The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Public Funded Birth Control

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: 10/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 849 times Debate No: 63809
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




This debate would be about birth control. I would argue that the government should fund birth control and that doing so would benefit the nation more then hurt it. Obviously the opponent would be debating the opposite


I suppose my argument will have to be that the public as a whole through the government should fund nothing of the sort, and that only the select group of people who want to fund it ought to.
Debate Round No. 1


I will start off by saying that publicly funded would be beneficial to society as a whole since it would
1. Save Money. The reason it would save money is because less welfare children would be born since the lower socio-economic groups would have access to birth control. Since there would be less welfare children born, the state would not have to spend on much on welfare as they currently do.
2. Less abortions. Since all people would have access to birth control, the amount of unintended pregnancies would drop. With less unintended pregnancies, there would be a correlating effect to less abortions.
3. Good for the Environment. With slower population growth, society as a whole would become more sustainable and put less strain on the environment.
4. Good for the economy. With all the money saved from having to spend on birth control, people could spend money on other items or services (or better yet save money) which would have a positive effect on the nation.
With positive economic, social, and environmental consequences, it seems unreasonable to argue that It would have a negative effect compared to the current status qua of not having birth control publicly funded.


FreedomBeforeEquality forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Seeing that con has failed to counter the obviously beneficial outcomes of publicly funded birth control, I shall restate what I said earlier. Publicly funded birth control would be good for the environment since it slows down population growth, it would be good socially since less people would have to raise unintended children or have an abortion, and it would be beneficial economically since there would be less "welfare children" for the welfare system to pay for not to mention the money the consumer saves from not having to buy birth control.


Oops I guess I missed this one by a couple hours.

To your first point, the most effective form of birth control is ridiculously cheap and already available to everyone (Abstinence). For those who can't control themselves, condoms are a very very close second at <$10 for a box of twelve. You would be hard pressed to screw yourself into poverty at those rates ;-)
I can agree though that we could do away with welfare altogether though. Perhaps we can discuss that in another debate.

Second, abortions would also go down with less "Public Funded Birth Control" no doubt. If it is this same group that supposedly can't afford a condom from above, how else would they pay for such an incredibly more expensive procedure? Abortions can cost anywhere from $320-2000+ without insurance to cover any portion of that. With insurance, any co-pay you might have would again be more than probably 2 boxes of those condoms. So if you haven't completely abandoned your personal and social responsibilities already, you can hold your head high and say that you, at the very least, purchased insurance to help in such an instance. Even then, you're robbing everyone with that carrier because you abandoned your responsibilities.

To your third point, a somewhat slower population growth may help the environment, true. In many ways though, we are accelerating our capabilities to do things in a more Green fashion because of the rate we are at. There would have been little movement to make solar anything big, or make hybrid cars, or anything like that back in a time where the population was spread as thin as it was in the 1800's (and there wasn't).

And the fourth, I think it's hard for you to claim anything based on human nature as a "savings". Also, I'd like to mention how counter intuitive your financial plan for savings is. You plan to reduce your taxpayer base and also save money on the very thing you propose those taxpayers fund! If it is public funded it will be a tax. It will need management and gov't employees. I'd really like to see how you plan to reduce the cost of that $10 box of condoms for every person in the nation by 1) reducing the number of people as a whole helping to pay into this thing, 2) hiring people to distribute or at least administer hospitals to distribute these things freely and equally, 3) funding constant ad campaigns and classes to ensure the public knows about them. This is essentially what you're asking for.

Some points for you:
1) They don't use them now, what makes you think they'll use them later. I don't find many people telling me they didn't use protection because the cost was high honestly. They're more apt to say "I didn't know" or that "it doesn't feel the same", or something on those lines.
2) As far as money "saving" goes you're only counting the savings for people who are more prone to buy them. For someone who doesn't need them, want them, or is responsible enough to take care of their business ... every single one of them you make pay into this system is putting them in the red. Every single one of their dollars spent is towards a product they don't even get which is wasteful spending in my book. You can show the average cost to have gone down but you're subsidizing that discount on everyone else's dime.

Here's a link for those abortion cost claims I made above since I didn't know this info before the argument, and had always just assumed it. Apparently it was just common sense, though, that it'd be quite an expensive procedure.
Debate Round No. 3


Telling people not to have sex is just not going to do the trick, people are going to still have sex, the sexual drive is one of the main drives of humanity. That being said, I shall pull some statistics from to make you rethink your opinion. The average working women between the ages of 18-34 only earns roughly 27,000$ a year. Many of these women have put off seeing the doctor to get birth control just because of the cost. Now most of us being middle or upper class think birth control is cheap, but to these people it is expensive considering the limited amount of cash at their disposal. As for the insurance, true insurance does help pay for birth control, but it does not pay for the whole cost. Women with private insurance have to pay 50% of the cost still to get birth control. Women spend 68% more out of pocket healthcare cost then men do, in part because of contraception cost. With all this information, one can come to the conclusion that free contraception would free them of the financial strain and anxiety of having to worry about having access to contraception all the time.

2. You admit that publicly funded birth control would lower the abortion rate. I am glad we agree on that. A lower abortion rate would have huge societal benefits such as having less people go through the traumatizing experience of abortion and less people having to pay for an abortion which would help the economy since with all that extra money, they can spend it on other things they need or want (or save it).

3. True, there wouldn't have been any movement to do things in a certain way had it not been for high population growth. The past is the past though and we need to focus on the present. The world is projected to be able to support 8 billion people. We are at 7 billion right now, so as a world if we want to avoid a crisis or extreme inequality we should work and implement solutions (public funded birth control) now so that we can avoid the crises of tomorrow.

4. Colorado when they implemented this program, it was estimated that it saved the state 69$ million dollars alone for just the year of 2004. How they came up with this number was the cost that it saved both the healthcare system and the welfare system. Every year STD's cost the US healthcare system 17 Billion dollars. Publicly funded birth control in Colorado shows that it would save the US healthcare system money because in Colorado the STD rate dropped since the funding for birth control not only covered the oral contraception pill, but also condoms which prevent STD transmission. With this drop, the Colorado healthcare system as I said earlier said money. The Colorado welfare system also saved money because less welfare children were born. Since Publicly funded birth control would save both on healthcare cost and welfare cost, the savings would more then cover the cost of providing birth control to the public. Plus, not only will the program save the government money, it will also save the individual money so it is a win-win for everyone.


FreedomBeforeEquality forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Once again liberals want the rest of us to pay for their lifestyles. You have fun in the bedroom, you pay for it.And YOU pay for any consequences of that lifestyle. Whether it be disease or pregnancy. You have turned the American dream into doing whatever feels good and making others pay for the consequences.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
I thought you liberals were against government interfering in the bedroom.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Those forfeits are killer. Con actually had some good arguments, but without defending them, he fails to make them substantial in the debate. The cost issue seems to be central to the debate, though for some reason there's no discussion of any moral issues. In any case, Pro is winning by a slight margin here. Con points out that most of the poor can afford condoms, but fails to show that, even at that low cost, people commonly acquire them. Pro's evidence in the final round shows that they only acquire and commonly use them in a system where they're free. The pill should have been a bigger argument from Pro - there's a reason that many women take it regularly, and it has to do with hormone production, not just birth control. Overpopulation is a difficult issue to weigh, but it still goes to Pro, as Con only mitigated it partially. As Pro is winning the major arguments, Pro wins the debate. Sources go to Con, as he's the only one who provided one.