• 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
That's like saying: Taxes are already going to pay for services for the poor, so let's just buy them all cars and pay for their gas so that they can drive around and look for work.

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!
 
That's like saying: Taxes are already going to pay for services for the poor, so let's just buy them all cars and pay for their gas so that they can drive around and look for work.

Umm no, it's like paying less for something that would prevent them from being poor in the first place.
 
What is your suggestion?

Wean these people off the government's tit.

I would eliminate all social spending gradually over ten years time and force people to find a skill set to support themselves. If ten years isn't enough time to find work then they can build a raft and head to Cuba for all the benefits of Communism.
 
Last edited:
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.

You are conflating two unlike things. Using contraception can certainly be wise - that does not mean that you have the right to demand that others provide it for you. Going to the gym is good too, I don't have the right to demand that you cover my bill at Golds.
 
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?

What? What is it you think we pay police for? Ever hear of an injunction? If she has to get out on the street for a night to avoid the rape, so be it. If she submits to the rape, then there's more evidence against the guy. You're assuming that rape is the only option. Besides, if this is the circumstance, free contraceptives would the be last thing on my mind.
 
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.

What you're suggesting is a short term solution to a long term problem. Giving people free stuff does not encourage them to do anything but accept said free stuff. We need these people back on their feet, as you agreed, not sucking up tax revenue for something they should already be responsible for. Instead, why don't they use some of the money wasted on social welfare programs to fund training programs, as you suggested. Real assistance is not giving them free stuff, but tackling the problem at it's source: the entitlement and lack of responsibility ideologies.
 
Absolutely yes, the country should pay for women's contraception. Not only that, but the country should pay for women's plastic surgeries too. France does it. And French women are a LOT happier than American women. And consequently the entire France is happier than the USA. (This is true, not bull.)
 
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 vast majority of women, who benefit from the insurance mandate of free birth control, were already using and could afford birth control.
So the argument that it's cheaper than a kid or whatever is moot and generally carries little water.

This mandate was a gender based, political bait tool for women.
 
The vast majority of women, who benefit from the insurance mandate of free birth control, were already using and could afford birth control.
So the argument that it's cheaper than a kid or whatever is moot and generally carries little water.

This mandate was a gender based, political bait tool for women.

This. So much this.
 
The vast majority of women, who benefit from the insurance mandate of free birth control, were already using and could afford birth control.
So the argument that it's cheaper than a kid or whatever is moot and generally carries little water.

This mandate was a gender based, political bait tool for women.

I think it's also a way to paint Romney as a woman hater, since the "war on women" is such a huge, yet extremely stupid, topic right now.
 
I think it's also a way to paint Romney as a woman hater, since the "war on women" is such a huge, yet extremely stupid, topic right now.

Sorta yes and sorta no.
It was put into place before Romney had decided to run, IIRC.

However, if anyone attempts to remove the mandate now, yes, they would be characterized as women haters, by a lot of people.
One of the single biggest, if not the biggest issue for women, of any political leaning, is going to be women's health.

In my opinion, it was a cheap and quite clever trick.
Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Only a bagger would look around at what is going on and not see the war on women, no matter, you guys are done...bye bye LOL
 
Only a bagger would look around at what is going on and not see the war on women, no matter, you guys are done...bye bye LOL

I hardly see men yanking women out into the streets and shooting them. Women aren't losing their rights for anything. People are just saying things like "Oh he doesn't support abortion, he must hate women", or "Oh he doesn't want women to have access to contraceptives, he must hate women". Both are EXTREMELY speculative and absolutely ludicrous, especially when blaming a candidate for presidency. Do you really think someone who hated women would volunteer to run a country full of them? I think not. People are getting too picky and making too many assumptions.
 
Well, I am all for reducing population so I initially disagreed with you. However, the point I bolded is a very good point. People would be more likely to get one if they knew the option to get it reversed was available. So you have convinced me to change my stance on that point.

