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

Is contraception a right?

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: 11/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 788 times Debate No: 105286
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Contraception is something that prevents ovulation or fertilization.


To begin, contraception is largely beneficial and should be distributed to the general population. HOWEVER, by giving it the title of a right (in any other context other than a flimsy and illusive abstract way), you give way to a resistant ideology that will hurt social change.

Let's provide the text on defining a right: "A constitutional right can be a prerogative or a duty, a power or a restraint of power, recognized and established by a sovereign state or union of states."(Source:

Now, this context of a right displays that it would be backed by the Constitution (as rights are). This would anger the pro-life party, as they would be enraged to find that their constitution supports birth control, and would thus become resistant to all other effects of social change. As it stands, people are not denied contraception, and we are still at a political platform where we are able to push social changes, thus this inhibits.
Debate Round No. 1


What if a woman or girl is raped? Doesn't she have the right to Plan B One Step? I had a tubal ligation procedure because my meds cause birth defects, is this not my right? This is my body, I have the right to prevent conception for any reason. If you don't like contraception, don't use it. What if a man wants a vasectomy because his wife has heart disease and might die during tubal ligation? What if married couples want to space out their children? What if a sexually active woman wants to wait until marriage to conceive children? What if?


A few key points-

1) Pro listed Socratic arguments as to why contraception is beneficial. I agree with them, and I not once argued against them. People's bodies belong to them, not the sovereign government about them, and I agreed entirely.
2) The argument I make does not intend to deconstruct the uses of birth control, it instead points out the crisis of labeling it as a right. Let's establish a few things:
a) Those against birth control largely come from conservative groups
b) Conservative leaders also generally disagree with the following: LGBT rights, immigration into the U.S, and universal healthcare
c) Creating a constitutional amendment to grant the guaranteed right of birth control means that conservatives will strengthen their views to retaliate, meaning that the fight for all three of those subjects becomes more difficult.

Would you sacrifice this much for birth control? That would not help. Instead, advocate for better laws around health so they include birth control.
Debate Round No. 2


This is my body. I have yet to see you answer my questions or address my claims. I am not obligated to conceive children. That is why I had my tubes removed. That was my right, and my choice. Answer my question: What if a woman or girl is raped? Would you FORCE her to conceive a child?


Again, Pro did not bother to mention anything about what I was saying, and thus there is no clash. Pro is arguing the wrong argument, the counter is that describing it as a right will cause problems, as I've mentioned. Yes, this IS your body. You deserve birth control and you shoudn't be discouraged from using it. But, because people currently are capable of getting birth control (by and large), and because of this there is no need to turn it into a Constitutional right. If we were to even consider that option, millions of immigrants, minorities everywhere, and people in poor poverty will lose civil liberties to the right wing. This would be the peak of white feminism. White feminism is the mass of ideological actions for the sake of rhetoric and public statements, and as a result cause strife for racial minorities, and by putting birth control to the position of Constitutional right is not only devastating, but problematic in nature. Don't vote for a Pro side that endorses suffering.
Debate Round No. 3


Here's where I object to what you said: Not every woman can afford contraception or tubal ligation with conservative healthcare plans. That's why I support single payer which provides healthcare and contraception to anyone who has need while actually saving money. Otherwise, what you said has logic.


With consideration to what Pro says, I still must disagree.

1) Contraceptives are not entirely expensive by any stretch. Contraceptives go to as low as 1 dollar, and emergency Plan B can go to twenty dollars.
2) Pro has said that inclusive single-payer healthcare provides patients with contraception, however I argue that we are not here to discuss single-payer healthcare, we are discussing the ideology behind describing contraception as a right, which provides devastating results. Allow me to illustrate not why it is devastating, but why the ideology behind a right is unneeded for contraception.

a) As I said, contraception is generally cheap.
b) Contraception procedures may be expensive, a tubal litigation surgery as well as other possibilities, /but this is all covered by healthcare currently./ (Source:
c) There is no need to further fight for birth control, the fight has been won, so why do we cross into constitution?
Debate Round No. 4


A woman sometimes has trouble with affording reliable contraception if she is poor, so Obama issues the contraception should be covered by insurance. Me having my tubes removed was covered by Medicaid because I'm disabled and I can't work full time. Berniecare would solve this debate.


ok, aff has presented a case for insurance. However, this is a question of the implementation of a policy, particularly one that does not relate to the debate at hand at all. The question is to whether or not contraception should be distributed by federal and constitutional right, to which it shouldn"t due to the reasons ceded by my opponent. Vote con for adressing the debate at hand.

Even /if/ we were to discuss insurance, as I sourced from the governments healthcare mandate requirements, all insurers must provide compensation for birth control. It is a mandate. Because of this, there is no need to discuss reliable contraception.
quick rebuttal and conclusion:
"Berniecare would solve this debate"
Berniecare was never mentioned throughout thr debate and the question of it "solving" implies that we are discussing implementation. My opponent has convluded their rebuttal with an off-topic resolution that does not test the ideology of contraception as a right. Vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con by default!

[*Reason removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 2 years ago
Does Pro realize that Con is pro-choice...?

Also, I don't think Pro necessarily cares that you are against it, Shad0wXx. There's a reason it's their profile picture.
Posted by Shad0wXx 2 years ago
I"d like to say that I disagree with both pro and con. Also, pro"s profile picture is abhorrent.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.