CreateDebate


Debate Info

20
25
Yes NO
Debate Score:45
Arguments:32
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (16)
 
 NO (16)

Debate Creator

Tuxgirl(45) pic



Washington state considers mandatory abortion insurance. What do you think?

In 1970, Washington became the first -- and remains the only -- state in the country to legalize elective abortions by a popular vote.

A generation later, and 40 years removed from the landmark United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling that extended abortion access nationwide, Washington is once again poised to stand out.

With 21 states having adopted bans or severe restrictions on insurance companies from paying for abortions, Washington is alone in seriously considering legislation mandating the opposite.

Yes

Side Score: 20
VS.

NO

Side Score: 25
No arguments found. Add one!

Ridiculous, why should responsible women be forced into purchasing abortion insurance and assume all the risk while irresponsible women get all the benefits?

Side: NO
Sitara(11080) Disputed
4 points

And why should child free people be forced to pay for prenatal care? People with children have all of the benefits.

Side: Yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Ridiculous, why should responsible people who don't happen to get cancer be forced into purchasing cancer insurance and assume all the risk while irresponsible people who get cancer get all the benefits?

Same logic. You seem to not understand the point of insurance.

Side: Yes
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

Purchase of insurance is a voluntary exchange of a person who wants to be insured payment for an incident and a service that can offer that payment, so long as the person subscribes to monthly payments with or without needed service.

That is the point.

When legislation forces people to purchase insurance, they are merely increasing profit for a company that provides a service. Many people don't get abortions, so many people don't wish to purchase insurance for an abortion. Not to mention there are many options for when you get pregnant, and one can choose accordingly based on what they want. So abortion insurance is not high in demand.

most people, though, are willing to do a lot to keep themselves from dying from cancer. This is why insurance that covers cancer patients is in high demand. It is profitable for insurance companies to offer coverage for cancer patients because most people would be willing to pay for that type of insurance.

However, with most companies not profiting from abortion insurance, it greatly benefits them when the government forces people to purchase abortion insurance. Also, abortions aren't even expensive enough to really justify subscribing to abortion insurance for a long time unless it came as part of a plan.

It makes no economic sense to force people to buy abortion insurance. And more importantly, I'd see this as coercive acts of government forcing a populace to give their money to a company. I don't even see how anyone benefits from this EXCEPT for the insurance companies...

Side: NO
1 point

I understand insurance being I am in the industry.

Not sure what kind of idiot compares cancer to abortion where the former is uncontrollable and the latter is controllable.

Apparently, your brain can't distinguish between uncontrollable and controllable factors in life.

Insurance is alleviates risk of uncertainty in the future of unexpected events, and since nobody knows if or when someone may get cancer, insurance lowers the risk of uncertainty while sex is an expected daily activity, so there is no need to force people into purchasing abortion insurance especially if it is a controllable factor in life, pregnancy is expected events in many women lives, thus, this would skyrocket the price of abortions.

Side: NO
1 point

Same logic. You seem to not understand the point of insurance.

You can't really claim that its the same logic when cancer and abortion are two very different things. An abortion is what comes after a pregnancy and a pregnancy is a controllable factor for the most part. Cancer on the other hand is not for the most part, sure, sticking you're head in the microwave and chain smoking may cause certain kinds of cancer, but it is still largely an uncontrollable factor.

Why should a non-sexually active women be forced to pay for abortion insurance? Why should any women be forced to pay for abortion service for that matter? I thought you were a feminist, you know, the old idea that women are strong, independent and capable of running their own lives (which they certainly can), so why are you telling them what to do in the insurance market?

Side: NO
FearDaTurtle(9) Disputed
1 point

Cancer and pregnancy are very different! One is a disease, and the other is caused by sex and is natural! It's apples and oranges! Not to mention, paying for abortions violates religious freedoms, whereas, most people are not against fighting cancer!

Side: NO