The Instigator
TheSatiricalAnarchist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheOpinionist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Women Have The Right to Contraceptives

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 78171
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

Hello, TheOpinionist, I have recently come across your debate on this issue with someone else, and noticed they put up a very weak fight in discussing the subject. I would like to fill in their position in a hopefully more effective way in saying that women having access to contraceptives should logically be a basic human right. I apologize for the impromptu debate challenge, and you don't have to take this debate into account, however I would like for this to be something we may maturely dispute.

First round will be acceptance only.
TheOpinionist

Con

I dutifully accept this challenge. My schedule is up in the air until August 5th, so Ill try to get arguments in, but they won't be immediate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate. I must also note that my arguments will probably be a tad spacious time-wise, as I have a fairly busy schedule.

[1] Hypothetical Scenarios - If a woman is raped and the said rapist does not wear any form of protection, and the woman is not on a birth control substance of some kind, and does not have access to a contraceptive, this is an issue because: 1) the woman is forced to give birth 2) the woman either has to foster the child away after going through the pain of childbirth or has to raise them until they are old enough to support themselves. This is a common argument in the abortion/contraception right argument, but it is only because it is a logical issue any country where women don't have this right have to face. Another hypothetical situation would be a situation by which a woman has sex with a partner and their partner's condom breaks. What do they do now? The woman is now pregnant after taking a pregnancy test and now has to either: a) raise the child or b) foster them away. If they don't have the right to abortion/contraceptives, they can't get rid of the baby and it's only at that point a burden on them.

[2] Popular Rebuttals - Many people who oppose the right to contraceptives/abortion advocate that the reason for their opposition is because of their religion. This is not, however, an appropriate way to refute anything in the political world; as not everyone conforms to the same religious beliefs, nor does anyone have to. Most countries are finally coming together in their political systems to formulate secular laws and conditions for their people. This is right step to make, but that is going off topic. The point to this contention is that religion should not be a reason to justify someone not having the right to control their body - regardless of the situation. Another popular counter-argument also seems to be that apparently if people don't want children they simply should avoid having any form of sex. Not all forms of sex lead to childbirth, and this is very reason for the existence of birth control/contraceptives. As long as the people in question are careful, that is fine and they are not likely to have a kid; there are hypothetical and less likely circumstances, but overall it can be avoided pretty well. Also, sex should not be strictly a procreative activity, either.

[3] Health - Generally, birth control and contraceptives when it comes to health can be dangerous in certain forms, and healthy for women in others. Broadly speaking, at the end of the day, most of these such things are actually healthy for women. And there is a whole series of health benefits that will provided below.

Note: the following source is an article from bedsider, though each point made is supported with a different source citation.

http://bedsider.org...;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize that my arguments were not longer, but again, busy schedule.
TheOpinionist

Con

Thanks to my opponent for issuing this challenge, as I have often wondered why people supported this. To maintain the flow of the debate, I'll rebut my opponents arguments, and then make some of my own.

RE: Hypothetical scenarios

Cut the rhetoric out and get to the facts. My opponent says-

" If a woman is raped and the said rapist does not wear any form of protection, and the woman is not on a birth control substance of some kind, and does not have access to a contraceptive, this is an issue because: 1) the woman is forced to give birth"

Less than 1% of abortions happen due to rape or incest [1]. The scope of people affected by this problem is ridiculously small. My opponent also contends that the pain of childbirth is not worth the life of a foetus (his second point). This is absurd, as killing a child is a lot worse than putting them up for adoption. Would you rather be poor or dead? Wait... Not your choice according to Pro... It's your mothers choice... My opponent later states that-

"Another hypothetical situation would be a situation by which a woman has sex with a partner and their partner's condom breaks"

Everyone acknowledges that having sex has risks, such as protection breaking, but you should go into the action accepting that it may happen, and willing to accept the consequences. If you were worried about getting pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Everyone knows that condoms break. That doesn't make birth control a "basic human right," as Pro stated in Round 1. Keep in mind that this is the terminology that Pro used, as I will be addressing it shortly.

Also, I'd like to bring up how casually my opponent brings up getting "rid of the baby." I'd like the voters to realize that getting rid of the baby is equivalent to ending a life for the sake of a woman's convenience. If Pro disagrees with this conclusion, he can try to justify ending a human life for the sake of convenience in Round 3.

Re: Popular Rebuttals

Rebut my arguments, not the ones you cherry-picked. I'll address religious arguments later, though.

Re: Health

My opponent uses a far left birth control promotion website to tell you that birth control should be payed for by taxpayers because its healthy. The source states that women are healthier because they know they're not pregnant... I don't really know how to refute this, as knowing you don't have another human being inside of you doesn't make you any healthier... The website seems to say that knowing you're not pregnant gives you a pass to drink and smoke without harming the baby, which you clearly didn't intend to ever have.

Life of a child vs "health" of a woman. Come on, guys...

Now on to my arguments.

Contention 1: The Financial Argument

Why is it the taxpayer's burden to pay for someone elses stuff?
It's not like birth control is too expensive. Target sells contraceptives at a rate that would have buyers without health insurance paying $9 per month [2].

Pro's unbelievably biased source goes on to say that taxpayers waste 12 billion dollars per year on unplanned pregnancy. They don't see that most of this money funds abortion, which many taxpayers are morally opposed to anyway [3]. Of that, roughly 500 million dollars goes to Planned Parenthood, a sponsor and advocate of abortion [4]. Not something taxpayers would support, now is it?

Contention 2: The anti-entitlement argument:
Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made. Nobody is burdened to pay for other peoples stuff. It's pretty simple.

Contention 3: The one you've heard before

Don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [5]. There are a lot of ways to keep from having a child whilst not banging everything that moves.

Another thing I'd like to address: Human rights

What is a human right? A human right is [6]

“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

This is a religious issue! You cannot have an atheistic debate over rights endowed by a Creator! If you believe that contraceptives are a human right, you assume that a superior being was all like-

"Yeah sure. Kill my creation if it makes you uncomfortable."

Questions for Pro:

Is it morally justifiable to make someone else pay for your things if you can afford them? If yes, then who can't afford $9 of contraceptives? And why should we pay for them?

Is it morally justifiable to make taxpayers pay for something that they believe is a gross violation of the human rights of the foetus?

Is it morally justifiable to make others take responsibility for your mistake in the bedroom?

Is it morally justifiable to kill a child so you can drink and smoke for 9 months?

Would a just God give someone the right to kill his creation?

Thank you for challenging me. I await Round 3.

Sources
1) http://www.operationrescue.org......
2) http://www.theblaze.com...
3) http://www.breitbart.com...
4) http://www.foxnews.com...
5) http://waitingtillmarriage.org......
6) http://louderwithcrowder.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

Thank you, Con.


I. Addressing Counter-Arguments/Rebuttals


"Everyone acknowledges that having sex has risks, such as protection breaking, but you should go into the action accepting that it may happen, and willing to accept the consequences. If you were worried about getting pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. Everyone knows that condoms break. That doesn't make birth control a 'basic human right,' as Pro stated in Round 1. Keep in mind that this is the terminology that Pro used, as I will be addressing it shortly."


Con is essentially stating in the above rebuttal that sex should be strictly procreative; that if the couple knew the risk of pregnancy and didn't want to have a baby, that having sex should not be an option to begin with. This is of course ignoring the kinds of sex a couple may have that are not physically able to procreate. To think of the birth of a child as a "consequence" that couples must deal with is to present the idea as though it is a burden to the family, which is proving the thesis statement that childbirth can be painful and can be a burden on the family; children are expensive to take care of and not everyone has the money to afford taking care of them.


Con is right, condoms breaking doesn't make birth control a human right, what it means is that if people intend to have sex in a manner that is not procreative, and it is anatomically possible for such partners to reproduce, they should have access to birth control/contraceptives to nullify and slim the chances. The point, plan and simple, is that sex is not/should not be a strictly procreative activity in the world, and even couples capable of reproducing (i.e man & woman) can tend to have forms of sex that are not procreative.


II. Addressing Con's Contentions


"Why is it the taxpayer's burden to pay for someone elses stuff? It's not like birth control is too expensive. Target sells contraceptives at a rate that would have buyers without health insurance paying $9 per month [2]."


Con is implying that the contention I am making here is that contraceptives should be distributed freely. That is not the contention I am pushing for. The contention I am pushing for is that contraceptives should be available to whomever needs them when they need them, and they should be a part of the general healthcare and freedom system of their country. A country should never be taking away the right women have to contraceptives and birth control, and just like healthcare, these things should always be available to those who want to buy them. Though it would, of course, be ideal that women get to have free contraceptives (at least for the women and their partners), it is not entirely necessary to do that.


Taxpayers have a lot burdens, especially in the U.S, and paying for contraceptives to be free would be the least of their concern.


"Nobody is entitled to free stuff. This is a simple argument. Nobody has the right to free stuff because of their gender and the choices they've made. Nobody is burdened to pay for other peoples stuff. It's pretty simple."


Does this contention address healthcare in a similar light? By revoking a woman's right to use contraceptives, one would be forcing them to raise their child and foster them away.


"Don't want to have kids? Don't have sex. Tons of people are celibate and happy. Roughly 10,000,000 Americans have waited until marriage to have sex, and were better mentally and financially prepared for a child [5]. There are a lot of ways to keep from having a child whilst not banging everything that moves."

Again, sex should not have to be a strictly pro-creative activity between partners. Conditiong a country in a way where sex is strictly intended for reproducing is taking away plenty of basic human rights. Being celibate until marriage is also off-topic, seeing as those people intended to have children and had such for that reason specifically, not everyone does for that.


What is a human right? A human right is [6]


“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”


This is a religious issue! You cannot have an atheistic debate over rights endowed by a Creator! If you believe that contraceptives are a human right, you assume that a superior being was all like


This is a false definition,


hu·man right

noun

plural noun: human rights

a right that is believed to belong justifiably to ever


http://www.humanrights.com...

http://www.ohchr.org...

III. Addressing Con's Questions

"Is it morally justifiable to make someone else pay for your things if you can afford them? If yes, then who can't afford $9 of contraceptives? And why should we pay for them?"

My contentions are not that contraceptives should be distributed at $0 prices. However, perhaps it would be logical to offer these contraceptives to someone through their health insurance, no?


"Is it morally justifiable to make taxpayers pay for something that they believe is a gross violation of the human rights of the foetus?"

It is ironic that con has jumped from the 'human rights' concept being a religious matter and not being material for the debate to actually using 'human rights' to justify the opposition of the right to contraceptives. May it also be on record that American taxpayers are paying for inhumane acts such as drone strikes and wars as it is, thus this would be too insignificant an amount of money to truly be a concern in the minds of taxpayers.

"Is it morally justifiable to make others take responsibility for your mistake in the bedroom?"

No, but giving women the right to have contraceptives through their health insurance isn't doing this.

"Is it morally justifiable to kill a child so you can drink and smoke for 9 months?"

This question is assuming that abortions are justified by the pregnant individual wanting to be able to drink and smoke.

"Would a just God give someone the right to kill his creation?"

Take a look at the Bible, Torah and Koran; I would say based on those books that yes, a "just God" according to most religious people would allow such a thing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Excuse my relatively short argument, my next will have much more length to it.

TheOpinionist

Con

I just got on and realized that my argument was due. I will be getting surgery tomorrow and will likely be out of commission for a while. I don't want to run the clock down to a forfeit, but due to time constraints, I can't make a case with the time I have. Count this as a concession for the debate. Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
TheSatiricalAnarchist

Pro

I thank you for your time, Con.
TheOpinionist

Con

I would love to do this some other time. Again, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.