• 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
AliHajiSheik said:
If it is the government paying for the contraceptives, what if the government decides that it wants the manner of contraceptives to be sterilization?
Click to expand...

Then only those who want to be sterilized will take part. No one is saying the government should force birth control on anyone. That is not the question proposed by the OP.

EDIT: And that would be a poorly used option, failing to address the problem in any significant manner.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If it is the government paying for the contraceptives, what if the government decides that it wants the manner of contraceptives to be sterilization?
Click to expand...
So the government wants to spend more money than the pill would cost? Why? But, if the woman would want it I would have the government go for it since I think it would save us, the taxpayer, money in the long run. So I guess we agree?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If it is the government paying for the contraceptives, what if the government decides that it wants the manner of contraceptives to be sterilization?
Click to expand...

The government is NOT forcing anyone to use contraceptives.
THe idea is that contraceptives will be avaialible with no co pay for those who wish to use them.

If the government offered sterization with no co pay then I guess the adults who want to sterilized could opt to be sterilized.
It is their choice NO ONE is forcing them to be sterilized.
 
Gina said:
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



We have to do something to address that.
Click to expand...

There are a few parts to this. No, I don't want more moochers being born but not through the availability of free contraceptives. The argument has been made before, they're cheap, they can buy their own. Just because it's available doesn't mean they'll be used either. The second part is to tighten up on who's eligible for those programs. I don't think it's better to provide low/no cost healthcare, I think it would be better to hold the people who claim they need that stuff accountable for their actions. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to bring a baby into poverty. If you can't afford one, don't have one. Use your brain before going crazy. We need to get people off dependency, not reinforce it. Accidents as a result of not using protection is no excuse. If a condom breaks, well that sucks but at least they tried. People that simply forgo protection who get pregnant deserve what they get. It's unfortunate, but people need a kick in the ass to get them moving again, not a warm cup of milk and a pat on the wrist saying "don't do that again okay sweetie".
 
Krystov said:
I have no idea. ....
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have no idea. Many women aren't in a situation where they can’t say no and keep out of serious trouble. One form of serious trouble is being kicked out on the street and there are many more. Again, many women are simply in a position where they can't safely say 'NO!" But, you could say it's their fault for getting in such a situation. It's always the woman's fault. Some theocracies have a solution for that, are you suggesting it too?
 
Krystov said:
There are a few parts to this. No, I don't want more moochers being born but not through the availability of free contraceptives. The argument has been made before, they're cheap, they can buy their own. Just because it's available doesn't mean they'll be used either. The second part is to tighten up on who's eligible for those programs. I don't think it's better to provide low/no cost healthcare, I think it would be better to hold the people who claim they need that stuff accountable for their actions. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to bring a baby into poverty. If you can't afford one, don't have one. Use your brain before going crazy. We need to get people off dependency, not reinforce it. Accidents as a result of not using protection is no excuse. If a condom breaks, well that sucks but at least they tried. People that simply forgo protection who get pregnant deserve what they get. It's unfortunate, but people need a kick in the ass to get them moving again, not a warm cup of milk and a pat on the wrist saying "don't do that again okay sweetie".
Click to expand...

To the bolded first. Did you read the link? Free birth control was used by those participating in the study and the results were greater than anticipated. Especially since they offered longer term contraceptives like the implant and IUD's.

As to the rest, one can click their heels and just continue insisting people take responsibility without doing anything or one can take action and change the outcome. This study, helped the women take responsibility, that's what using contraception is, and the outcome was changed. Just wishing it so, isn't going to cut it.

They get what they deserve, a kick in the butt? You are speaking of a child, not some mundane punishment. And that punishment costs you and the country $11 billion a year, but that is nothing compared to a life of poverty, and more than likely abuse and neglect.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yes, you have no idea. Many women aren't in a situation where they can’t say no and keep out of serious trouble. One form of serious trouble is being kicked out on the street and there are many more. Again, many women are simply in a position where they can't safely say 'NO!" But, you could say it's their fault for getting in such a situation. It's always the woman's fault. Some theocracies have a solution for that, are you suggesting it too?
Click to expand...

How can a woman not say no to sex? That is a very easy thing to do. If they're raped then that's another topic, but there's no reason someone can't say no to having sex.
 
Krystov said:
There are a few parts to this. No, I don't want more moochers being born but not through the availability of free contraceptives. The argument has been made before, they're cheap, they can buy their own. Just because it's available doesn't mean they'll be used either. The second part is to tighten up on who's eligible for those programs. I don't think it's better to provide low/no cost healthcare, I think it would be better to hold the people who claim they need that stuff accountable for their actions. It is IRRESPONSIBLE to bring a baby into poverty. If you can't afford one, don't have one. Use your brain before going crazy. We need to get people off dependency, not reinforce it. Accidents as a result of not using protection is no excuse. If a condom breaks, well that sucks but at least they tried. People that simply forgo protection who get pregnant deserve what they get. It's unfortunate, but people need a kick in the ass to get them moving again, not a warm cup of milk and a pat on the wrist saying "don't do that again okay sweetie".
Click to expand...
It's irresponsible to be fat, eat too much sugar, not get enough exorcise, etc. I want those people to pay their fair share for their health insurance, but insurance companies are doing that. Damn.
If you are a woman in a typical situation is it easier, in your opinion, to not have sex or to not be fat?
 
