CreateDebate


Debate Info

81
47
Yes No
Debate Score:128
Arguments:109
Total Votes:150
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (51)
 
 No (36)

Debate Creator

Elvira(3445) pic



Should birth control be free?

Yes

Side Score: 81
VS.

No

Side Score: 47

I would rather have to pay for someone else to have condoms or some pills than have to pay for their accidentally conceived, unwanted bastard children.

Side: Yes

I agree, unwanted bastard children just pose problems to our society :D

Side: Yes
Harvard(660) Disputed
2 points

What about wanted non-bastard children who, after they've killed a number of people, kill themselves. Are they not a problem?

Also, what about wanted non-bastard children who are/were grotesque serial killers/rapist (Jeffrey, Ted, the usual)? No problem?

What about non-bastard wanted children who are pedophiles and/or child rapist (Warren Jeff, and others convicted pedos who, typ., are mostly white)? Problem free right?

Could this be a detestation of a certain race (I mean... come on... we all know this was racially gestured towards black males) simply because the are much more endowed (if you know what I mean)?

Mommy and daddy instilled racial propaganda, and your simple (albeit 'supreme') mind cannot realize how ridiculous racism is? (Though, let me guess, you probably are an atheist because you realized how ridiculous religion is... right?)

Side: No
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

You are speaking about yourself of course. The world would be a better place without you correct? The self love and arrogance of pro choice loonies is beyond rational. The utter inhumanity of any people to sacrifice others for their own sake is beyond hideous.

Side: No

While there are many out there who will say "I don't want to pay for someone else's sex", the reality is that free birth control would not only pay for itself, but would over all save the country money. It would decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, which would help cut the costs to our social safety net. It would also decrease crime rates, as unwanted or unexpected children in lower income areas quite often coincide with increased crime rates (for reasons that should be rather clear).

Side: Yes

I know this is a different debate from a woman having the right but...

I believe she has a right, so...

It should be free to be fair to women who can't afford it. It should be allowed, therefore, it should be allowed fairly.

Side: Yes
daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

I believe she has a right, so...

It should be free to be fair to women who can't afford it

Do you see that using this logic also leads to other ridiculous "should be's" like:

Since I can control my own body I should be able to get free face lifts, or free tummy tucks, or free sex change surgery.

NONE of these are rights that we should be given for free.

Side: No
2 points

I agree that they are not rights, but look at it pragmatically Daver: Would you rather pay for women to get the pill, or would you rather pay (directly or indirectly) for the consequences of these unwanted children? One way or another (be it social services, law enforcement, societal cost from crime, etc) you will pay for it, but the amount you pay will differ depending on how proactive you'd like to be.

Side: Yes
1 point

Population growth is at an alarming rate that poses innumerable threats to the economy and ecology. The government should do whatever to help push prevention methods. It's not a mere matter of personal responsibility, it is a global crisis that needs to be dealt with carefully.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

Germany and the Nazi's had similar mind sets when they deemed the Jewish people being a burden on their society so their answer was the holocaust. I'm sure you are for forcing tax payers to fund abortions through medicaid, etc. If you are so afraid of population growth, start your own free birth control condom banks for the people ok? I mean gee, a condom costs a whole dollar or free in most places. NAHHH, YOU WANT TO FORCE OTHERS TO PAY FOR YOUR BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTIONS.

Side: No
2 points

"Germany and the Nazi's had similar mind sets when they deemed the Jewish people being a burden on their society so their answer was the holocaust." Wow. That is so, SO far off. The Nazi's believed the Jews had TOO much power, and TOO much wealth, and that they were taking advantage of the German people. Which is the exact opposite of the poorly done comparison you made.

And you will be paying, indirectly or directly, for the repercussions one way or another. If you are proactive, you will pay less. If you are reactive, you will pay more. You can pitch a fit if you want, but the societal cost will remain, be it through government action, or through social repercussions (crime, unemployment, etc).

Side: Yes
14giraffes(87) Disputed
1 point

I'm sure you are for forcing tax payers to fund abortions through medicaid, etc.

I am not a big fan of abortion either, but making it illegal is one of the worst solutions. Abortion made illegal just goes underground where it is more dangerous. The right solution is to make prevention extremely accessible to everyone, and to boost sex education. Sex ed is disastrous right now. I didn't take sex ed until I was 17, and it was one class about 30 minutes long.

If you are so afraid of population growth, start your own free birth control condom banks for the people ok? I mean gee, a condom costs a whole dollar or free in most places. NAHHH, YOU WANT TO FORCE OTHERS TO PAY FOR YOUR BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTIONS.

We already have a system where people can decide to create condom banks for people, and as you can tell it isn't working.

Germany and the Nazi's had similar mind sets when they deemed the Jewish people being a burden on their society so their answer was the holocaust.

Chomsky compares right wing media to nazi germany
Side: Yes
1 point

If only it could be ........

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes.

Side: No
1 point

Birth control should be free With all the greed in this world, a budget for free birth control is not only necessary because of rape, experimentation of sexuality (aka human nature) and any other miscellaneous reasoning to one's bennefit, but plausible to women and society. How? Let me tell you. For one rape happens every few minutes, this means children are accidentally conceived, the solution is birth control. You can not control human nature either, sex is going to happen, birth control should be available the moment a girl gets her period. Complain all you want about where your money goes. You have no idea where your money even does go, do it for a good cause. Stop being greedy. Do not even call me greedy for a second because I am only worrying about us women and what benefits us, you should too.

Side: Yes

I think birth control should be free for those who can't afford it.

Side: Yes
2 points

How about abstinence...*

Side: No
1 point

No it should be controlled because resourced are getting over and people are suffering in poverty

Side: No
1 point

No it should be controlled because resourced are getting over and people are suffering in poverty

Side: No
1 point

No it should be controlled because resourced are getting over and people are suffering in poverty

Side: No
1 point

No it should be controlled because resourced are getting over and people are suffering in poverty

Side: No
0 points

I can see it coming a mile away! Liberals declaring that a woman has a constitutional right to have a cock put in her vagina without a condom attached and without risk of pregnancy. Therefore, she has a right to free birth control pills or any other method she so desires. It is a privacy issue after all, just like abortion.

Side: No
Elvira(3445) Disputed
3 points

Personally I'm on the pill because it stops my periods and allows me to concentrate on studying, not being in a ridiculous amount of pain. And yes, I get it for free because contraceptives are free on the NHS and I don't pay for prescription being a full time student.

Talking about people that actually have sex, condoms (which are also birth control) break. People get drunk and forget them, and if a child is produced the state has to pay out for education, child support or quite likely their care home.

Side: Yes
daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

I'm guessing that in your opinion BC pills should be free. The reasons being that you want to avoid menstrual pain (which can be severe in some some women) plus the pill provides better protection than condoms. Further the pill provides protection in case someone makes two poor decisions at the same time (drunken sex). I agree that those are significant benefits, but I'm failing to understand why you believe taxpayers should provide them to you at their expense. :-/

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

Yes, people CHOOSE to get drunk and then have a ludicrous excuse to do stupid irresponsible things. I never got drunk when I was young..... gee how is that possible? According to those on the Left there is no fault for anything people choose to do. That's the problem with this sickening new age political correct drivel.

Idiots tell people that alcoholism is a disease and no one's fault. What a crock! If that person chose not to drink too much, he would have never become an alcoholic. No fault!

They tell everyone it's not your fault when you choose to have sex with losers who would never be a father to their child, and when you get pregnant you run down to the tax payers to bail you out. No fault!

You choose to buy houses you could never afford and the Government blames the banks.... No fault!

This left wing America is a dead man walking. The no fault ideology will be the death to this nation. We will die from within. No foreign power needed.

Side: No
1 point

Why not deal with the actual issue, instead of throwing around straw men like crazy?

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

Take your pathetic rants of "straw men" and ignore me. You refuse to address the points, you constantly rant about nonsense because you know my arguments have merit. Is it time to ignore you for wasting our time?

Side: No
0 points

That is the typical answer to no fault Liberals who basically say, some people will do stupid irresponsible things and therefore we will force others to pay for the consequences.

Do you have a clue how damaging that kind of bleeding heart thinking has been to this nation?

Imagine if we used that same type of reasoning to things hypocrite Liberals are against. Lets use your reasoning and put it into action for those who do stupid things such as getting drunk and driving. Are you against laws that say getting drunk is no excuse for drunk driving because you are taking a chance you might harm others. But I thought you said getting drunk and doing stupid things is not something to condemn. You say "They're citizens of a state and the state has to look after its citizens". Hmmmmmmm..... does choosing to get drunk, sleeping with an idiot dead beat who would probably abandon his child, taking the chance of getting pregnant, etc. harm others? Yes it harms that child who never asked to be fatherless and never asked to live a demeaning life of welfare, living off charity from others. It hurts the tax payers and society as a whole when they are forced to support the mother and child. But in your world, that analogy does not resonate.

How about when someone gets drunk and then sets a Forrest on fire by accident. Not his fault right? We won't condemn him or fine him will we? Not his fault?.... people do stupid things don't you know? Another analogy that just does not resonate with Liberal thinking. People such as yourself have no problem forcing accountability for those types of things but when it comes to sex or drugs or drinking irresponsibly, etc. you say let them be, don't shame them, they are citizens of the state don't you know?

Liberals are so quick to judge and punish those who dare break their rules, but choosing to get drunk, having irresponsible sex, living off the tax payers and sentencing an innocent child to a lousy life is no one's fault. We will say and do nothing about it.

Side: No
-1 points

Should guns be free? I need a gun for protection in our home. Shouldn't people who can not afford guns for protection, have the tax payers pay for them? By the time a police officer gets to my house, we will be dead. I think my families protection is every bit as important as a woman's protection against pregnancy.

Ok lets make a compromise? I won't ask you to pay for my guns and I won't pay for your contraceptives.

GET REAL! Buy your own birth control! Condoms are dirt cheap or free.

Side: No
Elvira(3445) Disputed
3 points

The whole gun analogy doesn't work. Burglary is rare, something a person can expect to go their entire lives without experiencing if they live in a safe area. Sex is common, and pregnancy costs the country: especially unwanted pregnancies where a child is given into care.

If you're not an idiot you should know that birth control has other uses. Condoms protect against these sometimes fatal, sometimes irritating things we call STI's. Y'know, like AIDS and syphilis.

Birth control is not cheap. If I had to pay for the pill I would be spending £15/week, which is a lot. More than I spend on food.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

There is no analogy that would ever be good enough for brainwashed folks such as yourself. This is why I don't respond to half of your excuses. There is nothing that could ever be said to get through your indoctrination.

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You have not actually provided a good enough demonstration that his analogy is bad. If burglary is so rare then you only have to spend money one time to protect someone for life. Since you don't need to get super fancy with a gun for home protection $500 will be good enough. $500 to prevent burglary is a good deal.

Birth control is not cheap. If I had to pay for the pill I would be spending £15/week, which is a lot. More than I spend on food.

For the price of the pill, you can pay off the gun in 23 weeks. So, as long as you need the pill for half a year it is actually cheaper to pay for his gun and protect him forever.

How is that for actual debating? :)

Side: No
1 point

So is your argument principally based, or are you under the assumption that it would have a net cost to society?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes.

Side: No