The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Employers should not be forced to pay for women's contraception regardless of religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 58389
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)




The words "It is my right!" have been thrown around a lot on this issue lately. Since when has free contraception been a right? Why do supporters feel entitled at the expense of their employer's pockets and not their own?


Thank you, Pro, for the chance to debate this very interesting subject.

As the Burden of Proof is on you, I look forward to what shall be a very robust and unique argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Prove what? There's no factual information in question for this argument. This debate is solely based on opinion. It is your task to show why employers should pay for their employee's contraception.


Dear Pro

Thank you for your intelligent and witty response. I did not realize you were mistaken on the name of the web site, and the general format. While I think your response was short, missed the point, I will address it never the less. This is, not However if you just wanted to offer an opinion, this is where you go.

While your opinion is yours, you put it in the public sphere, on a web site called DEBATE.ORG and asked for a debate. I await your argument, and if you cannot defend it withdraw and concede as your opinion is un-defendable, based on lack of understanding, lack of empathy, and a position that is inherently ignorant of anything beyond religious sexism and rubber glue arguments. Please provide a argument to me and those reading your right and I`m wrong. If not please admit you have no basis for such a erroneous opinion and its based in ignorance.

however, as you have only 1 round left, let me offer some counter argument to such an untenable position that are universally said those holding a position like yours so you do not loose a whole round doing rubber arguments and obvious mistakes.

You present an Argument from ignorance.

1) You state, it’s free. It’s not free, Women pay into the health care plan at Hobby Lobby and in many health care plans. It’s not unpaid or free.

2) It’s not as you state "women contraception’s", its women’s health care, the "contraception’s are not solely used for contraception", they are also used for pain management to control cramps, excessive bleeding and other gynecological issues. Which is far more important than covering Viagra, which you have yet to complain about and is far more expensive and not necessary.

3) The only argument offered in the supreme court was based on Religion grounds, there is no other argument to deny Women their health care other than misogynistic ideology buttressed by religious bigotry, nor was there any other argument presented. If you have one, I would love to hear it an I we are still waiting. . .

Your present an Argument from discrimination, and argument by definition.

4) Your argument on its face is discrimination. You specifically state women’s contraception’s. Your targeting women, and arguing for less equality before the law and removing rights already granted.

5) It’s not about WOMENS Contraceptive, its women’s health care, or more accurately about removing only women’s health care. You have used terms inappropriately.

6) Hobby lobby did provide this health care, then they challenged their oppinion after the ACC was ratified, which they publicly opposed. Additionally they support many ideas, that fly against their own religion. This is call hypocrisy.

The Right they wanted supported was solely against women. However the company still supports that Men can get snipped, use condoms and use Viagra, with the last not even a contraceptive, but only women’s health seems to offend you and them. Obviously you problem lies with Women, and women health concerns, not men or men’s issues, save men having issue with women.

Argument by Affirming the Consequent

Your very first statement - The words "It is my right!" have been thrown around a lot on this issue lately. Since when has free contraception been a right?

you have presented An argument by Affirming the consequent, which is demonstrably false and shows your lack of understanding of logic. Logically speaking

If p then q.


Therefore, not-p

Your two statements are independent of each other and shows a bias view that has no validity or truth. Not only that, it’s not free, and it was a right the women had, and was denied based upon religious discrimination of a corporation trumping an individual based on sincerity of faith in the public sphere based on RIFA, which can overrule the law and Constitutional Rights. Thank you for assuming and misunderstanding the issue and your very first statement being a logical fallacy. .

Argument from false information

7) The argument is solely based on religious bigotry and false information. The only argument presented was based on faith and was not based even of fact, which they acknowledge in the court by several judges. Hobby lobby argument was based on false information which even their own lawyer argued they were aware of.

8) Many women’s health care is cost prohibitive to individual women but not to society on a whole. As clearly pointed out in FREAKONoMICS (a book without pictures based on facts) clearly shows how women’s health and reproductive support is far better for society to pay for as preventive care then emergency care. Which is the basis for all preventive care.

9) The fact you say regardless religious bias employers should not, however you assume that even religious exceptions are correct, and that even without them your correct, but have failed to provide anything other than “I’m right your wrong, na na na bo bo. “

Dear Pro
The argument that the court accepted was Argument from Special Exception, Special Pleading and Exception based on RIFA, solely on Religious Sincerity, which shif the burden of proof to that which is impossible to test.

The Scouts ruled 5 men to 4 women that the constitution does not apply to Hobby Lobby, a closely held corporation, has additional rights via RIFA, to discriminate against women on the basis of an employer’s faith, even if the actual objection has no merit or standing within their actual faith. THIS WAS THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT, you can read the argument from the court documents. The objection to Contraceptives is that HOBBY LOBBY believes it’s an abortive, which they are not. Also RIFA states that it can violate the constitution by granting extra rights beyond the constitution to individual and by virtue of legal arguments a corporation.

It does matter that the basis of that belief is demonstrably false, and they acknowledged that it was false, but they still BELIEVE it. They, like you, didn’t have to argue any facts, they say, `It’s my opinion, and you can`t tell me I’m factual wrong, cause I don’t care about the truth, facts or even other people, it’s all about my opinion and my rights that trump your for no other valid reason that I believe... `

You clearly stated your opinion with a dog whistle and codes words, and misinformation and inarticulate terms and logic. I’m going to assume, you spoke without thinking and through ignorance, rather than intentionally being misogynistic and intellectual dishonest,


Again, Thank you for the debate, I’m still waiting for a reason for your assumption

Debate Round No. 2


DonJuan4565 forfeited this round.


Please vote . . . Thank you. . . .

Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DonJuan4565 1 year ago
Oh god! I completely forgot about this debate. No!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by NathanDuclos 2 years ago

There s a book called Freakonomic, and Super freakanomics, which clearly shows your opinion in clear terms. Its a really interesting read.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
the hypocrisy is that most of these insurance plans cover vasectomies and Viagra
Posted by AJOlid 2 years ago
31% of women use contraceptives for cramps or menstrual pain, 28% for menstrual regulation, 14% for acne, 4% for endometriosis, and 11% for other unspecified reasons. Contraceptives aren't always used for the sake of making less babies (which less babies would actually be benefical for the socioeconomic elements of the country, anyway - too many fatherless children and too many parents that can't afford care for their children as well as being detrimental for a young adult to thrive in college and become successful). Some contraceptives also help with nasuea, headaches, mood changes, and stabalize hormonal imbalance - which can be a problem during working conditions.
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
@dsjpk5 but you can't deny that it's financially AND socially beneficial for all parties (employee, employer and the children that get born) if the families are able to plan and coordinate the pregnancies.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Just say "people should have to pay for their own elective expenses" and "pregnancy is NOT a disease,so it doesn't have to be prevented. Therefore contraception is not medicine." .... an you'll get my vote
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
Pregnant young woman most likely don't
* go to college
* need live long government help to support their families
* create mor people in the vicious circle of poverty and underpay
This is not about free sex for everyone. This is about preventing the "expensive" part of the society from "breeding".
(Note: ""-Marks because it's degrading plain economic thinking)
Posted by schachdame 2 years ago
This ought to prevent unwanted Pregnancy and Teen-Mums. And that's expensive for society cause these people need financial help. It's thought to be (someone could do the maths) more economic.
Posted by TruthHurts 2 years ago
If you could get a prescription for a condom, I don't see why they wouldn't be covered. However, you don't really get those through such a path and, as such, you can't get them covered in the status quo.
Posted by DonJuan4565 2 years ago
@thenewkidd They are asking for contraception for all regardless of individual needs. If you need them for your own special case like the ones you mentioned and they are not included in your plan, then that's something you have to discuss with your doctor and insurance company; not your employer.

@ThruthHurts By your argument, contraception is as much of a right as a condom. Should I ask my employer to cover my condoms too?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.