Gina said:
To the bolded first. Did you read the link? Free birth control was used by those participating in the study and the results were greater than anticipated. Especially since they offered longer term contraceptives like the implant and IUD's.

As to the rest, one can click their heels and just continue insisting people take responsibility without doing anything or one can take action and change the outcome. This study, helped the women take responsibility, that's what using contraception is, and the outcome was changed. Just wishing it so, isn't going to cut it.

They get what they deserve, a kick in the butt? You are speaking of a child, not some mundane punishment. And that punishment costs you and the country $11 billion a year, but that is nothing compared to a life of poverty, and more than likely abuse and neglect.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. This still reinforces the concept of dependency upon the government for free stuff at my expense. Why should I support someone who can't support themselves? They get what they deserve, additional burden on top of their already burdened life. Why can't anyone say "lets get these people back on their feet so they can support themselves" not "lets give them free **** so they don't have to support themselves". An INCREASE in people on social care programs suggests the latter, not the former. And people need to get off their ass and try, and this entitlement ideology encourages laziness.
 
Krystov said:
How can a woman not say no to sex? That is a very easy thing to do. If they're raped then that's another topic, but there's no reason someone can't say no to having sex.
Click to expand...
You don't understand the impossible situation that many poor women find themselves in. 'No' is not an acceptable answer to many men. Especially men that are not properly making a living. How women get involved with them is another story. So you are saying that she should run away, to the streets, to avoid having sex?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
It's irresponsible to be fat, eat too much sugar, not get enough exorcise, etc. I want those people to pay their fair share for their health insurance, but insurance companies are doing that. Damn.
If you are a woman in a typical situation is it easier, in your opinion, to not have sex or to not be fat?
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. Those people pay for their own insurance. You don't contribute in any way to their healthcare premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. If we're talking about Obamacare, I would agree with you.

My opinion is if you're going to have sex, be prepared for the consequences. It's no one else's responsibility to pay for their mistake, nor is it anyone else's responsibility to prevent their mistake.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
You don't understand the impossible situation that many poor women find themselves in. 'No' is not an acceptable answer to many men. Especially men that are not properly making a living. How women get involved with them is another story. So you are saying that she should run away, to the streets, to avoid having sex?
Click to expand...

If it is an abusive relationship there are other means of dealing with it than running to the streets. You can say no regardless of your circumstance.
 
Krystov said:
How can a woman not say no to sex? That is a very easy thing to do. If they're raped then that's another topic, but there's no reason someone can't say no to having sex.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed reading this post. Essentially they are raped since they have no other safe solution.
You are judging someone's options from situations you are used to, nice good ones. Not ones where the woman has limited or no good choices and needs a man to protect her from other men.
You don't understand how common rape, that will not be prosequted, is. And if there is an arrest and no conviction who will really pay the price?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
If it is the government paying for the contraceptives, what if the government decides that it wants the manner of contraceptives to be sterilization?
Click to expand...

I guess I looked at the question as one of freedom. The original question is "Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?" The country could be China. A country that does pay for contraception, not always in the form the recipient would want.

Far fetched? In the US, probably yes for the foreseeable future, but who knows? If the country stays out of it, then presumably it would be harder for the country to "get into it."
 
Krystov said:
I think you're missing the point. This still reinforces the concept of dependency upon the government for free stuff at my expense. Why should I support someone who can't support themselves? They get what they deserve, additional burden on top of their already burdened life. Why can't anyone say "lets get these people back on their feet so they can support themselves" not "lets give them free **** so they don't have to support themselves". An INCREASE in people on social care programs suggests the latter, not the former. And people need to get off their ass and try, and this entitlement ideology encourages laziness.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the bigger point, maybe a few of them.

One can be on their high horse, decrying those on assistance as living off their tax dollar and nothing changes. Or one could insist one's tax dollar be used more effectively to keep from increasing the number of people on social welfare programs by helping them take responsibility for their contraception.

The $11 billion a year is already spent at your expense. Why don't we put the horse back ahead of the cart and work to lower that number, not with self-satisfying "they get what they deserve", because it's been shown that is not an effective way to solve the problem. They are getting what they deserve, at your expense. Start by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, with contraception. Stop increasing the number of children born into certain poverty because once they are born, their mothers will struggle even more to support them. A good way to get people on their feet is not to burden them in the first place because people feel they'd rather pay after the fact and complain about it.

I don't know and won't guess the means you would employ to get people back on their feet instead of giving them free stuff. I agree, let's get them back on their feet with training programs and assistance with finding jobs. Real assistance because there is darn little of that right now.
 
Gina said:
I think you are missing the bigger point, maybe a few of them.

One can be on their high horse, decrying those on assistance as living off their tax dollar and nothing changes. Or one could insist one's tax dollar be used more effectively to keep from increasing the number of people on social welfare programs by helping them take responsibility for their contraception.

The $11 billion a year is already spent at your expense. Why don't we put the horse back ahead of the cart and work to lower that number, not with self-satisfying "they get what they deserve", because it's been shown that is not an effective way to solve the problem. They are getting what they deserve, at your expense. Start by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, with contraception. Stop increasing the number of children born into certain poverty because once they are born, their mothers will struggle even more to support them. A good way to get people on their feet is not to burden them in the first place because people feel they'd rather pay after the fact and complain about it.

I don't know and won't guess the means you would employ to get people back on their feet instead of giving them free stuff. I agree, let's get them back on their feet with training programs and assistance with finding jobs. Real assistance because there is darn little of that right now.
Click to expand...

Sure but part of finding a solution is recognizing many of these social issues didn't exist in any meaningful way before the 1960's gave way to a nanny state and they have only gotten worse as we've thrown more money at the issues. Prior to the 1960's people were expected to work and, what is more important, they did; they supported themselves.

Young posters were annoyed at me earlier but the reality is people accidentally falling penis first into open vaginas didn't really exist when I was growing up mostly because it wasn't tolerated. Now we don't just tolerate it but we encourage it through more social programs than I can count, and not because I can't count very high.
 
Donahue said:
Sure but part of finding a solution is recognizing many of these social issues didn't exist in any meaningful way before the 1960's gave way to a nanny state and they have only gotten worse as we've thrown more money at the issues. Prior to the 1960's people were expected to work and, what is more important, they did; they supported themselves.

Young posters were annoyed at me earlier but the reality is people accidentally falling penis first into open vaginas didn't really exist when I was growing up mostly because it wasn't tolerated. Now we don't just tolerate it but we encourage it through more social programs than I can count, and not because I can't count very high.
Click to expand...

I agree, the social welfare programs of the 1960's grew out of control, but were reigned in with reform in 1996. Further, indeed, throwing money at an issue without thinking first, is no way to solve a problem. So, I'm saying, let's think about it. Since social mores changed, causing the welfare rolls to swell, let's work to address that. People were having sex before marriage before welfare was passed and they will continue to have it. Can't stuff the toothpaste back in that tube, so let's work on prevention through education and contraception. Or, we can just continue throwing $11 billion indiscriminately at it and be unhappy about that.
 
Gina said:
I agree, the social welfare programs of the 1960's grew out of control, but were reigned in with reform in 1996. Further, indeed, throwing money at an issue without thinking first, is no way to solve a problem. So, I'm saying, let's think about it. Since social mores changed, causing the welfare rolls to swell, let's work to address that. People were having sex before marriage before welfare was passed and they will continue to have it. Can't stuff the toothpaste back in that tube, so let's work on prevention through education and contraception. Or, we can just continue throwing $11 billion indiscriminately at it and be unhappy about that.
Click to expand...

We've been talking about prevention through education and contraception since the problem began more than half a century ago with little to show for it. What makes you think the next 50 years will be any different than the last 50?
 
Donahue said:
We've been talking about prevention through education and contraception since the problem began more than half a century ago with little to show for it. What makes you think the next 50 years will be any different than the last 50?
Click to expand...

For one, the study that I cited. It was hugely successful.

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds - Vitals

No matter the objection of some segments of our citizenry, we need to embrace programs like this. It worked.
 
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...

In cutting the abortion rate, we are cutting the unplanned birth rate as well.

Abortions will not stop because they are illegal, btw, while I do get that you are saying they will be reduced, but then the unplanned birth rate will skyrocket.
 
This is such a ridiculous question if you think about it. Of course the government shouldn't pay for women's contraceptives.

Contraceptives are elective.

Should the government buy everyone a car too? Should the government pay for everyone's gas?
 
Gina said:
In cutting the abortion rate, we are cutting the unplanned birth rate as well.

Abortions will not stop because they are illegal, btw, while I do get that you are saying they will be reduced, but then the unplanned birth rate will skyrocket.
Click to expand...

That's only if we continue to encourage such bad behavior by throwing money at it.

People actually did manage to make it out of high school and into financially secure permanent relationships before having children before the government got involved. The handful who didn't or who became single parents when a spouse died managed to find employment and take care of their children without the government.
 
Well if taxes are already going to pay for women to have children they can't afford, I'd rather pay a little less and cover something that prevents that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom