CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Affordable and accessible contraception is a public health interest, as well as personal health concern for all genders and sexes. Medicinal contraception is often prescribed as a hormonal therapy and treatment. Further, non-medicinal contraceptives provide clear health benefits in promoting and enabling healthier and safer sex. This reduces exposure to and transmission of STDs.
No, that is obviously a privilege. I agree that it should be covered, but it is not a right. There is nothing stopping you from using your own money to pay for it.
Right, but you made no mention of where insurance comes into the picture. It's one thing to say women have a right to choose to do what they want, it's another to imply that insurance companies must comply with a request to fund a luxury.
You realise your entire argument has been: woman have a right because they have a right because they have a right because they have a right? Are you completely incapable of developing an argument beyond a=a because of a?
Because right now contraception is not covered for any reason, and there are many women on it for health reasons. Also, because birth control is cheaper than the damn kid.
Though I agree that contraception should be covered by health insurance I fail to see why a civil rights claim should be fulfilled through health insurance rather than social programing to secure accessibility.
Were it not for the legitimate health issues surrounding contraception (and not just contraception for women), I think a valid argument could be made against your right to choose stance insofar as the lack of coverage does not strictly speaking abridge that right. A woman could still choose to abstain if contraception is not financially an option. Now, I could argue back against that but my point really is that there is firmer ground to stand upon.
I think you misunderstood me. I was not arguing against a woman's right choose. I was arguing that it may not be the best grounds from which to defend a stance favouring coverage.
Still not a health related argument. To argue for coverage within health insurance it seems to me that the strongest and most valid ground to debate from is that there are negative health consequences to not providing coverage. The economic burden of unplanned pregnancies is also not a reason for coverage within health insurance, but would be a valid reason to support an independent government program providing contraception.
Sure, I will do my best. To me the only argument that makes sense for supporting health insurance coverage of contraception is a health related argument. For instance, medical benefits of contraceptive hormones or STD prevention. Health insurance protects personal and public health interests. The points you have raised - women's rights and economic costs - are not directly related to health but to civil rights and general economic concerns. If those are the reasons for ensuring access to contraception then the funding should come from some other program that is not health insurance. There is no current program like that that I am aware of in the US, but some nations do have programmes which distribute contraceptives free of charge to their constituents. This is particularly true in countries where the HIV/AIDS epidemic has hit hardest and the public health interest in providing contraception has been most immediately evident.
Why shouldn't health insurance address major health concerns like this? Covering contraception helps reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, as birth control can be very expensive. Besides, a person may be in an abusive relationship with a partner is sabotaging birth control, and need something covert. Or they may have PCOS or another health condition that can be treated with hormonal birth control.
You probably shouldn't make that blanket statement, without any qualifiers or exceptions. For many women, birth control pills are very important and are necessary to daily life.
It is discrimination. A man can't get a woody and it's a big enough issue that insurance companies, who hate paying out money, are more than willing to fork over the cash, but a woman who needs birth control so that she doesn't get knocked up by Viagra guy, she can't get what she needs without paying full price?
I was responding to the "Men get this..." In terms of that, with men getting their meds, women should get theirs. I agree that, barring medical need, both should be out of pocket, but since that's not the case, if it continues not to be the case, I'd want birth control to be covered.
You can't use the excuse that contraceptives are not something you need and also defend Viagra which you admit is not something you need without being a hypocrite.
It is true that women have the right to choose what they wish to do with their bodies, but they have absolutely no power to force insurance companies to pay for them. That should be left up to the insurance company, and not the woman.
Oh please. Contaception doesn't have to be to prevent pregnancy either. I nearly went broke paying for birth control pills and I was on them because of severe issues. But insurance doesn't have to pay for it even then. Men don't need erections but Viagra is covered in case a patient has other issues. Birth control should be covered too: no matter what, just in case.
That is a much more logical argument that the user Sitara. Allow me to continue. I agree with you. I do not think Viagra should be covered by insurance though and thus do not believe that contraception should be provided by insurance companies. It should not be covered due to it's initial purpose, to prevent pregnancy, hence the name "birth control".
You cannot follow the purpose of the debate. She used a conparative argument. Viagra is covered yet contraception is not? That is a much more solid argument since it follows the premise of this debate. Your argument is over women's right to choose contraception. This debate doesn't call for that.
I have presented a logical argument. I told you why contraception should and will be covered by insurance, but you choose to ignore logic. Do stop wasting my time.
Contraception should be required because it is a women's right to choose? If a murderer wishes to purchase a weapon to use for mass slaughter will you favor his decision as well since he has the right to choose what he wants? No. The company has the right to deny service to him and thus can do the same with contraception. You cannot favor the liberty of women without favoring the liberty of a business.
You missed the notion of my example. The point you must grasp is that a business can deny service. That is a right of business. Humans have the right to choose. Humans do not have the right to recieve all that they want. You cannot favor liberty for women and not favor liberty for business. My notion still stands. I never claimed or stated that contraception was murder or was the equivalent of murder.
If I only sell tires and a woman asks me to provide contraception am I violating her rights? No. I choose not to provide it. If an insurance companie doesn't have contraception covered are they violating a woman's rights? No. They choose not to cover it. It is their right not to cover it.
That I agree with. I think cover both or cover neither. If an insurance company covers neither, oftentimes in cases of medical need, you can still get it covered. I think more than anything, people shouldn't have to fight so hard when it's medical need. But when someone is taking either medicine as a choice, they can pay for it themselves. Nice talking to you!
Wrong. Women have the right to affordable contraception. I am so tired of sexist males telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. My body, my right, my choice. I have the right to choose. Contraception on demand and without apology.