WHAT????????

We do not need more people in this world.

Rather than pay for reversal of a surgical procedure, those people could adopt.

So China & India are the greatest places on Earth?

Surely there's a limit on how many people is enough.

7 Billions isn't enough?

Clean water, food, energy, and such...


Please take 5 minutes out of your busy life, lives that are comprised of fearing overpopulation, to educate yourselves on "peak population" predictions.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling
Rosling was born in Uppsala, Sweden. From 1967 to 1974 Rosling studied statistics and medicine at Uppsala University, and in 1972 he studied public health at St. John's Medical College, Bangalore. He became a licenced physician in 1976 and from 1979 to 1981 he served as District Medical Officer in Nacala in northern Mozambique.

On 21 August 1981, Rosling discovered an outbreak of konzo, a paralytic disease,[3][4] and the investigations that followed earned him a Ph.D. degree at Uppsala University in 1986. He spent two decades studying outbreaks of this disease in remote rural areas across Africa and supervised more than ten Ph.D. students[citation needed]. Outbreaks occur among hunger-stricken rural populations in Africa where a diet dominated by insufficiently processed cassava results in simultaneous malnutrition and high dietary cyanide intake.[4]

Rosling's research has also focused on other links between economic development, agriculture, poverty and health[5] in Africa, Asia and Latin America. He has been health adviser to WHO, UNICEF and several aid agencies. In 1993 he was one of the initiators of Médecins Sans Frontières in Sweden. At Karolinska Institutet he was head of the Division of International Health (IHCAR) from 2001 to 2007. As chairman of Karolinska International Research and Training Committee (1998–2004) he started health research collaborations with universities in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. He started new courses on Global Health and co-authored a textbook on Global Health that promotes a fact-based world view.

Rosling presented the television documentary The Joy of Stats, which was broadcast in the United Kingdom by BBC Four in December 2010.[6]
 
Last edited:
Contraception is of personal matter. It should have nothing to do with public funding.
 
Wean these people off the government's tit.

I would eliminate all social spending gradually over ten years time and force people to find a skill set to support themselves. If ten years isn't enough time to find work then they can build a raft and head to Cuba for all the benefits of Communism.

How would you force them?
 
What you're suggesting is a short term solution to a long term problem. Giving people free stuff does not encourage them to do anything but accept said free stuff. We need these people back on their feet, as you agreed, not sucking up tax revenue for something they should already be responsible for. Instead, why don't they use some of the money wasted on social welfare programs to fund training programs, as you suggested. Real assistance is not giving them free stuff, but tackling the problem at it's source: the entitlement and lack of responsibility ideologies.

And if you give women who cannot afford birth control, free birth control, as demonstrated, they will be responsible and use it. So why can't you do both? Birth control is not a short term problem. Everyday girls become sexually active. It's a continuous, never ending problem.
 
Contraception is of personal matter. It should have nothing to do with public funding.

And yet...

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

So it's better to be paying for the results of unplanned pregnancies than to spend less and prevent them. Check.
 
And yet...



So it's better to be paying for the results of unplanned pregnancies than to spend less and prevent them. Check.

So why did it cost the U.S. that much?
 
And if you give women who cannot afford birth control, free birth control, as demonstrated, they will be responsible and use it. So why can't you do both? Birth control is not a short term problem. Everyday girls become sexually active. It's a continuous, never ending problem.

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.
 
And if you give women who cannot afford birth control, free birth control, as demonstrated, they will be responsible and use it. So why can't you do both? Birth control is not a short term problem. Everyday girls become sexually active. It's a continuous, never ending problem.

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.
 
How would you force them?

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.
 
And yet...



So it's better to be paying for the results of unplanned pregnancies than to spend less and prevent them. Check.

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.
 
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.

If we can pay for 4 unnecessary wars, and if we can pay to bailout Wall Street, we can pay for contraceptives to women who need or want it.
 
Back
Top Bottom