Question: Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... There are good reasons for making the morning-after pill a non-prescription drug. It can take time to get a prescription from a doctor, and in cases of emergency contraception speed is very important. Some patients may be embarrassed to tell their doctor about their sexual behaviour, and consequently be put off seeking a prescription. The restriction of emergency contraception to over-16s makes no sense in any case; a girl under 16 who has had unprotected sex may well need emergency contraception.

Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Arguments left unchallenged as per opponent forfeiture. Von Con please.

Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Birth control is a "free will" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of "free-will sexual intercourse" and "free-will reproductive suppression" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.

teens should beallowed to get birth control Yes but as I said in the last round teenagers will contiue to use birth control pills to not get in trouble and they think they will be invincible and will be untouchable. Soon their body will be immune to the pills and will have the child btu teenagers aren't ready for birth control pills. If teenager drink underage then how can you believe they will overuse the birth control pills?

Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. You claim that teens being able to buy birth control automatically will cause teen pregnancies to drop, but just because you buy something doesnt mean you will actually use it or use it properly. My dad buys rifles and ammunition almost once a week but he never uses them he just mounts it on the wall or sells it to a higher price to his friends. Just because teens could buy birth control does not guarantee they will actually use them. Only 35% of teenagers use condoms even though they have access to them. http://www.idph.state.il.us... After you read that statistic look two lines lower on the website, teenagers like to get hammered and use illegal drugs during sex so they might not even have the common sense to use the birth control they bought..... You may want to consider that just because it is now more accessible doesnt guarantee that teenagers will still go and buy them. Also consider the fact that they must be used correctly. There are many birth control contraptions that could do quite a bit of damage to the teenager if they use it improperly, sometimes birth control pills and such are linked to causing many problems in an individual Yaz: a birth control product used by millions of women was found to be linked to horrible side effects such as blindness, in some cases cancer, strokes, etc. and that is just ONE of the DOZENS of birth control supplements out there on the market. You claim that parents dont want to let their kids have sex because they will get pregnant and that sex is safe with birth control, perhaps you have never heard of things called STD's.... STD's, as we all know, are sexually transmitted diseases and there is no form of birth control on the market that prevents against the passing of any STD from one individual to another. STD's affect far more teenagers than teenage pregnancies do, and STDs affect teenagers more than any other age group.... Sources showing birth control does not protect against STD's http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com... http://ehealthforum.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.zocdoc.com... http://www.womenshealthzone.net... Number of STD cases each year (roughly 3 million a year among teenagers) HIV = 10,000 to 20,000 new cases a year among teenagers Chlamydia = 40% of ALL girls 15 to 19 HPV = 15% of ALL girls 15 to 19 Herpes = up to a million new cases each year total, a great proportion of them among teenagers AIDS = Over a million total, many cases are not even reported though.... http://health.shiawassee.net... http://www.bhg.com... Teenage pregnancy = 1 out of 12 teenage girls, Teenage STD's = 1 out of 4.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could go on but Ill stop here for now, so let me summarize: Unconditional access to birth control by teenagers should not be legal because 1) Just because teenagers buy them doesn't mean they will use it properly or at all 2) Birth control (Yaz for example) has many harmful effects that cause many more health problems then they prevent 3) Birth controls do NOT prevent against STD's which spread faster and affect WAY more teenagers than pregnancy does 4) The alleged health "benefits" of the POSSIBILITY of lowering pregnancy rates would be greatly offset by the number of new STD cases, which in many cases prove to be lethal.....

Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of "the pill" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow!

Schools give out free birth control pills I believe that birth control pills should be given out in schools because we don't want children!!! Children are bad, we need to save the planet by saving space. So every girl and boy should get given them. The girls will take the pills, the boys will give them to their girlfriends.

teens should beallowed to get birth control But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their "wise master".

young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. By making the morning after pill easy accessable to teen. Is saying it ok for them to go and have unprotected sex .which Opean door for them to get STD. the morning after pill is there to fix problem and undo the wrong. But the morning after pill doesn't cured STD.

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Birth Control is extremely hard to manage, and should not be seen as this fool proof way of stopping teen pregnancy. Without a parent to help them, chances are a teenage girl will improperly administer it, especially if she is trying to keep it secret from her parents. No one should condone allowing a teenager to have access to something as important as birth control without parental knowledge and supervision because a) the parent has the right to know and can help and b) they will probably use it incorrectly at some point. If you want them to have protection without parental knowledge then they have condoms....you need to show why condoms are not an appropriate solution to the problems you've listed, and why we should allow inexperienced teenagers access to a drug that plays hell with their hormones and can be very dangerous. It's kind of like saying that teenagers should be allowed to get a vasectomy without parental consent. The resolution is negated.

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent They should not because the pills are very expensive and a teenager needs a parents help in this important ordeal.

Birth Control I believe that birth control should be allowed to be obtained without parental consent. When a girl is requesting to use birth control, she is being mature and responsible and it is her own right, not her parents, to make the decision to have sex or not. If someone is making the decision to have sex, they should be mature enough to make the decision to be safe about it. Further more, most teens would have sex if they want to regardless if they have protection or not, so it is better to be safe than sorry.

Birth Control I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.

Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. I understand what the debate is about, what I am showing though is that if birth control were to be available to all teenagers then STD cases would go up. Teenagers would be having sex and pregnancy rates may go down but because STD rates would go up is the reason why I am against allowing all teens unrestricted access to birth control. My final arguments against unrestricted birth control: 1) A subsequent rise in STD rates 2) Teens may not even use them 3) Even if they do they may not use them correctly 4) Pregnancies may fall but STD rates would climb so there would be no net health benefit (I see what you meant by the guns argument, so no harm done)

young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control.

There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients’ over-the-counter purchases, but a patient’s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer’s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.

Contraception is a right. Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't the only thing that's getting the treatment. That's because each of those little pills contains hormones and changes the hormones in your body, according to Toni Stern, M.D., Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Coney Island Hospital. The Pill may hurt- LibidoOC's slash libido-friendly testosterone in two ways: First, they quiet the ovaries, halting their production of testosterone. Second, the liver pumps out a protein called the sex hormone-binding globulin, which gloms onto sex hormones ,including testosterone, like bargain shoppers on Black Friday sales. But while OC's lower testosterone levels in all women, they lower libido only in some. And even if the Pill does affect your mojo, plenty of other factors like anxiety about getting preggers affect it, too. You may have serious problems below the belt. Blood clots- Chances are, you've heard this warning speed by during more than one birth control pill commercial. But before you reach for a bottle of Bayer, let's put things into perspective: Each year, 7 in 10,000 women experience blood clots. Birth control extremely enhances your chances, while pregnancy and childbirth raise your chances even more. But if you experience any signs of a blood clot, such as chest pain or a swollen leg, immediately stop the pill for God's sake. http://www.parents.com... * This is why passing out contraceptives is not only wrong, but it is deadly. Of course Liberals, generally don't care about long term results, just temporary satisfaction. This is how children think.

Birth Control To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.

young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. The morning after pill should not be banned from young adolescent girls. If restrictions are passed against teenage girls buying pregnancy prevention medication; then these young women will have to go to more extreme measures in ensuring that pregnancy will not be an issue for them. Let's face it most young adults don't share everything with their parents especially things that they feel will get them into trouble. These girls will feel reluctant telling an adult that they are pregnant. Why not allow them to safely prevent something that will no doubt change their lives forever.

Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ... Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically women have often suffered more because of restrictive policies related to reproduction (abortion laws, restrictions on birth control purchases, parental consent policies). Men often don’t have to face the consequences of their actions. Condom distribution encourages the responsibility of men and increases choices for women. It can also establish condom use as the norm, not something that women continually have to negotiate, often from a position of weakness.

Birth Control I agree with your point that in some cases, a young woman not being able to obtain birth control would prevent her from being sexually active, and therefore might prevent a mistake from happening. But isn't the point of birth control to prevent a mistake from happening either way? The common age for a girl to become sexually active is 15... and though a parent should know what is going on with their child, most likely, they will not and never will know what is going on with their 15 year old daughter. Furthermore, each year in United States, 800,000 to 900,000 adolescents 19 years of age or younger become pregnant, with a high percentage of that number being unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. If a young woman could prevent an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy that may or may not end in abortion, why shouldn't she be able to?

