• 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 women have the right, as they do now, to decide whether or not to use birth control pills?

Should women have the right, as they do now, to decide for themselves whether or not to use birth co

  • Total voters
    132
Mithros said:
From way back in the dark ages.. ie 2013
Groups pondering ways to restrict sales of morning after pill in state - News - Arkansas News Bureau - North Little Rock, AR


The primary motivation of many in the anti-abortion movement isn't a concern for the life of the child. If that were so they'd also care about children after they were born. Instead they want women that have sex outside of marriage to be punished... with a baby. Sex cannot be for pleasure. Therefore anything that allows women to have sex without any consequences is immoral. They think that if the government doesn't impose their morality on everyone else, that God will turn away from the United States.. which has somehow been conflated with Gods chosen people as a sort of alternate for Israel.

So yeah.. conservatives will absolutely try to reduce womens access to contraceptives.
Click to expand...

There is no credible chance of this happening.
 
AGENT J said:
to answer your question, the answer is YES

as for logical concern, i really dont think it is. But I dont think RvW getting overturned is either. Ill say the same thing i always say on it.
Maybe im naive or to optimistic or simply have to much faith in america but I dont see our country getting THAT bad and moving backwards against rights and freedoms that much. Its way to drastic. Banning abortion is 3rd world country stuff. Countries with dictators and no rights and where women are seen as lessers. America is a first world country and the vast majority of them are pro-choice law wise. With all the precedent and years in for RvW and all the rights and freedoms progress we've made i think if its overturned it will be a scary thing as far as an indicator of where our government is failing and breaking down. Nothing good will come from it. Again maybe im completely wrong . . maybe like i said I am to optimistic, maybe i have to much faith in the good of our country but I hope not.
Click to expand...

It's a tough one. The religious right absolutely wants Roe to be overturned. It's been their war cry for the last 40+ years.

And because of that, the intelligent conservatives in power absolutely don't want Roe to be overturned. First on policy because the motivation behind the decision on Roe is the libertarian interpretation of the 14th amendment and you cannot overturn Roe without calling into question everything else that has been decided on those merits. Second, Roe vs Wade is what keeps the religious right dogmatically on their side regardless of how unchristian the rest of the political slate is. If Roe is overturned, the GOP will lose the religious right and face an unprecedented backlash from women all over the US.

Ideally, the GOP wants to be anti-abortion without actually doing anything to stop abortion. Just like they were against the affordable care act until they actually had the ability to do something about it.
 
Lutherf said:
Burwell didn't take away a damned thing from anyone. All it did was say certain closely held corporations didn't have to provide contraceptive coverage in their employee insurance plan. Female employees were and are allowed to use their choice of contraceptive and the employer can't fire them for doing so. It PRESERVED the rights of business owners and didn't take a damned thing away from women.

I get sick and tired of the idea that if you don't get something for free then that means it was taken away from you.
Click to expand...

Closely held corporations. And just for ****s and giggles I checked to see how many businesses qualify as "closely held corporations", about 90%.

Nothing is free. Some things are less expensive than others. I'd rather my government pay for birth control pills than pay for unwanted children and social assistance for single mothers who struggle to pay rent and put food on the table.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Closely held corporations. And just for ****s and giggles I checked to see how many businesses qualify as "closely held corporations", about 90%.

Nothing is free. Some things are less expensive than others. I'd rather my government pay for birth control pills than pay for unwanted children and social assistance for single mothers who struggle to pay rent and put food on the table.
Click to expand...

Hobby Lobby didn't have anything to do with the government paying for anything.
 
Mithros said:
1.) It's a tough one. The religious right absolutely wants Roe to be overturned. It's been their war cry for the last 40+ years.

2.) And because of that, the intelligent conservatives in power absolutely don't want Roe to be overturned. First on policy because the motivation behind the decision on Roe is the libertarian interpretation of the 14th amendment and you cannot overturn Roe without calling into question everything else that has been decided on those merits. Second, Roe vs Wade is what keeps the religious right dogmatically on their side regardless of how unchristian the rest of the political slate is. If Roe is overturned, the GOP will lose the religious right and face an unprecedented backlash from women all over the US.

3.) Ideally, the GOP wants to be anti-abortion without actually doing anything to stop abortion. Just like they were against the affordable care act until they actually had the ability to do something about it.
Click to expand...

1.) you mean religious EXTREMISTS. I know religious right people that are actually pro-choice. Are there some that want RvW modified yep is there even a smaller group that want it overturned yep but i dont see it as a wide spread thing. Mostley importantly thier feelings dont matter much. Laws and rights do. I just cant see us violating womens rights like that... i hope not.

2.) I mostly agree

3.) and i mostly agree here too
 
Josie said:
Why do people keep repeating this lie?

Here's the list of contraceptives and reproductive procedures Hobby Lobby's employee insurance covers:

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
Click to expand...

Because it is not a lie. Read posts I made today to others so that I don't have to repeat myself.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Because it is not a lie. Read posts I made today to others so that I don't have to repeat myself.
Click to expand...

I have and I responded. You keep saying that Hobby Lobby (with the SCOTUS' help) is denying women the right to birth control. That's ridiculously false and you know it. Or maybe you really don't know it. :shrug:
 
Josie said:
There are always going to be people who want XYZ banned.

The vast majority of people are perfectly fine with most or all contraceptives. Saying that there's a chance women will be denied the right to birth control is ludicrous. There's no rational pathway for that to happen.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. We've already discussed Hobby Lobby. That door is open. The majority of people working in business work for closely held corporations. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor over denying women choices based on the religion of a closely held corporation. If and when government refuses to pay for female contraception the national pathway will be restricted to women who can afford their own birth control.
 
Josie said:
Me? You're the one changing the subject here. We're talking about people who want to take away women's right to take the birth control pill. Who wants to do that and how will they make it happen?
Click to expand...

It won't take too long to for you to go on Google and find out that there are a lot of pro-life people who consider many modern methods of birth control, like the pill, as abortifacients. Here's an example: https://www.texasrighttolife.com/did-you-know-that-some-birth-control-methods-can-cause-abortion/

Some methods of family planning only prevent conception, and others prevent conception and have the potential to cause an abortion when a woman does conceive. Barrier methods (like condoms and diaphragms), fertility awareness methods (like Natural Family Planning), surgical methods (like vasectomies) and, of course, abstinence all carry no risk of abortion. If a baby is conceived while using one of these methods, no hormonal threat stands to deter the embryo from successful implantation in the mother’s womb.

But hormonal contraceptives, like the Pill, NuvaRing, patch, IUD, etc., are different. Because they alter a woman's body chemistry and physiology, hormonal contraceptives pose a risk to the survival of newly-conceived embryos by making the uterine environment hostile to implantation. This fact is readily acknowledged by medical groups and contraception manufacturers.
Click to expand...

If Roe is overturned and a state prohibits "abortions," the reasonable and inevitable question is will that state then effectively outlaw forms of birth control that arguably cause "abortions?" If they do, the pill could be outlawed in that state. Pro-life groups are very explicit about this - believe it should happen.

So it's not a silly question. It will be a pressing concern the moment any state outlaws abortions because the next question is when does an abortion take place, and if e.g. the pill causes an abortion, it will/could be necessarily outlawed along with the abortions it allegedly causes.
 
AlbqOwl said:
They don't necessarily have a right to use birth control pills now without a doctor's consent and prescription, and that is how it should be. The pills are not safe for all women.

And she has no right to demand that anybody else pay for the pills that she obtains or even a right to demand that somebody sell her pills if the other person has personal reasons for not doing so.

Now if you had asked if birth control pills should be a matter between the woman and her doctor, I can answer an unqualified yes. As it has always been.
Click to expand...

And if the birth control pills cause abortions, and abortions are outlawed as many want, what then?
 
Josie said:
I have and I responded. You keep saying that Hobby Lobby (with the SCOTUS' help) is denying women the right to birth control. That's ridiculously false and you know it. Or maybe you really don't know it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Who determines the birth control choices for female employees under the Supreme Court ruling?
 
Mithros said:
From way back in the dark ages.. ie 2013
Groups pondering ways to restrict sales of morning after pill in state - News - Arkansas News Bureau - North Little Rock, AR


The primary motivation of many in the anti-abortion movement isn't a concern for the life of the child. If that were so they'd also care about children after they were born. Instead they want women that have sex outside of marriage to be punished... with a baby. Sex cannot be for pleasure. Therefore anything that allows women to have sex without any consequences is immoral. They think that if the government doesn't impose their morality on everyone else, that God will turn away from the United States.. which has somehow been conflated with Gods chosen people as a sort of alternate for Israel.

So yeah.. conservatives will absolutely try to reduce womens access to contraceptives.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Lursa said:
No. Because it's still in everyone's best interests if bc is subsidized or free.

Every dollar spent on birth control and family services saves taxpayers $7 later.
Click to expand...

What’s with this “everyone’s best interest” stuff? Who are you or anyone else to decide what my best interest is?

This “one size fits all” crap is the very definition of tyranny. It started with “it’s in everyone’s best interest if we make health insurance available to everyone. That gets followed up with “if you don’t want health insurance we’re going to financially penalize you” and “if you don’t want to pay for someone else’s health insurance we’re gonna no to financially penalize you”. What’s the next step if those penalties fail to get the results you want? Will you impose more substantial penalties? Where does it stop?

Is there any case whatsoever where you would allow someone to choose against what you believe is “their best interests”?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Who determines the birth control choices for female employees under the Supreme Court ruling?
Click to expand...

The women themselves. They can choose their employer's insurance or another insurance.
 
I voted "It depends." Specifically (in my opinion) it depends on the type of pill.

I'm fully supportive of a woman's right to take birth control pills that prevent conception, and I always will be.

I'm not so thrilled about the so-called "morning after" pills, however. Ideally they should be prescribed by a gynecologist if there's some health reason that the woman shouldn't be pregnant.
 
JasperL said:
It won't take too long to for you to go on Google and find out that there are a lot of pro-life people who consider many modern methods of birth control, like the pill, as abortifacients. Here's an example: https://www.texasrighttolife.com/did-you-know-that-some-birth-control-methods-can-cause-abortion/
Click to expand...

Yes, this has already been discussed. We're talking about people who want ALL birth control banned, not just the morning after pill. Who wants all birth control banned?

JasperL said:
If Roe is overturned and a state prohibits "abortions,"
Click to expand...

Name one state that would ban all abortions.

JasperL said:
the reasonable and inevitable question is will that state then effectively outlaw forms of birth control that arguably cause "abortions?"
Click to expand...

I wouldn't doubt that some states would ban Plan B, the morning after pill, etc. I don't know any state that would ban ALL birth control. Do you?

JasperL said:
If they do, the pill could be outlawed in that state. Pro-life groups are very explicit about this - believe it should happen.
Click to expand...

The pill. The one most pro-lifers take themselves? LOL. Okay, dude.

JasperL said:
So it's not a silly question. It will be a pressing concern the moment any state outlaws abortions because the next question is when does an abortion take place, and if e.g. the pill causes an abortion, it will/could be necessarily outlawed along with the abortions it allegedly causes.
Click to expand...

Except that's not the question we're discussing. This entire thread is about women being denied the right to take or not take birth control. Not just a few different kinds of birth control --- all birth control.
 
Risky Thicket said:
As the nation may well face the reversal of Roe v. Wade additional concerns are being expressed, one is birth control. Frankly I hadn't thought about it but I suppose it is a logical concern. Is it a logical concern?

The question then is: Should women have the right, as they do now, to decide for themselves whether or not to use birth control pills?
Click to expand...

One thing I have heard many times from pro-lifers is the term "abortofacient" used in relation to BCP and IUDs. So yes, birth control is in danger if RvW is reversed

Never in a million years would I have thought that anybody would demand that a corpse be kept on life support to gestate against the expressed wishes on the husband either. But that is how whacky people's belief systems have gotten.
 
A "no" vote I can imagine NOT ! maybe the 'no votes" were not serious .... Maybe only the woman should be voting .. in this poll ..
 
Risky Thicket said:
Who determines the birth control choices for female employees under the Supreme Court ruling?
Click to expand...

Nobody is denied any choice. Nobody is being stopped from purchasing anything they want. The ONLY thing that case concerned was whether or not Hobby Lobby could be forced to PAY for it.

This is has been explained to you over and over.
 
Josie said:
There are always going to be people who want XYZ banned.

The vast majority of people are perfectly fine with most or all contraceptives. Saying that there's a chance women will be denied the right to birth control is ludicrous. There's no rational pathway for that to happen.
Click to expand...

Of course there's a rational way - outlaw "abortions," define life as beginning at inception, and you've probably outlawed a slew of popular BC methods including the pill. Sure, the legislatures could define "abortion" or "life" in a way that allows for what are arguably abortifacients to still be sold, but to believe there is no "rational" way that outlawing abortions leads to outlawing MANY BC methods is naive.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Closely held corporations. And just for ****s and giggles I checked to see how many businesses qualify as "closely held corporations", about 90%.

Nothing is free. Some things are less expensive than others. I'd rather my government pay for birth control pills than pay for unwanted children and social assistance for single mothers who struggle to pay rent and put food on the table.
Click to expand...

Why should the government pay for birth control? Birth control is one of those thing the individual should pay for if they choose to use it.
 
Josie said:
The women themselves. They can choose their employer's insurance or another insurance.
Click to expand...

At an equal cost? Not feckin likely. A forced and unequal choice is not a choice especially when your "option" is more expensive and may provide less coverage overall. That's not a choice, Josie.
 
JasperL said:
Of course there's a rational way - outlaw "abortions," define life as beginning at inception, and you've probably outlawed a slew of popular BC methods including the pill. Sure, the legislatures could define "abortion" or "life" in a way that allows for what are arguably abortifacients to still be sold, but to believe there is no "rational" way that outlawing abortions leads to outlawing MANY BC methods is naive.
Click to expand...

You mean -- conception. The pill prevents conception so why would it be banned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom