Should Contraception be free?
Yes, no questions asked
42.6% (40)
42.6% (40)
No, absolutely not
27.7% (26)
27.7% (26)
Yes, with stipulations
17% (16)
17% (16)
No, with concessions
11.7% (11)
11.7% (11)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should contraception be free?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

You do realize you can't really say you paid for anything you don't have a reciept for, right? Taxes aren't a business transaction.

Then again, as I said, contraception is cheap as it is, it being free wouldn't really change much.

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

Selfishness is a really bad argument.

Besides, even if you want to reason like that, it saves you money because the alternative (meaning teenage pregnancies, std's and what not) is much more expensive. It also saves one the responsibility of encouraging those things to happen by not paying for prevention. I wouldn't want to think I had anything to do with policies that encourage people to have unsafe sex.

Captcha cracks me up: "case closed"

Okay, the argument here is female contraception, which is a hormonal pill, not condoms. And, as the US is undergoing this debate right now, I'm going to go from my home country's perspective. The Hormone pill which is designed to inhibit certain functions of the human body should be completely free, as it can prevent large amounts of menstrual pain, as well as some cases of ovarian cysts which are prevented or reduced by these hormones. We aren't saying that the insurance company, who is required to cover these, will be forced to provide prophylactics, but the birth control pill. So yes, with a few limitations, such as the contraception not being condoms which are free, but the pill. For women. Because they can suffer without it.

Blablahb:

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

Selfishness is a really bad argument.

Besides, even if you want to reason like that, it saves you money because the alternative (meaning teenage pregnancies, std's and what not) is much more expensive. It also saves one the responsibility of encouraging those things to happen by not paying for prevention. I wouldn't want to think I had anything to do with policies that encourage people to have unsafe sex.

Captcha cracks me up: "case closed"

Selfishness is -always- a good argument. It's called 'I don't owe you anything, keep your genitals to yourself if you can't afford to have sex.' It's called objecting to the rise of the welfare nanny state. If people can't take care of themselves, then let them get STDs. Maybe natural selection can run its course.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Selfishness is -always- a good argument. It's called 'I don't owe you anything, keep your genitals to yourself if you can't afford to have sex.' It's called objecting to the rise of the welfare nanny state. If people can't take care of themselves, then let them get STDs. Maybe natural selection can run its course.

Again, unless you have the reciepts for stuff, I'm going to call bullshit on you if you say you "paid for" something.

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

i would much rather pay for other people's condoms than other people's babies.

I'd rather pay for neither, personally.

Rule #1. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I think that contraception should have a cost, but should be reduced to certain age bands.
I'm ever so grateful that I can get free condoms, very easily in the UK. But that would mean an increase in taxes, which is always bad so I don't know.

Vegosiux:

PrinceOfShapeir:

Selfishness is -always- a good argument. It's called 'I don't owe you anything, keep your genitals to yourself if you can't afford to have sex.' It's called objecting to the rise of the welfare nanny state. If people can't take care of themselves, then let them get STDs. Maybe natural selection can run its course.

Again, unless you have the reciepts for stuff, I'm going to call bullshit on you if you say you "paid for" something.

Your definition of "paying for something" is shockingly naive.

And you do get receipts. They're called tax returns.

Anyway, I think that there should be some low but nominal cost for contraceptives. Last I heard, agencies which provide contraceptives to impoverished communities in Africa do charge a small fee (very small for our standards) because it actually results in higher incidents of usage. The idea is that if you have to pay for something yourself, even if its only a little bit, you will take it more seriously and be more prone to properly use it.

As far as the policy in the US is concerned, I don't think free should be the way to go. Heavily subsidized, maybe, but only on the argument that such a policy would result in lower costs to taxpayers over time. If this were not the case (as i suppose it is) I could not justify providing assistance in acquiring contraceptives but not for something like Alka-Seltzer for people who get heartburn after eating spicy food.

randomsix:

Your definition of "paying for something" is shockingly naive.

And you do get receipts. They're called tax returns.

Actually, my definition of "paying for something" is just that - "paying for something". Taxes aren't a business transaction. And unless you can track down the particular euros, dollars, sterlings, yens or whathaveyou that you specifically got taxed for, you have no way of knowing just what they were used to "pay for".

I'd be more inclined to say people have no clue on how taxation and state services work. When you pay your tax, you're paying for a functioning state, and that's it.

I mean, if I pay for a meal in a restaurant, I have no grounds to say I'm paying for anyone's salary, because once the money leaves my hands, I have no more claim to it and no way to pinpoint where it went.

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'd rather pay for neither, personally.

Then you should move to Greece. There, people really just don't give a damn about paying taxes. You can just go ahead and not pay a dime, if you want.

Oh, right, sorry, it's a country on the verge of both economic and political collapse and that has to be completely carried by the rest of the European Union.

Also, I don't suppose you exclusively dig your own well, pave your own roads and find your own planet to live on, so as not to have other people pay for what you utilize, hmmm?

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

Your definition of "paying for something" is shockingly naive.

And you do get receipts. They're called tax returns.

Actually, my definition of "paying for something" is just that - "paying for something". Taxes aren't a business transaction. And unless you can track down the particular euros, dollars, sterlings, yens or whathaveyou that you specifically got taxed for, you have no way of knowing just what they were used to "pay for".

I'd be more inclined to say people have no clue on how taxation and state services work. When you pay your tax, you're paying for a functioning state, and that's it.

I mean, if I pay for a meal in a restaurant, I have no grounds to say I'm paying for anyone's salary, because once the money leaves my hands, I have no more claim to it and no way to pinpoint where it went.

You unreasonably constrain the meaning of the phrase. There are two ways in which someone can pay for something in a monetary sense.

The first is directly. This is the sense you use. I directly pay for a hamburger.

The second is indirectly. If you put your money into any system which then puts that money to use, internally or externally, then you have indirectly contributed to the payment for whatever service or product that system purchased. By directly paying for a hamburger, I am indirectly paying for the wages of the employees at the establishment. If this was not the case, then if everyone who pays for hamburgers suddenly stopped, the employees should still receive their salaries. This is obviously not the case. If no one bought a vendor's hamburgers, the vendor would have no money with which to pay its employees.

It doesn't matter that you can't track every dollar that goes into the system. If you contribute to the system, you might as well consider your input as going proportionally to the costs of that system.

This is also evident in your "paying for a functioning state" claim. Let us suppose it to be true. If I am now paying X for a functioning state which provides Y, then I am paying for Y. Therefore, if I now pay X+1 for a functioning state which provides Y+contraception, then I am paying for both Y and contraception. Therefore I am paying for contraception.

randomsix:

-snip

Once the money leaves your hands, you no longer have any claim to it. Yo do not have any grounds to say you are paying anything with it, because it is, at that point, no longer your money.

It's the same with everything. Once you've given it away, it's no longer yours. Same with the tax money, the moment you're taxed, that money isn't your money anymore, but the state's.

Yes, you can say that you don't like having to pay more tax because the government is adopting this or that policy, I got no problems with that. But you're still not paying for condoms.

Also, what you seem to forget (or rather, everyone who uses the "MY MONEY!!!" argument) is that taxes don't go up every time a new policy is adopted that needs to be funded. Nor do they go down every time a policy is dropped. And in such a complex system, you can't go with "other things being equal", because other things will not be equal.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

-snip

Once the money leaves your hands, you no longer have any claim to it. Yo do not have any grounds to say you are paying anything with it, because it is, at that point, no longer your money.

It's the same with everything. Once you've given it away, it's no longer yours. Same with the tax money, the moment you're taxed, that money isn't your money anymore, but the state's.

Yes, you can say that you don't like having to pay more tax because the government is adopting this or that policy, I got no problems with that. But you're still not paying for condoms.

Also, what you seem to forget (or rather, everyone who uses the "MY MONEY!!!" argument) is that taxes don't go up every time a new policy is adopted that needs to be funded. Nor do they go down every time a policy is dropped. And in such a complex system, you can't go with "other things being equal", because other things will not be equal.

Ok let's try an analogy.

You are basically saying that if I shoot someone, I did not kill the person, the lack of blood to their brain caused by having a hunk of lead enter their heart killed them.

Except we do say that I killed that person, because without my contribution to the equation, the victim would not be dead.

It is the same with taxes. Can the government pay for the contraception without the input of the taxpayers? No it cannot. Even if the taxpayer does not directly purchase a product, the taxpayer's contribution is what allows the purchase to happen.

Or how about this: If a parent gives his child money to buy a movie ticket, do you deny that the parent paid for the ticket?

If you cannot understand your mistake together with these examples and the explanation of the two conceptions of "payment" that I detailed in the post you quoted, I cannot help you.

randomsix:

Ok let's try an analogy.

You are basically saying that if I shoot someone, I did not kill the person, the lack of blood to their brain caused by having a hunk of lead enter their heart killed them.

Except we do say that I killed that person, because without my contribution to the equation, the victim would not be dead.

No, that's not "me basically saying" anything, that's "you twisting words and putting them in other people's mouth when it suits you". Stop that.

Or maybe let's try my analogy. A man was shot. And now I'd say if you own a gun you had a part in shooting that man - just as retarded as your "analogy".

It is the same with taxes. Can the government pay for the contraception without the input of the taxpayers? No it cannot. Even if the taxpayer does not directly purchase a product, the taxpayer's contribution is what allows the purchase to happen.

*bemused*

Of course it can pay for it without the contribution of the taxpayers. Think taxes are the only way for a government to get money?

Or how about this: If a parent gives his child money to buy a movie ticket, do you deny that the parent paid for the ticket?

Aside from the fact that yes, the kid paid for the ticket, there's also a difference between this scenario and the tax scenario, if you want to claim that the parent paid for it indirectly. I'll let you figure it out on your own.

If you cannot understand your mistake together with these examples and the explanation of the two conceptions of "payment" that I detailed in the post you quoted, I cannot help you.

If you can't beat them, patronize them, right? *rolls eyes*

I today had it put to me that if anything should be free, it should be tampons and sanitary pads. Whether or not sex is a basic human right can be argued back and forth all day, but women have to buy these horrible things for anything up to 40 years of their lives. It's basically a tax on being female.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Selfishness is -always- a good argument. It's called 'I don't owe you anything, keep your genitals to yourself if you can't afford to have sex.' It's called objecting to the rise of the welfare nanny state. If people can't take care of themselves, then let them get STDs. Maybe natural selection can run its course.

And in this, you are by no means a hypocrite, so if you catch a potentially fatal disease or suffer a serious injury like a broken leg, you do not visit a doctor or hospital, and continue to go to work normally so society isn't burderened by you?

Anything short of that is hypocrisy you know, that's why the vast majority of people accept we have a responsibility to one another. One that for instance involves reproductive health, and refraining from respectless statements like "Don't sleep around and I won't have to pay for you".

Vegosiux:

If you can't beat them, patronize them, right? *rolls eyes*

I knew you would come around sooner or later.

Batou667:
I today had it put to me that if anything should be free, it should be tampons and sanitary pads. Whether or not sex is a basic human right can be argued back and forth all day, but women have to buy these horrible things for anything up to 40 years of their lives. It's basically a tax on being female.

This is actually a good point, but I wonder if some might object to it under the same sort of argument the fresh prince used above. Even then, I can't think of any other condition which would work as a precedent when it comes to this.

Personally, I think that a society as wealthy as ours should be able to provide a bare minimum of cleanliness that tampons and pads would provide, so I am of the opinion that yes, if a individual cannot afford them, the government should make them available.

I say yes, because "you need to pay to NOT have a child" sound insane to me.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Selfishness is -always- a good argument. It's called 'I don't owe you anything, keep your genitals to yourself if you can't afford to have sex.' It's called objecting to the rise of the welfare nanny state. If people can't take care of themselves, then let them get STDs. Maybe natural selection can run its course.

No, it isn't. If all we ever concern ourselves with is our own personal well-being, then how on Earth can we ever expect things to become better for anyone else? Furthermore, it'll cost far more of your ever so precious tax money if people start dying left and right of easily preventable STDs.

If you live in a functional state, you are going to have to pay taxes to keep it functioning. I, for instance, don't like that I'm part in keeping Mattias Flink fed and warm in prison, for instance, but I have to, because it needs to be done. It's how the adult world works, shit you don't want to needs to be done anyway, and you can't pick and choose where your tax money goes, except for voting for whichever political movement that represents your interests best. Stuff we don't want to pay for needs to be payed for none the less.
Of course, a welfare-system taken too far is not a good thing, and a perfectly reasonable thing to object to. But providing something as cheap as condoms isn't exactly a huge personal expense on anyone's part.

And honestly, is it really a good idea to rather have people die and suffer of easily preventable ailments out of principle?

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

I object to the idea that I have to pay for an idiotic military strategy in Iraq undertaken by a cowboy President. I object to the fact that I have to pay for aid and resources in Afghanistan that were incompetently lost. I object to the idea that I have to pay for banks' bad business practices. I object to the idea that I have to pay for pennies and paper dollar bills. I object to the fact that I have to pay for people who visit emergency rooms and then can't pay because they can't get reasonable health insurance. I object to the fact that I have to pay for the subsidization of high-fructose corn syrup as a default sweetener in practically every product I buy in this country. I object to the fact that I have to pay for a vehicle, gas, and insurance, just because everyone thought it was "uncool" to have a reasonably designed city infrastructure. I object that I have to pay extra for my education because my state lowered aid to schools, while simultaneously I have to pay for the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders because some legislator thinks anti-drug laws are a way to compensate for his tiny, tiny balls. I object to the fact that I have to pay for Republican legislators who have spent the last three years obstructing policy at every turn not because they disagree with the policy, but because they want to make a Democratic President look bad.

But I have to suck it up and pay for all those things. Because part of living in a society is the requirement to sometimes pay for things you don't personally want to. So I don't really have much sympathy for you.

No, but it should be covered. Also I wanna see this become popular

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance

For serious, I want it

Katatori-kun:

PrinceOfShapeir:
I'm not anti-contraceptives, but I object to the idea that I have to pay for other people's condoms.

I object to the idea that I have to pay for an idiotic military strategy in Iraq undertaken by a cowboy President. I object to the fact that I have to pay for aid and resources in Afghanistan that were incompetently lost. I object to the idea that I have to pay for banks' bad business practices. I object to the idea that I have to pay for pennies and paper dollar bills. I object to the fact that I have to pay for people who visit emergency rooms and then can't pay because they can't get reasonable health insurance. I object to the fact that I have to pay for the subsidization of high-fructose corn syrup as a default sweetener in practically every product I buy in this country. I object to the fact that I have to pay for a vehicle, gas, and insurance, just because everyone thought it was "uncool" to have a reasonably designed city infrastructure. I object that I have to pay extra for my education because my state lowered aid to schools, while simultaneously I have to pay for the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders because some legislator thinks anti-drug laws are a way to compensate for his tiny, tiny balls. I object to the fact that I have to pay for Republican legislators who have spent the last three years obstructing policy at every turn not because they disagree with the policy, but because they want to make a Democratic President look bad.

But I have to suck it up and pay for all those things. Because part of living in a society is the requirement to sometimes pay for things you don't personally want to. So I don't really have much sympathy for you.

Then lobby your congressmen to fix it. If this goes into law, yeah, I'll pay for it because I don't really have an alternative. But I don't think it -should- go into law. I don't want your sympathy, I don't have any use for it. If your only argument against me is 'You're just whining', why are you even speaking?

And in this, you are by no means a hypocrite, so if you catch a potentially fatal disease or suffer a serious injury like a broken leg, you do not visit a doctor or hospital, and continue to go to work normally so society isn't burderened by you?

Anything short of that is hypocrisy you know, that's why the vast majority of people accept we have a responsibility to one another. One that for instance involves reproductive health, and refraining from respectless statements like "Don't sleep around and I won't have to pay for you".

If I go to the doctor, I have to pay for it. Or maybe I don't anymore, I haven't been paying a lot of attention to Obamacare, but I didn't support that either.

No, it isn't. If all we ever concern ourselves with is our own personal well-being, then how on Earth can we ever expect things to become better for anyone else? Furthermore, it'll cost far more of your ever so precious tax money if people start dying left and right of easily preventable STDs.

If you live in a functional state, you are going to have to pay taxes to keep it functioning. I, for instance, don't like that I'm part in keeping Mattias Flink fed and warm in prison, for instance, but I have to, because it needs to be done. It's how the adult world works, shit you don't want to needs to be done anyway, and you can't pick and choose where your tax money goes, except for voting for whichever political movement that represents your interests best. Stuff we don't want to pay for needs to be payed for none the less.
Of course, a welfare-system taken too far is not a good thing, and a perfectly reasonable thing to object to. But providing something as cheap as condoms isn't exactly a huge personal expense on anyone's part.

And honestly, is it really a good idea to rather have people die and suffer of easily preventable ailments out of principle?

It's called enlightened self interest, look it up. It's what makes the world go 'round.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Then lobby your congressmen to fix it.

No, I don't think you get it. You see, I'm not a petulant child. That means I recognize that I don't get to dictate that society should follow exactly what I want it to do. I recognize that part of being an adult in the adult world means we support each other and sometimes have to pay for things we don't like for the good of society.

If your only argument against me is 'You're just whining', why are you even speaking?

Because you seem to have forgotten what "society" means.

I'd say it should be free, and I'd even take it a bit further. I'd also suggest forced sterilizations of people with multiple kids and still having them, but have no way to support them and are draining American tax dollars.

No kids if you don't want them, and no kids if you have too many and you can't take care of them. Sounds rock solid to me.

Katatori-kun:

PrinceOfShapeir:
Then lobby your congressmen to fix it.

No, I don't think you get it. You see, I'm not a petulant child. That means I recognize that I don't get to dictate that society should follow exactly what I want it to do. I recognize that part of being an adult in the adult world means we support each other and sometimes have to pay for things we don't like for the good of society.

If your only argument against me is 'You're just whining', why are you even speaking?

Because you seem to have forgotten what "society" means.

Society means I have to agree with what people I disagree with say?

Huh, news. Maybe you should try it sometime.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Because you seem to have forgotten what "society" means.

Society means I have to agree with what people I disagree with say?

No, I said nothing of the sort. Society just means you sometimes have to pay for things that you don't want to. Because we decide policy by what is good for society, not by what fits in with your personal, selfish desires.

of course it should be

I think that contraception for both genders should be provided for free at all schools and colleges/uni for free, with protection of anonymity and efforts to make the idea of it as appealing and non embarrassing as possible. Especially in low socioeconomic areas and especially in the bible belt.

Katatori-kun:

PrinceOfShapeir:

Because you seem to have forgotten what "society" means.

Society means I have to agree with what people I disagree with say?

No, I said nothing of the sort. Society just means you sometimes have to pay for things that you don't want to. Because we decide policy by what is good for society, not by what fits in with your personal, selfish desires.

And I have to agree that it's best for society that everyone is forced to pay for something that is a luxury and not a necessity. That makes a lot of sense.

ReservoirAngel:
I say yes, because "you need to pay to NOT have a child" sound insane to me.

Luckily people don't have to pay to not have sex and thus that whole concept doesn't apply.

PrinceOfShapeir:

Katatori-kun:

PrinceOfShapeir:

Society means I have to agree with what people I disagree with say?

No, I said nothing of the sort. Society just means you sometimes have to pay for things that you don't want to. Because we decide policy by what is good for society, not by what fits in with your personal, selfish desires.

And I have to agree that it's best for society that everyone is forced to pay for something that is a luxury and not a necessity. That makes a lot of sense.

This is a nonsensical argument because the definitions of "luxury" and "necessity" are vague to the point of being meaningless. I could very well say that roads are a "luxury" because they aren't strictly speaking necessary for survival. And yet we happily pay for governments to provide them. I could easily say that food stamps that allow poor people to purchase anything more than vitamin-fortified protein gruel rations are a luxury. But not only would that be a ridiculous argument, it would kind of make me an asshole.

Sex is not a "luxury". Luxuries are goods and services. Sex is (usually) neither. It's a choice people make. It's fun, and most importantly, it's (usually) free. Now a person can make sensible arguments against birth control being paid for by some wider group, but simply opposing it because "I don't want to pay" is to put your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem that needs to be solved. It's nothing more than an "I got mine, Jack" response to society.

i cant answer for other countries as im not sure about their sexual health units but here in australia your local sexual health units and family planning clinics provide condoms, lubricants and dental dam free or charge for anyone and a low price for bulk purchases for sex workers

OneCatch :
How you could break it down; vasectomies are free anyway, in terms of alternatives, make the pill and the implant (link posted because people always seem to forget about implants in this debate) free under health insurance plans as well.

As well as Depot (injection once every 3 months) and the Mirena or progestogen containing intra-uterine device. That's like the next best thing since sliced bread, minimal to no side effects because the hormones are localized to the uterus, lasts five years and is the cheapest form of contraception, even cheaper than abstinence because it completely removes periods, so the woman doesn't have to buy pads or tampons. Only problem is in an woman who hasn't had a baby it might require being put in under anaesthetic.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked