Women Have The Right to Contraceptives

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.