Women Have The Right to Contraceptives

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 scenariosCut 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 RebuttalsRebut my arguments, not the ones you cherry-picked. I'll address religious arguments later, though.Re: HealthMy 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 ArgumentWhy 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 beforeDon'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 rightsWhat 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.Sources1) 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...