Women have the right to affordable contraception. Yes, this is true. If an insurance company provides it then by all means pursue it. I believe you are misinterpreting the question at hand here.
Should contraception be covered by health insurance?
If you say "yes" to this question you are implying that all insurance companies must provide contraception. A woman's choice to choose contraception is not what we are discussing here. We are arguing on whether insurance companies must provide contraception.
Okay. Allow me to further explain, because you are not understanding what I am telling you. I agree that it is a woman's right to purchase contraception. It is not a right to force insurance companies to provide them for you unless they wish to do so.
It is not right for a person to coerce an insurance company into providing coverage over contraception. That is implementing the use of force. If you value liberty then you value a businesses right to choose what services it wishes to provide.
Fighting my question with a question? Very well. A woman has the right to choose what she wants. A business has the right to choose what it shall provide to the public.
It is not a violation. A business chooses not to do something out of there own liberty. An insurance company is the same. They are allowed, by the logical notions within liberty, to choose what they shall provide.
Contraception is something that a person would typically seek out by themselves. Insurance companies should not have to provide a person with any contraceptions.
How come every time a statist doesn't like something its evil and needs to be banned, but if they want something it suddenly becomes a fundamental human right and its okay to force others to pay for it?
No it is not a right. You have the right to do what you want with your body, but you do not have the right to force others to pay for your contraception.
As I just stated, you have the right to do what you want with your body but you don't have the right to force other people to pay for your contraceptives. Did you even read what I wrote?
It seems that we have a similar notion. A woman has the right to contraceptives, but a woman does not have the right to force an insurance company to pay for her conception unless there was a voluntary contract signed before hand that clearly states that the insurance company will pay.
I do think not covering birth control currently is discrimination. Right now, every insurance company I know of covers viagra and other ED drugs. That tells me they support the man's right to screw the woman, but not the woman's right not to get pregnant from that. If they want to pay for the one, then they should pay for the other. However, without a doctor saying it's medically necessary, they don't need to pay for either one. Women's rights is all about the right to choose. To choose a lifestyle, to choose a job (or to not work at all), and to choose to engage in sex. If a woman chooses to engage in sex, part of that responsibility is paying for birth control. Just like if a guy with ED chooses to screw, he needs to pay for his own meds.
No one is getting between you and your doctor, stop using that straw man argument. Your health insurance agency either doesn't offer a plan that covers contraceptives or you aren't paying for one, you have the choice to switch agencies, plans or do what most people: buy their own contraceptives!
It is not a strawman to assert a woman's right to choose. Women who do not have money have the same right to choose as women with money. I am not arguing for free healthcare and contraception, but affordable healthcare and contraception. Because i support worker's rights, I believe in paying my doctors a fair wage for their services. I feel like it is a logical fallacy to automatically assume that I want everything for free. Please stop it. I do not. I just want things to be affordable. I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and if you let me present my case, I can state why I should be allowed contraception to be covered.
It is not a strawman to assert a woman's right to choose.
Actually, it is. You're saying that your "right to choose" is being infringed on by someone not paying for it.
I am not arguing for free healthcare and contraception, but affordable healthcare and contraception. Because i support worker's rights, I believe in paying my doctors a fair wage for their services. I feel like it is a logical fallacy to automatically assume that I want everything for free.
Its not a fallacy because it is exactly what you are arguing for, you're saying that your rights are being trampled on because someone won't buy you contraceptives.
I just want things to be affordable. I know that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and if you let me present my case, I can state why I should be allowed contraception to be covered.
Condoms and birth control pills are already affordable to most people, most of my friends and I work for $7.25 and hour and can afford contraceptives. Contraceptives should only be covered if it was in the plan to begin with, if you didn't agree to a plan that covers contraceptives then it shouldn't be covered.
Its not a fallacy because it is exactly what you are arguing for, you're saying that your rights are being trampled on because someone won't buy you contraceptives. That is not what I am saying. I am arguing for affordable contraception, not free contraception. You need to be truthful when you quote me, or I just will not speak to you, end of story.
Please explain to me what this logical fallacy is? You have a health care plan that does not include coverage of contraceptives, but you are demanding that they cover it anyway. You are asking them to provide a service that you did not pay for, yet, you say you are not arguing for free contraceptives. You have also said that health insurance not covering contraceptives is sexist despite the fact that both genders use contraceptives.
It is not a logical fallacy for me to disagree with you, and I refuse to speak to if you are going to be disrespectful and call names. You lose when you make personal attacks.
It is a logical fallacy for you to say you are not arguing for free contraception when you are asking your health insurance provider to give you free contraceptive coverage.
You lose when you refuse to answer questions, if this was your debate you would have banned me by now, but you can't, so you're just going to give me this weak excuse.
And I am done. I am not arguing for free contraception, but affordable contraception. Go ahead and have the last word, since that is all that you care about.
Contraception is a right because its a right because its a right. God damn fucking hell! It a right! a right! Of woman! My body! Fucking facists. Go for it Sitara. Its a right!
Why should the government have to pay for people to be able to have sex and not have children. Sex not to reproduce is recreational and not necessary for the world so if people can't pay for it themselves they can just not have it.
Sex is absolutely necessary. It is a fundamental part of a loving successful relationship (I'm not saying that's all that matters). I would like to know your thoughts or "education" regarding why sex is not necessary for the world. Contraception should absolutely be covered by health insurance. If we are talking money aspect, it is far cheaper to pay for contraceptives than it is the pregnancy and birth of a baby. I guess I'm confused on your thought process.
