sex without protection, there's a chance I could get pregnant. Can I afford a baby? No. Can I afford a condom? No. Guess I'm not having sex!" If they do and they get pregnant, they deserve it. I have no time for people with no common sense. People can very easily keep their legs closed. Remember, it's a choice to have sex. It's a choice to do so with or without protection. It is nobody else's fault but your own if you get yourself pregnant and there is no reason I should have to pay for your choices.

Edit: It's no one else's fault but your own to allow someone to get you pregnant. Of course the male counterpart is required, but you can make them wear a condom.
 
Krystov said:
Your argument about taxpayers is invalid. They reside within the 47% of people who don't pay taxes. As with people who mooch the system, people who make money and pay taxes who also need welfare are also in the minority. The country is only spending money on that 47%, not making any.
.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

47% might not pay income tax but most do pay taxes.

Most low- and moderate-income seniors owe no income tax but most pay state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes and property taxes.

Almost all low income working people most pay state taxes, local taxes, sales taxes . They also pay payroll taxes.
 
Last edited:
Krystov said:
I think it means "don't have sex unless you can afford the preventative tools, or are prepared for the consequences".

Your argument about taxpayers is invalid. They reside within the 47% of people who don't pay taxes. As with people who mooch the system, people who make money and pay taxes who also need welfare are also in the minority. The country is only spending money on that 47%, not making any.

It's not that I want to subject people to less than desirable circumstances, it's that I want people to take responsibility for themselves. Show them that there are real, negative consequences for irresponsibility (financially and sexually) so that they're afraid to be put in that position. This all encompassing safety net we've developed removes that fear and people stop caring if they fall into poverty. 12 million more people are on social care programs now than there were 4 years ago. We can attribute most of that to the economy, but there are those that simply say, "well I can get something for free, so why not?".
Click to expand...

So you want to ensure that more "moochers" are born or aborted? Because that's what is going on. When a woman has a child she is not prepared to have, the likelihood of her and her child ending up on welfare and WIC are very high. So is it better to provide low or no cost birth control, or continue to have to provide a much larger safety net?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...y-womens-contraceptives-2.html#post1061023578

According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year. According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year.
Click to expand...

We have to do something to address that.
 
If it is the government paying for the contraceptives, what if the government decides that it wants the manner of contraceptives to be sterilization?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom