Preventive Health Care
Debate Rounds (3)
These words are enough to send people into a frenzy, but why? It seems these days you're unable to tell a cheeky joke without offending someone; not by crudeness, but by a difference of opinions. People say things like "teaching safe sex encourages promiscuity" or "I don't believe in contraceptives, they should be unavailable" I, personally, strongly disagree, and believe I am not alone in this opinion. Safety should always outweigh sensitivity.
"Prevention is the greatest cure," my grandmother often said while coating my skin in sunscreen "I cant stop the sun, but I wont let you burn". I believe she would say the same about sexual activity. We can't stop every child. We can't end the curiosity of young people. Instead of attempting the unreliable, we should be preventing negative outcomes. All children need to be educated about the changes in their body, and how to avoid negative experiences (I. Disease, Rape, pregnancy, injury, emotional harm etc.) When a young man becomes sexually active he should have constant access to condoms. If a young woman wants to have it, she ought to have a right to her own choice in birth control as well.
That is, we can maintain access without subsidizing those who choose to receive them.
It's not clear to what extent 'preventive health care' is inclusive or exclusive of healthcare vs. sexual health. But I will start with the observation that the oft-repeated trope that the 'ounce of prevention is a pound of cure', etc., is frequently without justification. We can delve into this claim, but as a rudimentary warrant, we should recall the scuffle over the frequency of mammogram testing 2-3 years ago. While we can draw a number of valid conclusions here, most important is that prevention is never an unlimited good--prevention has costs which can outweigh the benefit.
Moving on to what appears to be my opponent's main focus, we should differentiate between the ability to purchase condoms and 'constant access to condoms'. For example, it's cheap enough to purchase condoms that we probably don't need bowls heaped with Trojan ultra-thins at the door to each high school classroom. Access without the subsidy.
That same would apply to female contraceptives. While there's a reasonable argument that some could be sold over the counter, this in no way suggests that we need a blanket no-cost birth control guarantee of the sort imposed by the Obama administration earlier this year. We can, and potentially should explore this specific issue further, but my essential claim dovetails with the mammogram example--such a policy could only encourage migration to the most expensive forms of birth control for very marginal benefit. This has a second impact related to the host of potential consequences to sex--i.e. both pregnancy and STD. Clearly we have an interest in preventing both, but the focus on this policy only looks to the former and could potentially exacerbate the latter.
Since my opponent apparently agrees sexual behavior carries with it implicit risks, I'd ask why a responsible policy would pretend these risk don't exist--i.e. access vs. subsidization. Paying for condoms vs. getting them for free.
If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful.
These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org...
"A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion." All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety.
These statistics show more information to back my position.
Even if this is the case, it's a position unresponsive to the argument I advanced in R1. We should extend my argument as not responded to--access can exist without the subsidy. Since the subsidy has harms and I don't see my opponent advancing any claims wherein the benefits to access are only unlocked if it's paired with a subsidy, then Con gets the Pro advantages--access reduces the bad things she talks about, while the lack of subsidy keeps costs under control.
MikelaC2596 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Yo dawg, why u forfeit?
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.