by saying "not a right" do you think they should be illegal or just not paid for by healthcare?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just not paid for by healthcare

by Anonymous 11 years ago

and what is your reasoning for that?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

They're not essential toward health and well being and IMO healthcare should only provide things thay are very important (ie health emergencies, disease treatment, etc.)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

how is preventing unintended pregnancies not important? Women shouldn't have to risk getting pregnant because they can't afford birth control. And some women take birth control for medical reasons.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can think of one surefire way to prevent unintended pregnancy.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

abstaining from sex, obviously. but that is much easier said than done and clearly that doesn't work for a lot of people. So why not protect people by providing free birth control to those who cant afford it? it will prevent pregnancy which prevents abortions AND prevent people from having more children than they want or can afford. providing birth control is cheaper than having to pay for welfare or foodstamps or any other way the government gives money to help children and families. i hope this makes sense ;_;

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I see where you're coming from, but in my own mind I can't justify using taxpayer money to fund this, especially in this time when the government can't afford anything. Also I know plenty of people who were able to stay by the abstaining from sex "method".

by Anonymous 11 years ago

yes the economy is in not so good shape right now, so the last thing we need is unintended pregnancies for families to worry about when they have no money for it and birth control can help this. It's cheaper than welfare, and it's cheaper than the government having to pay for a child's education...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The responsibility in this case falls on the people rather than the government shouldn't it

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sexual abstinence is often used by people like the OP as the "surefire" way to solve it, but the fact is, it just doesn't work. And therefore by definition it is NOT surefire way. You are right. People are animals and it's in their nature to have sex. It's also in their nature to find ways to protect themselves. Contraception is protection, and it is natural to want people to have it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How can you say that sexual abstinence doesn't work? It does.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So naive. It just DOESN'T. it's unnatural and harmful to the human psyche. Most of the screwed up people in the world can trace it back to sexual frustration. Sex is a part of life. it is not a lower function or a base and vile thing like the abstinators would have us beleieve. It is a beautiful, sensual connection between people, with some unfortunate risks. It is essential to psychological health and well-being, and so IMO it should be fine to offer subsidized contraception to people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There's no 100% way, but contraception is certainly the best we have. I can't agree with any aspect of your reasoning. You sound a total fascist

by Anonymous 11 years ago

"Fascist"? That's a little drastic don't you think?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You don't think that taking this personal feeling of yours and transmitting over the whole nation like this doesn't sound a teensy bit fascist?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not at all

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Even though it totally is, we'll move on to the major flaw in your argument. Who on earth would believe that the sole purpose of contraception is to prevent pregnancy?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Pregnancy and STIs

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Right, and you said that healthcare should be providing for emergency aid and disease treatment, right? Well, since contraception is in fact helping more people prevent disease rather than pregnancy, isn't it therefore, even by your own logicl, right to issue contraception under healthcare? as a disease prevention method?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But the difference here lies in the way STIs are contracted. In order to get one, an individual needs to partake willingly in an act (p.s. I know what rape is) knowing the risks involved.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So you're saying, if we know the risks and do it, we should accept the consequences and state healthcare shouldn't be responsible?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But the thing is there are quite a lot of medical conditions that are treated with the use of contraception.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's what I was building to. As you no doubt also noticed. The OP is defying his own logic with his argument. In saying that now that we have sex knowing the potential consequences and therefore should take our own responsibility. They also therefore don't seem to want to provide emergency treatment to say, athletes or policemen who go into doing what they do understanding the risks but do it anyway. Do we not provide the police with the means to protect themselves against risks? do we not promise care to those injured in sports or leisure activities? They all understand the risks but are treated at the state's expense nonetheless. Why shouldn't the state be able to issue protection to those wishing to have sex?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We don't provide policemen the protection they need to do their job. They have it issued to them, yes, but it is not provided for free. The precinct needs to purchase all of the body-armor, firearms, ammunition, and other equipment. Exactly, care is provided //after// the event. Athletes and cops don't get their equipment for free, but they receive healthcare should they get hurt. Anything after the fact is irrelevant, and the relevant part of your argument is the protective gear going in to the activity. Neither example get it for free, it is all purchased. I don't think you made much of a good point at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But at the end of the day, where does the money for it all come from? It' s public money. That's what I'm getting at. I'm making an example of how people who do things knowing the risk are still afforded the protection of healthcare should anything go wrong. Why then shouldn't the same apply to sex? Why shouldn't the state provide contraception? It's a preventative measure against a myriad of dangerous diseases, and also against things like teen pregnancy. The OP seems to claim that because we go into sex knowing the riskss, the state shouldn't be responsible for issuing protection

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The key here is how public money should be spent, right? So, why shouldn't public money be used to provide contraception? The OP says it shouldn't be covered by healthcare. What's your position on that?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think there should be a compromise. I don't agree with OP saying it should never be covered by healthcare, but I don't agree with you guys that it should be given to people no questions asked. People that need it for treatment of a medical condition should have it covered. Possibly even people in a relationship where one partner has an STI and the other doesn't should have it covered. However, I don't think it should be just handed out to people looking to have sex and nothing else. In that case, it's simply recreational. I do think that having the knowledge of consequences means people shouldn't have it provided for free. It's not like it's really expensive, either. If a person can't afford their own contraception, they have more important things to worry about than sex. Also, answer me this. If cannabis were to become legal, do you think it should be covered by healthcare and provided for free to people because it prevents disease like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and is shown to have anti-cancer properties? Before you say that sex can't be compared with getting high, let me just say that getting high is also natural. Animals do it frequently.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Herein lies the difference in our thinking - the reason I think it SHOULD be given without question is that it's not just about stopping people getting pregnant - it's about disease prevention. It's absolutely beneficial to stop the spread of STDs, and contraception is absolutely a way to do that. Another thing, making contraception freely available to people is NOT a substitute for education - and no one who supports free contraception would argue against more education for people on the subject. Finally, I love the inclusion of marijuana in this. I personally do think it should be legal, availabe for sale and taxed. But anyway, to answer your question, (and btw i wouldn't have said the thing about sex and getting high, hehe), I would argue on a merit basis that free contraception is more beneficial to society at large than free cannabis, since the short-term and long-term effects are more tangible and definite. I'm never one to attach too absolute a label to an issue (if I can help it), but making it available to people who can be shown to be susceptible to such things as you said might be a good idea.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

^This. You my friend, get it

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Athletes, fishermen, and other people whose jobs put them at high risk also have to pay a lot more in insurance and other such things as a result of their career/lifestyle. People who have a lot of sex (esp. with multiple partners) should likewise have to pay more to cover themselves against the risk their lifestyle entails

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It only takes ONE time to contract an STD or get pregnant, you know that right? The advantages in disease prevention alone outweight any argument you have put forward so far.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Anyway, why not address the point rather than cherry pick words and add a question mark?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What about those who use contraceptives for other things? You never answered that part from the previous comments.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What do you feel about birth control that is not going to be used as a contraceptive but instead to help with the menstrual cycle?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I certainly don't agree with pretty much anyone above. This is a tough post to vote on because a lot of things are subjective. Is having sex a right? Yes. Should the healthcare provide means of having protected sex strictly for fun? No. Do people use contraceptives for existing health problems? Yes. Should //these// people be able to get contraceptives provided by healthcare? Yes. Look at it this way. Cannabis is available by prescription to people who need it. However, it obviously is also very fun to use. Should people strictly using it for fun be able to have it provided by any form of healthcare? No, absolutely not. People using it for fun and fun alone can buy it for themselves. It's not a necessity. There are more important things than sex; such as cars, housing, clothing, etc. Who is providing these things to people who need them? If we're going to use tax money to give people things they "need", I think those sorts of things should be taken care of before we try to facilitate people having safe sex.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd like to point out that Viagra is covered and that is primarily used for men who have erectile dysfunction to have sex for fun.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, I'm on the fence about that. Sex is a right, and ED takes away that right. A healthy person is capable of having sex without contraceptives. A man with ED is not capable of having sex without Viagra. That aside, it was tough to think what my final thought would be. After a few minutes of thought, I'm not sure I agree that the Government should have to facilitate //anyone// having sex at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is very well reasoned out - but where I disagree if your labelling of people who have sex "just for fun". The reason I disagree is that sex isn't just a "fun" thing, it's actually part of a healthy life and relationship, and contributes to psychological well-being. A well sexed population is more relaxed, more at ease, and less susceptible to certain problems. So, if contraception is readily available to all, we can also eliminate the unfortunate other risks that go along with sex between people. And when you think about it, most forms of contraception are cheap and would be easy enough to provide. At the olympics this year they provided...was it 160,000?...free condoms to all the athletes. Regarding sex as some kind of elective hobby like hiking or rock climbing is ignorant and wrong. I'm not addressing this point to you in fact, but I'm just pointing that out. It's a natural part of life that all sexually reproducing life engages in.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It's cheaper to prevent a baby rather than have taxpayer money raise one.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

^^^This. If a woman is getting their contraceptive pills through government assistance, that means they wouldn't be able to afford pregnancy/birth. So, she would be on assistance for the pregnancy (that's monthly visits up until 35 weeks, then weekly visits in a normal pregnancy; more frequently for an 'at-risk' pregnancy), however many ultrasounds (typically at least one), then the birth. If they (hopefully) decide to get their tubes tied (if not, multiply by number of kids)<---all covered by the government Then once the baby is born they will put the baby on assistance. *2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, (if I remember right...) 9 months, 1 year, 18 months, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, etc. Well baby visits, shots, dentist visits at least once a year... er visits for every minor/major injury. All covered by your tax money. Then throw in food stamps (more money per child), power (that's utility bill help), child care (for daycare), and every other available program... all covered by the government... ...And you're worried about a pill a week/month?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are agreeing with me, correct?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes. The last sentence was more directed to the op... the rest is where the taxpayer money goes to raise a welfare baby.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's what I was hoping for.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So, everyone should go around never getting laid? Your world sounds so not fun.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No. People should go.around getting laid all the time. But they should have to pay for their own condoms.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Says you.

by Anonymous 11 years ago