Jump to content

Should women get birth control free?


Cordell

Recommended Posts

I don't know what side to be on. I have inlaws that have fostered and then adopted 3 children from the same women(all different fathers). Does she deserve free birth control? The state should have her fixed. If it does become free, aleviating the out of pocket cost, people will be less inclined to use it properly. Kind of like the guy at the gym that loads up on 1000 supplements but doesn't take them properly...It won't work. The only other use of the pill I know of is to clear up a persons skin. Purely cosmetic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only other use of the pill I know of is to clear up a persons skin. Purely cosmetic.

 

http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/med-uses-ocp.html

 

My wife was on it at an early age to regulate her periods and help eliminate cramping that would sometimes be cripplingly painful. It's actually rather common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what side to be on. I have inlaws that have fostered and then adopted 3 children from the same women(all different fathers). Does she deserve free birth control? The state should have her fixed. If it does become free, aleviating the out of pocket cost, people will be less inclined to use it properly. Kind of like the guy at the gym that loads up on 1000 supplements but doesn't take them properly...It won't work. The only other use of the pill I know of is to clear up a persons skin. Purely cosmetic.

 

It can also be used to make the monthly visit from Aunt FLO easier on them.... and rather than being a monthly visit it can be a quarterly visit if the woman would like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know it helped with other things like that but are they the driving factors behind "free birth control"? Leaves too much legal mumbo jumbo that could follow on. "I was on free BC because I couldn't afford to take care of a child or I'm not ready." Now our dollars are being used to feed/shelter unwanted children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know it helped with other things like that but are they the driving factors behind "free birth control"? Leaves too much legal mumbo jumbo that could follow on. "I was on free BC because I couldn't afford to take care of a child or I'm not ready." Now our dollars are being used to feed/shelter unwanted children.

 

There's no "free birth control," at least not in any different sense than you currently get "free antibiotics" if you're insured. The government isn't doling out free pills to anyone. This is about federal laws that basically say "If you're going to offer someone health insurance, these are the things, at a minimum, that you need to provide." I don't know why the government legislates a minimum standard for insurance like that, nor do I have an opinion about whether or not they should. What I DO know is that nobody seemed to care at all about these laws until vaginas got involved, and then suddenly everyone's got an opinion.

 

At least the Catholic church is very clear in its opinion - birth control is a sin, and they don't want to include it in their coverage. And, in fact, they don't have to, because there are religious exemptions. The recent debate was about Catholic-funded but non-religious organizations, like colleges and hospitals. Should a religious exemption extend to a "Catholic" hospital, even though the hospital is an independent, secular corporation whose only connection to the Catholic church is money?

 

Frankly, that discussion is rather boring, and it should be left up to old people in robes. But VAGINAS and SLUTS and suddenly everyone's all up in their business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothitical scenario:

 

You are a female, on free BC from the state. You still get preggers, could you sue the state? that is a scary though

 

Could you sue the birth control manufacturer? That would be the logical place to start.

 

Hypothetical scenario: You're a man and you fuck a chick with a rubber on. She gets pregnant anyway. Can you sue the convenience store clerk who sold it to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you sue the birth control manufacturer? That would be the logical place to start.

 

Hypothetical scenario: You're a man and you fuck a chick with a rubber on. She gets pregnant anyway. Can you sue the convenience store clerk who sold it to you?

 

all good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like this thread, or anything regarding people actually having sex, really has anything to do with Cordell.

 

Could you sue the birth control manufacturer? That would be the logical place to start.

 

Hypothetical scenario: You're a man and you fuck a chick with a rubber on. She gets pregnant anyway. Can you sue the convenience store clerk who sold it to you?

No. Birth control is not known to be 100% effective and is therefore used at your own risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like this thread, or anything regarding people actually having sex, really has anything to do with Cordell.

 

 

No. Birth control is not known to be 100% effective and is therefore used at your own risk.

 

Traditional coffee is inherently hot when served but someone still got rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the extreme differences in response to this topic very entertaining. I consider my self fairly conservative but you guys bring some valid points. I can see the point that this may prevent some of the children born into the welfare system, but I also veiw most of those people lazy and worthless. Hard to say if making birth control more readily available would really effect population or welfare. Do you really think people will go after it? Then you can get into the arguement of if this is even constitutional, not being very into politics myself, its hard for me to tell how much of that arguement is real or rederict.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traditional coffee is inherently hot when served but someone still got rich.

 

Notice that coffee now comes with a warning that it is hot, that's how they cover their ass. To actually have the suit heard and not tossed, the plantiff would have to submit proof that the failure of the device (i.e., condom) was due to manufacturing, or the company's negligence, and went beyond the stated claim that birth control is not 100% effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comment is very contradictory. First you say no, they shouldn't get it for free, but then you say that we shouldn't seek sympathy for those that get pregnant. The only way to do that is to abstain, or wear a rain coat, which sucks. Birth control is responsibility. Not taking BC and having kids you cannot afford is unresponsible. not that you'll ever know...

 

My woman started on it 2 weeks ago. Paid for through her insurance. No harm, no foul.

 

Cant afford birth control, what makes you think you can afford a kid(s)? Cant afford either, cant afford taking the risk. Seriously, sex with no repercussions is not a right and I shouldnt have to pay for it because people are fucking morons.

 

If parents work and dont provide for their kids they are put in jail, but if they dont work, they get free monies. The whole system of government-help would be fine and I would support it, if it wasnt so taken advantage of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of you need to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!

 

This is not about free, government provided birth control. It's about requiring employers to offer a plan that covers it. As I read it, it does not mean every plan option needs to have it, and it does not mean every individual has to accept that coverage. It's simply one of the options offered. Individuals still have the choice to take birth control based off their own religious beliefs, but why should your beliefs be allowed to make decisions for other people? In the case of organizations supported by religious funds, like hospitals, I don't feel they should be allowed to deny an employee this coverage, since not all employees will have that same religious belief. Would this also mean the hospital wouldn't provide certain treatments to patients? What if the Catholic church didn't believe in life support?

 

Election year politics miss me off. This country never focuses on the REAL issues that matter. We say this is the land of the free, whose laws are governed by the constitution, where there is separation of church and state, freedom from religious persecution. But in reality everyone just wants to legislate their beliefs over the masses. Everyone wants to push through their own agenda, but no one seems to have the country's best interests in mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of you need to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!

 

This is not about free, government provided birth control. It's about requiring employers to offer a plan that covers it. As I read it, it does not mean every plan option needs to have it, and it does not mean every individual has to accept that coverage. It's simply one of the options offered. Individuals still have the choice to take birth control based off their own religious beliefs, but why should your beliefs be allowed to make decisions for other people? In the case of organizations supported by religious funds, like hospitals, I don't feel they should be allowed to deny an employee this coverage, since not all employees will have that same religious belief. Would this also mean the hospital wouldn't provide certain treatments to patients? What if the Catholic church didn't believe in life support?

 

Election year politics miss me off. This country never focuses on the REAL issues that matter. We say this is the land of the free, whose laws are governed by the constitution, where there is separation of church and state, freedom from religious persecution. But in reality everyone just wants to legislate their beliefs over the masses. Everyone wants to push through their own agenda, but no one seems to have the country's best interests in mind

 

Do you not see a little conflict in your statements here? The 1st Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If a religion does not believe in artificial birth control (the Catholic church does allow for natural family planning or the "rythm method"), then the government can not (if we actually followed the Constitution when making laws) force them to pay for it and abridge their right to practice their religion.

 

If you CHOOSE to work for an institution (Catholic or otherwise) you may not get your birth control paid for as a BENEFIT. You can CHOOSE another place to work, this is called FREEDOM. It was the basis for this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I read throught this thread (and was quite entertained), I think the main problem with most of the arguments is an approach that treats the symptoms, not the problem. The problem lies in two words:

"Personal Responsibility"

You can not have freedom until you accept your personal responsibilities - otherwise you are always beholding to someone else (the government) for something.

 

Most of the issues raised are a result of people failing to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. If you CHOOSE to have sex, you have to be willing to accept that there may be consequences (pregnancy or disease). It is only your responsibility to deal with this, period. If you get a disease or get pregnant it is your responsibility to deal with it.

 

Health care, birth control and so forth are not rights - they are your responsibility. If you can't afford to have sex, don't. Having sex is not a "right" either.

 

It has taken decades to erode our society into this great dependency class - if we don't start to reverse it, we will not have a country.

 

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A church, or religious organization, is not required and should not be required to provide this benefit. However, an independent organization, like a hospital, that has the financial support of a religious organization is just that, an independent organization. This law is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When the organization is independent, the exercising of religious beliefs is the freedom of the INDIVIDUAL, and individuals are in no way hindered from exercising that right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...