• 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
JasperL said:
How do you know that? Thomas joined Scalia's dissent in PP v. Casey, which was a persuasive argument to abandon Roe v. Wade entirely.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html
Click to expand...

I think you are again getting "clever" in order to save a sinking point, but even if you want to accept, arguendo, that Thomas may do so, he's still only one of nine.

Roe will not be overturned, this need of yours to show it will be just so your paranoid ideas about birth control being banned can even begin is pretty silly.
 
Guess I did not understand the question "Should women have the right, as they do now, to decide whether or not to use birth control pills?" as being the same thing as abortion. I only say that because of the number of posts I see off subject of pills and on Roe vs Wade. One stops life from forming the other takes it after it has stared to form, in my mind not same subject.

As to the question as asked: a woman should use pills or one of the other methods available to her, as well as the man should use condoms or other available methods, if they are not ready to or do not want to bring another life into this world.
 
Lursa said:
As you have illustrated mine...doubling down altho I'm not sure you even realize it, so deeply ingrained is your resentment.

I just cut to the chase, the bottom line, that's all.
Click to expand...
What is it that you think I'm resentful about. I am resentful I just am doubtful that you understand about what

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Harshaw said:
I think you are again getting "clever" in order to save a sinking point, but even if you want to accept, arguendo, that Thomas may do so, he's still only one of nine.
Click to expand...

You said, "there is NO ONE on the Court, nor nominated for the Court, who has given a lick of reason to believe they're even slightly likely to go against that history." That's not true, because Thomas joined an opinion explicitly endorsing a repeal of Roe v. Wade. You say there aren't any others, but why should I believe you? You've not shown any analysis of any of the other Justices to indicate as much.

Second, you're not really making any point besides baselessly asserting your opinion that there is no one else besides Thomas, presumably, has given a lick of reason to believe Roe is in jeopardy. You tried to argue that history shows recent SC decisions oveturning precedent only expand rights, but clearly protecting unborn children is at least arguably an expansion of rights, so that argument doesn't work either. You acknowledge that the state has an interest in protecting or preserving life, but haven't explained why that interest must stop before conception, you've just asserted it must stop before that point for no reason I can discern and one you haven't argued.

Roe will not be overturned, this need of yours to show it will be just so your paranoid ideas about birth control being banned can even begin is pretty silly.
Click to expand...

Unlike you I don't claim to have knowledge of the future, so I haven't in fact asserted Roe "will be" overturned.
 
JasperL said:
You said, "there is NO ONE on the Court, nor nominated for the Court, who has given a lick of reason to believe they're even slightly likely to go against that history." That's not true, because Thomas joined an opinion explicitly endorsing a repeal of Roe v. Wade. You say there aren't any others, but why should I believe you? You've not shown any analysis of any of the other Justices to indicate as much.

Second, you're not really making any point besides baselessly asserting your opinion that there is no one else besides Thomas, presumably, has given a lick of reason to believe Roe is in jeopardy. You tried to argue that history shows recent SC decisions oveturning precedent only expand rights, but clearly protecting unborn children is at least arguably an expansion of rights, so that argument doesn't work either. You acknowledge that the state has an interest in protecting or preserving life, but haven't explained why that interest must stop before conception, you've just asserted it must stop before that point for no reason I can discern and one you haven't argued.



Unlike you I don't claim to have knowledge of the future, so I haven't in fact asserted Roe "will be" overturned.
Click to expand...

:roll: There are far too many errors in this post, and I don't really have the interest in taking the time to correct them.

Believe whatever you want. I truly do not care.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Believe whatever you want. I truly do not care.
Click to expand...

I don't actually care about your views either, but I was trying to have a civil debate on the subject. If you're not interested in that, OK. :confused:

My basic point here is that we have decades of the Republican party promising to repeal Roe, and we know there is a vast and well funded legal effort to appoint judges to make that happen, and the SC is about to get a majority of conservatives on the court, with RBG subject to also being replaced.

I don't think it's a good assumption for anyone to assume that Roe is forever and ever safe in the face of a well financed effort by very smart and capable individuals to do the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Oh FFS:doh

Yeah, with the Kavanaugh appointment and a possible Ginsburg replacement in the not too distant future I foresee women's right to vote being repealed, mandatory pregnancy and a ban on women's shoes other than Oxfords. You read it here first!
Click to expand...

I cannot contemplate this hell you are describing
 
JasperL said:
And if the birth control pills cause abortions, and abortions are outlawed as many want, what then?
Click to expand...

Dunno. Since abortions aren't outlawed, and it is highly unlikely that they will be except in a few areas around the country, I don't have to think about what then.
 
JasperL said:
I don't actually care about your views either, but I was trying to have a civil debate on the subject. If you're not interested in that, OK. :confused:

My basic point here is that we have decades of the Republican party promising to repeal Roe, and we know there is a vast and well funded legal effort to appoint judges to make that happen, and the SC is about to get a majority of conservatives on the court, with RBG subject to also being replaced.

I don't think it's a good assumption for anyone to assume that Roe is forever and ever safe in the face of a well financed effort by very smart and capable individuals to do the opposite.
Click to expand...

Then you should 1) correctly characterize what I say, and 2) don't repeat yourself as though I hadn't already addressed it.

I have no interest in merry-go-rounds.
 
trouble13 said:
What is it that you think I'm resentful about. I am resentful I just am doubtful that you understand about what

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You played the 'male victim' card.

That tells a story right there.
 
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...

Should taxpayers have the choice not to pay for someone else's birth control?
 
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...

The vast majority of people want to keep Roe vs. Wade, 70%, but it is endangered now, regardless. I don't find it impossible that the same pro-lifers could criminalize some birth control, such as the morning after pill for instance. Read The Handmaid's Tale, and recognize that it could happen here. Author Margaret Atwood said all events in the book had already happened in some place.
 
OKgrannie said:
The vast majority of people want to keep Roe vs. Wade, 70%, but it is endangered now, regardless. I don't find it impossible that the same pro-lifers could criminalize some birth control, such as the morning after pill for instance. Read The Handmaid's Tale, and recognize that it could happen here. Author Margaret Atwood said all events in the book had already happened in some place.
Click to expand...

We should make a drinking game out of this. Handmaid's Tale --- drink!

Anyone who claims that the US is turning into that kind of totalitarian theocratic government is supremely unhinged and delusional.
 
Risky Thicket said:
If you spray enough insect repellent on your junk it will work effectively as a method of birth control.

I do not have the statistics but we might well assume that a significant number of working women aren't making big bucks. In fact, we already know that women are often paid less than men (same job, same qualifications). Who usually raises the children when parents become divorced? Who often doesn't get proper or any child support? As a result women often carry a greater financial burden than men. Women working for low wages likely can't afford to pay $50.00 a month for birth control or $1,000 for an IUD plus the cost to see a doctor as well.

Bottomline: Decisions concerning birth control should involve only a woman and her doctor. Someone else's religion should never be a factor.
Click to expand...

It is not a matter of religion - folks can and should pay for their own routine medical care without any mandate for outside help.
 
Josie said:
We should make a drinking game out of this. Handmaid's Tale --- drink!

Anyone who claims that the US is turning into that kind of totalitarian theocratic government is supremely unhinged and delusional.
Click to expand...

Anyone who cannot see the movement in that direction has his head in a rabbit hole. Read about the Reconstructionists and Dominionists, and look around to see the progress they have made in changing the country to suit their image.
 
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...

Social Conservatives 2 years from now: "Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to birth control?"

If you think that is far fetched, remember that it was only 2003 that sodomy laws were struck down by SCOTUS, and Scalia and Thomas (the right's model for Supreme Court Justices) dissented.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not a matter of religion - folks can and should pay for their own routine medical care without any mandate for outside help.
Click to expand...

Your position is that routine medical care should not be covered by insurance? I don't think you mean that.

Religion was in fact the basis of the Hobby Lobby ruling.
 
Josie said:
We should make a drinking game out of this. Handmaid's Tale --- drink!

Anyone who claims that the US is turning into that kind of totalitarian theocratic government is supremely unhinged and delusional.
Click to expand...

It was only 2003 when SCOTUS finally struct down sodomy laws, and the right's model justices, Scalia and Thomas, dissented.
 
OKgrannie said:
Anyone who cannot see the movement in that direction has his head in a rabbit hole. Read about the Reconstructionists and Dominionists, and look around to see the progress they have made in changing the country to suit their image.
Click to expand...

When Dominionists can keep their own pants zipped up, you might have something to worry about. While I appreciate their ideals, the are not realistic about human nature.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Your position is that routine medical care should not be covered by insurance? I don't think you mean that.

Religion was in fact the basis of the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Click to expand...

Yes, I mean that - your homeowners or automobile insurance, even "full coverage", plans do not include routine maintenance coverage.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Your position is that routine medical care should not be covered by insurance? I don't think you mean that.

Religion was in fact the basis of the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely MY position. Insurance is supposed to be protection against an unexpected event.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Social Conservatives 2 years from now: "Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to birth control?"
Click to expand...

We might reasonably imagine in 2 years, under our growing corporatocracy, Big Insurance partnering with social conservatives to push the issue.

If you think that is far fetched, remember that it was only 2003 that sodomy laws were struck down by SCOTUS, and Scalia and Thomas (the right's model for Supreme Court Justices) dissented.
Click to expand...

Excellent point.
 
Risky Thicket said:
My health insurance does.
Click to expand...

That is my point. It is mandated to have it. Try putting in a claim on your auto insurance for an oil change, tune up or catalytic converter replacement costs. Next, try putting in claim on your homeowners insurance for repairing faded and/or flaking paint, replacing worn out carpeting or mowing your grass expenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom