Libertarians should believe that Hobby Lobby should pay for it's Employees contraception.

-Argument from Libertarian Foundations - Libertarianism unlike a lot of other modern ideologies such as Liberalism stands for Liberty in all major spheres of life , It stands for both Economic Freedom and Personal Freedom . The English Oxford dictionary defines Libertarianism as the following - 'An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. ' . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Libertarians should not believe in the state forcing employers to fund their employees health care as Libertarianism as an ideology is charactarised by minimal intervention , especially in spheres that can work fine without it. -Argument from Morality- This is not an argument for why Libertarians shouldn't believe in forcing employers to pay for contraception , this is an argument for why everybody shouldn't . My opponent , by advocating for state intervention when Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for it's employees health care is saying this is a good course of action meaning equivelent to -good. My opponent has to prove how stealing from people to fund unessential healthcare that is already affordable in the US (Additionally she doesn't have to get contraception for herself , she can buy condoms for the man) is neccessary and morally right. I don't believe it is morally right to force someone to give up their property to fund something that is not neccessary , in fact it is cruel as this money goes to something they claim their religion does not support. Now I will try to address my opponent's arguments. Argument 1) 'People should not be forced to be parents. ' I agree , Force defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is - ' Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement:' -. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... By simply not paying for something I am not forcing you to do anything . Nobody forces you to have sex because they are not paying for your protection, You can just stop having sex, clearly that is the best way to not get pregnant . My opponent has to prove how people are forced most of the time to have sex . On the other hand by making employers pay for employees healthcare you are actually using a threat of violance to get the funds , people have historically gone to jail for not giving money to the government . See example -(. http://www.forbes.com...) Argument 2) ' The health of some women would be threatened by pregnancy and childbirth. I am one of those women' A women has the free will to choose to have sex or not, she also has the free will to buy protection or not , therefore it is irrelevant if she faces danger from her choices as the danger is not caused by coercion (See definition at - . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ) The danger is caused by choice , What my opponent is advocating for is equivelent to -Because some people make the choice to engage in extreme sports , we should force people to pay for their injuries if they suffer from some. Additionally it does not matter because it has nothing to do with the ideology of Libertarianism, I remind my opponent that the debate is over if Libertarians should believe that the state should coerce employers into paying for their workers contraception not if a women should use contraception. Argument 3) ' 3. Contraception would allow women to be in the work force longer. ' Therefore this women should pay for her own contraception, It will benefit both the Employer and the Employee while coercing Employers into it is another unneccessary regulation that reduces the amount of capital the company can invest which helps the economy, even if forcing the Employers to pay for their Workers contraception was benefitical to the economy , again it is irrelevant to why Libertarians should support it and it is the opposite of what Libertarianism stands for (Minimal Intervention) , Libertarians should believe in Minimal Intervention because this is what their ideology advocates for. Argument 4- 'There would be less unwanted children born to be abused. I do understand opposing abortion, but it makes no sense to oppose abortion. Who is less likely to have an abortion than women who are not pregnant? ' My opponent has not used statistics to prove that in countries where contraception is free less children are abused . Her argument again is not relevant to Libertarianism. I am not advocating for women to stop using contraception , I am simply advocating for the state not to coerce companies such as Hobby Lobby to pay for this contraception. Where is the evidence that if woman have to pay for contraception out of their own pockets mean that they just won't and that they will have children instead , this is underestimating the intelligence of women and can be compared to saying they are dumber then men (Yes it's women who have to take care of babies most of the time but men are also often forced to pay child support) . If a women definatly does not want a child she can alternatively give up the child for adoption. I look forward to my opponent's response.