CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:13
Arguments:11
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 My question to those who believe that contraceptives should be provided (11)

Debate Creator

ThePyg(6737) pic



My question to those who believe that contraceptives should be provided

Often times, I see that an argument from some people is that not forcing all health insurance companies to provide birth control is an attack on women's rights...

Another argument comes from public schools needing to provide free birth control to those who ask, courtesy of the tax payers.

And another is funding for planned parenthood, from the taxpayers, which provides birth control and cheap-to-free abortions.

Arguments from some is that cutting funding or mandates that would make abortion and/or contraceptives readily available, cheap, or free is an attack or limit on women's rights.

Now, arguments about this come from so many directions.  Some wish to go by monetary stances, saying that birth control is expensive... arguments have been made against that pointing out that generic birth control is very cheap and just as good, or that spouses or boyfriends can split the bill, or that if it is not a health issue (which 99% of health insurance companies cover anyway), why not just use condoms?  But again and again... that is all ignored.

Others wish to point out that abortions and contraceptives will limit healthcare costs... because irresponsible behavior is only a result of unwillingness to pay any money for things like contraceptives?  Or that abortions are a matter of money and not morality (many taxpayers don't like paying for others' abortions). 

But really, even if either of these arguments are the case... how is it an attack or limitation on women's rights?  since when has women's rights become provisions for the right to have all the sex they want with all the consequences paid for by government (taxpayers)?

And where in the Constitution does it say any of this?  

I decided to look at the Bill of Rights and found nothing on the matter.  I did, however, notice the second Amendment.  The Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the American people have the right to own firearms.  So... considering how much MORE expensive guns and ammunition are compared to abortion and contraceptives... wouldn't it make sense for government to DEFINITELY pay for guns to those who want them?  If women's rights is free contraceptives and abortions, shouldn't second amendment rights be free guns?  (especially since guns are expensive and the right to them are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights... the thing where we get our rights from).

Add New Argument
1 point

I would have to agree with you on this one. And, I think that at the time the constitution was written, most of the firearms were provided by the governing body, not the individual. So, while I don't think everyone is ready to have a firearm in their home, I do beleive the government could pay for them...as long as you are willing to use it in case of civil or other unrest.

Sitara(11082) Banned
1 point

Contraception is a right. People have the right to choose whether they become parents or not. No one has the right to take this choice away. The antichoice mentality is dangerous. People whine and bitch about employer's conscience rights. Well other people's conscience rights are just as important. Religious freedom is not the freedom to violate people's rights. We do not live in a theocracy.

ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

Contraception is a right. People have the right to choose whether they become parents or not. No one has the right to take this choice away. The antichoice mentality is dangerous.

Off topic. I am discussing forcing others to pay for a product or service. Not allowing for others to buy something voluntarily.

Sitara(11082) Disputed Banned
1 point

No it is not off topic. Contraception needs to be covered by insurance because it is a right.