Condoms in Schools Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ...

Banning the Pill P1: Seventeen year olds do not need a prescription to have access to the morning after pill. P2: Anyone under seventeen does need to have a prescription to know whether they should be allowed to take the pill [1]. P3: Those under seventeen could get the pill from people over seventeen. P4: Having the pill will create a mistaken belief that the pill is a second option to solve their responsibilities of not having sex. Therefore: The morning pill should be banned. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

Banning the Pill I should 1st make myself clear, the ban should be for all. Those that are over 17 have easy access to the pill and could provide it for those that are younger. In order for the pill to be effective the person taking it would need to have a certain BMI for it to be effective [1] therefore those that are below 16 need a prescription but there are those younger than 16 that would not know this and if they are aware of the existence of the morning after pills but nothing more then this could create a misconception of it being a second option which shouldn't be. Therefore to prevent this misconception the morning pill should be banned for good. 1 http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Arguments extended to next round.

Banning the Pill The morning after pill should not be banned. P1. It is true that the morning-after pill may act as a contraceptive; if it is taken before ovulation, it may act to prevent conception. http://www.prolifephysicians.org... P2. It can act for emgergencies for mistakes that a person may have done the night before P3. Everyone should be responsible for their actions Conclusion. The morning after pill should be available for eveveryone because its their life and their actions that impact their life, nobodys elses.

Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. I believe that teens should be aloud to get birth control without their parents consent because it would save a lot of teen pregnancies. A lot of teens do not go to their parents because they are too scared of being disowned when their parent or guardian finds out that he or she is having sex. Most teens don't want their parents knowing that they are having sex. So they do not go to them and they have sex any ways. I know then there would be problems with parents then trying to take doctors to court, but I should be legal. It should be up to the doctor to explain the health risks and up to to the person to have the freedom to choose. Even if teens do go to their parents most parents would say no any ways because they to not want their children to have sex any ways. I bet before a teen got pregnant the parent wouldn't consent birth control, but they wish their teen was aloud to get it any ways to save them the hassle when their grandchild arrives.

Birth Control I do understand your point about how parents should be aware if their child is doing prescription medication. However, concluding my argument, I still stand by my point that women under 18 should have the right to birth control without parents' consent. In history, during the National Birth Control movement, a right to privacy was established, which meant that women had the right to control their own body. I believe that this right is extended to all women, not just women over 18. It is a young women's own decision to use birth control, and if a girl does not feel comfortable talking to her parents about her sexual activity, I do not believe that should prevent her from a mistake like teenage pregnancy.

Banning the Pill Whether it is a contraceptive or not is not in dispute. I am more concerned with the irresponsibility that will be created if those that are over 17 years old have easy access to the pill especially when that are under 16 years old could easily ask someone who is 17 years old to get them the pill or even worse their partner who could be of age and get it for them. Therefore, the morning pill should banned.

Banning the Pill People make mistakes when having sex. Irresponsibility should always have a consequence, but with the pill there cut can limit there chances of dealing with that. It also: "-Lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies. -Stops an unwanted pregnancy before abortion is needed or considered. -Does not cause birth defects if the woman is already pregnant. -The morning after pill simply provides another method that can be used as an emergency." http://homepages.rpi.edu... These reasons prove that the pill shouldn't be banned. Regardless of age, if a woman cannot take care of a child there is an option for her to use which can benefit her.

Birth control given out in schools Fundamentally this argument comes down to a simple question, does teaching abstinence work? I would strongly argue the fact that abstinence has for too long been the accepted method of teaching about sex and wrongly. I firstly want to compare two methods of teaching about sex, the first being the US where abstinence is the generally preferred route and the second being Europe where the sex-positive approach is taken. By sex positive I mean that as the society understands that teenagers are going to have sex, that they will have sex. My case in point being the USA in which the Teenage pregnancy rate was 7% in 2006, now you may think that this number is "low" but when compared to the figure for example of the Netherlands you can clearly see the difference. In Holland only 0.7% of teenagers become pregnant. This equates to only 7 in every 1000 and is 10 times less than in the USA. Now if we look at how sex is taught in each country I think it becomes obvious why. In the USA as mentioned abstinence is the preferred method with 34% of schools teaching abstinence only with _no_ teaching at all of birth control methods. This method is irresponsible as teenagers are going to have sex, however much you teacher them or whatever laws are in place humans are sexual creatures and natural urges are going to prevail. Teaching students about sex and how sex can be positive rather than portrayed as negative will help them to makes better informed choices about what they want to do. Creating a false dichotomy between having children equals having sex and no sex equals no children is a vast simplification which scares people and hides the facts. In your post you make the point that schools should not teach students about sex and it should be the parents' responsibility and to counter this I would like to present an analogy. If you were a farmer and wanted to find out whether to farm sheep or pigs would you either ask your uninformed parents to make the decision for you or an informed expert to present the facts about which is best? I would argue that it is better that someone who was informed taught. In order to make informed choices it is important that contraceptives are readily available and if needs be free. Removing the barriers to create a simple choice in which everyone can make.

Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Thanks for the debate so far. We will have to stick to the schedule and scope that we agreed to in the first round. That means that CON will "be arguing that contraceptives should NOT be classified as preventative health care for the purpose of insurance coverage," and I will be arguing that "Contraceptives SHOULD be classified as preventative care for the purpose of insurance coverage."This will allow for a full debate on whether or not the new provisions should, or should not, be included within the ACA provisions.It's impossible to argue that "all" conceivable types of contraception and birth control should be made available through the new health care reform laws. The reforms do not allow for any and all forms of contraception to be made available everyone, but only provides for specific methods of determining which contraceptives will be covered. Most of these decisions will be made by the insurance companies themselves.Opening Argument, Background and Statistics The ACA includes an amendment that seeks to increase access and reduce cost barriers to very basic family planning and women’s health services. These services will be needed by every healthy woman at some point in her life. Contraception and reproductive health care cannot be removed from the larger topic of women's health care. Every woman will require some form of these services throughout her reproductive life in order to prevent unintended pregnancies and related health care needs.Contraception is not only critical to the health of women, but also crucial for healthy pregnancies and babies. A woman who is unaware that she is pregnant may forgo important health considerations that she and her baby need. Contraceptives play an important role in helping to ensure that more pregnancies are planned, provided for, and healthy. Fact Sheet: - Most women who use contraceptives are married. (77%) - 98% of all women who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method. - More than half of all American women will experience an unintended pregnancy before the age of 45 - Cost barriers to pregnancy prevention are a major factor in the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and the related health impact. The rate of unplanned pregnancy is five times higher among poor women. [5] http://www.debate.org...What is covered by the Affordable Care Act?The ACA requires employer sponsored health plans to offer contraception without a co-pay. There are exeptions for providers with demonstrated moral objections to family planning, such as religious institutions. Additionally, only a specific list of FDA-approved, female-based contraceptives may be covered. The insurance providers determine what each individual plan will cover.Why was pregnancy prevention added to the new health reform laws? According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, some 71 million Americans will benefit, or have already benefited, from preventive medical procedures without cost sharing burdens thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Many of these Americans are women, who may now qualify for pregnancy postponement options that might have otherwise been unavailable to them. [1] This is important, because unexpected pregnancies are the leading factor in elective abortions, and play an outsized role in the rate of miscarriages that occur each year. Almost half of all pregnancies are unplanned. [2] Why should family planning services be classified as Preventive care? The purpose of contraception is to prevent unwanted and unintended pregnancy, and the related health impact and costs. The preventive nature of contraception makes this area the most common-sense form of classification. What associated medical conditions can proper contraceptive use prevent? Postponing pregnancy can benefit public health in important ways. Some of these benefits include creating better opportunities for families to prepare for an ideal pregnancy, helping to prevent fetal and infant illness, and a greatly reduced likelihood of abortion. Women who cannot afford to provide a healthful environment for their offspring benefit the most from low-cost, safe pregnancy prevention. Proper family planning can help women have healthier babies, healthier pregnancies and improved postpartum health. These provisions can also prevent some very serious medical costs and conditions later. These medical concerns can pose a very serious risk for newborn infants and mothers alike. Although healthy women can benefit greatly from pregnancy postponement and reproductive health care, women who may be unable to deliver a full term baby safely will also benefit from preventing the potential medical consequences of pregnancy. Preventive reproductive women’s health services can help to reduce the high costs of unintended pregnancy in at-risk populations. Although these costs are economic and social as well as medical, it is the medical toll that is most relevant to this debate. Some of these potential consequences are low birth weight, poor fetal development, exposure to harmful substances (because the mother was unaware that she was pregnant), infant death in the first year after birth and insufficient resources. According to the Centers for Disease Control, contraceptive availability and other preventive care is essential to women’s health at times when pregnancy would create unaffordable health care costs, improper infant nutrition or exposure to harmful substances, since about half of all pregnancies are unintended. [3] The CDC goes on to report that contraceptive use helps to prevent 188 million unintended pregnancies and therefore, some 1.2 million newborn deaths, and 230,000 maternal deaths worldwide. [4] Does preventing unintended pregnancy also prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases? Although some forms of birth control can be helpful in preventing the spread of STDs, the primary function of contraception is to prevent pregnancy and associated health effects. Preventing the spread of STDs and other communicable diseases, such as the cold and flu, is not directly relevant to a debate on family planning and women’s health care. Are there potential risks involved with contraceptive use?The potential negative health effects of contraceptives are minor, and are far outweighed by the dangers posed by unintended pregnancies. Limiting access to safe and effective pregnancy prevention can increase the risk of unintended and unsafe pregnancies, abortion and also fails to reduce sexual activity. [6] There is no evidence that proper family planning practices must have a negative impact on women’s health. Conclusions:A cherished life event for most families, pregnancy must be entered into with a great deal of caution and preparation. For some women, pregnancy carries with it many medical challenges that require high levels of economic and health preparation before it can be safely entered into. In many cases, temporarily preventing that pregnancy with contraceptives allows a woman time for such preparation. Contraceptives and family planning options are a critical component of women's health, and should be included with other preventive health care options available to families. [1] http://aspe.hhs.gov... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://www.cdc.gov... [4] http://www.guttmacher.org... [5] http://www.guttmacher.org... [6] http://www.guttmacher.org...

teens should beallowed to get birth control let me start off by saying the should. my reasons are because face it teens are going to do what they want. their are going to have sex f you want them to or not. because of that factor i think they should be allowed birth control on top of safe sex to decrease the teen pregnancy rate. i will go into further detail when an opponent comes into the picture.

Emergency Contraception There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...

Women Have The Right to Contraceptives 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.

Banning the Morning After Pill I would argue in favor of keeping the morning after pill and to just have restriction that will only allow adults to buy it but I cant. Even though there are already restrictions that only allow anyone over 17 to buy the pill there is still a possibility that anyone younger than 17 can get access to it through those that are allowed access to this pill, since, once they leave the store they are able to do what ever they want with the pill.

Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Studies shows that condoms and other contraceptives do NOT work 100% and therefore whether or not they are available there will still be the spread of sti's/std's and there will still be a high rate of teenage/unwanted pregnancies. Just the teen knowing that they have access to that contraceptive they will abuse and overuse it therefore not being cautious because in their mind it is "suppose" to make them safe with no risks and so no" what if's" or "worries" are in their minds.

Schools give out free birth control pills I would agree with you, but you need to understand that not every young couple is going to have under-aged sex. Also, it's one's decision to have sex. If someone gets pregnant, its their fault and they should worry about it, themselves. The schools shouldn't have to be the ones to take care of that situation. It also gives the impressing that the schools think so little of you. "Welcome to our school! Now take these birth control pills, because we think the worst for you." Wait a second, I just thought of something. What about those who don't know what sex is? No, really, what about those who weren't taught what sex is. I don't know if every school has a sex ed class, but you have to factor in the fact not every kid is going to know about sex. Also, you would think the parents would be in the biggest rampage because of that.

Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Contraceptives as Preventive Care Health care providers, women and insurers all have every reason to prefer contraception over the costs and health impact of unintended pregnancy. Perhaps more importantly, women have every right to ask for the ability to control the timing, spacing and frequency at which pregnancy occurs.This debate has focused primarily on the potential negative health impacts of mistimed pregnancy, in order to support the view that contraception presents a less expensive treatment option for insurers when compared to managing crises that often result from unhealthy pregnancies. Many other areas of focus had to be ignored, such as the fairness of allowing men to enjoy erectile-dysfunction medication while denying contraception coverage to women, and the very basic right of women to control their reproductive fate. For the record, I personally regret not having had the opportunity to elaborate on this basic human right. Covered in This Debate Perhaps surprisingly, considering the potential ranges of topics associated with this subject, this debate has centered on the question of whether or not pregnancy qualifies as a medical condition that might incur costs, and potentially cause negative health effects that should be avoided. For this reason, I will focus on underscoring the arguments made on this aspect of the debate in the final round. Is Pregnancy a Medical Condition that Might Reasonably Require Medical Care? Repeatedly, Con has stated that pregnancy is not a problem for women. The truth is far different. In fact, pregnancy is very often lethal for women without medical treatment. Women require competent medical care in order to enjoy a healthful and safe pregnancy. The unacceptably high number of maternity related deaths among women who are unable to obtain such care proves this fact. Con says that pregnancy is not a disease, or a harmful health condition that needs to be managed. However, in order for this to be true, pregnant women require medical attention. Maternity related death is a major problem for women and newborn infants in regions that lack adequate health care. http://www.childinfo.org...; /> http://www.debate.org...;[1] Additionally, even developed nations such as the United States often struggle to control the number of deaths associated with pregnancy. http://www.cdc.gov...; />[2] http://www.debate.org...And the causes of death among pregnant women help to underscore the unavoidable conclusion that pregnancy can cause very severe health consequences that are very likely to require medical care. http://www.cdc.gov...; /> [3] http://www.debate.org...;Con repeatedly argues that pregnancy is not a health problem that should be managed or in some cases prevented. However, becoming pregnant is always a serious medical event, and is often fatal. Without modern medical techniques, childbirth would be one of the leading causes of mortality among women. [4] Even healthy pregnancies require assistance and incur costs that can be offset by insurance. However, there are many types of pregnancy, and many associated health conditions. Con has never argued that these adverse health conditions should not be prevented.The Benefits of Preventing Unwanted PregnancySpacing and Timing of Pregnancies Women must provide adequate intervals between pregnancies in order to prevent a wide range of health problems that can result from spacing pregnancies too close together. Some of the negative health effects of rapidly sequenced pregnancies can include: -Preterm delivery -low birth weight -Uterine Rupture in vaginal deliveries that follow too closely to a C-Section -Placental Abruption (placenta detaches from the uterus) [5] Improved Prenatal Care Besides pregnancy spacing, contraceptives also allow for controlled pregnancies. A woman who was not intending to become pregnant may not quickly detect her pregnancy, and therefore not provide important health care and nutrition to her gestating baby. Maternal Depression Becoming pregnant is a key life event for most women. Unwanted pregnancies can cause severe depression, triggering inadequate maternal care.Paternal and Familial Involvement A critical component of a healthy birth outcome is the involvement level of the child's father and other family members. This involvement provides healthful assistance to the mother (both before and after delivery) as well as the infant. Benefits to Insurance ProvidersIn addition to the obvious health benefits of controlled pregnancies, there are numerous cost savings to insurance providers. Despite the fact that comprehensive family planning services such as implants, surgical procedures, self-administered and hormonal contraception may be unaffordable for many individual women, family planning is inexpensive for insurers. This is especially true when we consider that insurance companies will pay explosive costs associated with mistimed, unprepared for, and nonviable pregnancies - many of which can present lifetimes of expensive treatments. Contraceptives are very effective in preventing these accidental pregnancies, when used correctly. http://www.guttmacher.org... Source Ref: http://www.guttmacher.org...; /> [6]http://www.debate.org... Additionally, insurance plan providers have a powerful interest in preventing unwanted pregnancies.The costs of health maintenance during and after a pregnancy are explosive, especially if there are complications associated with that pregnancy. Since half of all pregnancies are unplanned, the cost saving to insurers that might be expected to result from prevention practices offers an overwhelming argument in favor of contraception. http://www.childinfo.org... Source link: http://www.guttmacher.org...; />http://www.debate.org... [7] A Clear DecisionContraception helps to protect the health of women and babies, as well as serving the best financial interests of insurers and overburdened health care providers. [1]http://www.debate.org... [2]http://www.guttmacher.org... [3]http://www.guttmacher.org...[4] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.mayoclinic.com... [6] http://www.guttmacher.org... [7] http://www.guttmacher.org...

Public Funded Birth Control I will start off by saying that publicly funded would be beneficial to society as a whole since it would 1. Save Money. The reason it would save money is because less welfare children would be born since the lower socio-economic groups would have access to birth control. Since there would be less welfare children born, the state would not have to spend on much on welfare as they currently do. 2. Less abortions. Since all people would have access to birth control, the amount of unintended pregnancies would drop. With less unintended pregnancies, there would be a correlating effect to less abortions. 3. Good for the Environment. With slower population growth, society as a whole would become more sustainable and put less strain on the environment. 4. Good for the economy. With all the money saved from having to spend on birth control, people could spend money on other items or services (or better yet save money) which would have a positive effect on the nation. With positive economic, social, and environmental consequences, it seems unreasonable to argue that It would have a negative effect compared to the current status qua of not having birth control publicly funded.

birth control should be covered by insurance Arguments extended.

young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy" Article source: http://ec.princeton.edu...

Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. You make very good points, but I never said that birth control prevents STD's. Also it is logical that if not used correctly it would be harmful. Also I never said that ALL teen girls would actually go and get it, but the one's that are willing to go get it. Your father might buy guns, but that doesn't give him the right to murder. A teen that has strict parents, (possibly Catholic parents), cant just go and say I need birth control because it in most cases, just does not work. The doctor would explain how to use it, and it would but up to the free willed teen to use it correctly. When birth control is not used correctly by ANY ONE it can be harmful not just teens. Also not just teens sell and use drugs, not just teens use or don't condoms, and just because the legal drinking age is 21 doesn't mean that teens don't drink. Note: This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy.

The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women The benefits to having the gov't provide long term birth control to low income women are many fold. First, women who have access to reliable, long-term, affordable birth control earn more and need less gov't assistance then those without access. Second, if the gov't provided long-term birth control the abortion rates would decrease. Finally, When women have access to long-term birth control it increase their quality of life. For the benefits of this debate, long-term affordable birth control is defined as IUD's, implants and the like.

Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Thanks to CON for clarifying the scope of the debate.So far in this debate, the following areas of agreement have been reached:CON agrees that insurance companies should cover contraceptives, just not all contraceptives in all circumstances. This is hyperbolic, and is not being argued in this debate.CON has dropped the contention that contraceptives and family planning should be categorized as part of the preventive care amendment in the Affordable Care Act, saying that he does not feel that it is a relevant point. "Preventive Care" can be defined as "a pattern of nursing and medical care that focuses on disease prevention and health maintenance. It includes early diagnosis of disease, discovery and identification of people at risk of development of specific problems, counseling, and other necessary intervention to avert a health problem. Screening tests, health education, and immunization programs are common examples of preventive care." These concessions are important to this debate, because we have settled the issue of whether or not contraceptives are key to women’s health care, are correctly categorized legislatively as “Preventive Care” in the Affordable Care Act, and that insurance companies are justified in providing contraception to their policy holders. I feel that these concessions fulfill my requirements in upholding the resolution.I will continue the debate by addressing the remaining areas of contention.Contention 1:Pregnancy is a health related issue that needs to be managed, and therefore may need to be prevented or postponed in some circumstances.At several points in this debate, CON has disagreed with this statement. Some examples: - Being pregnant is not a health problem nor is preventing pregnancy the goal of preventive care.- In my opinion, being pregnant is not a health problem.- Being pregnant is a not a detrimental health issue and pregnancy prevention is not a goal of preventive care. The fact is, that women must be mature and informed about the decision to become pregnant. Pregnancy is a wonderful part of womanhood, and is a major life goal for most women. However, in order for it to be the safe and healthful event that it should be, it must be adequately prepared for. Otherwise, the consequences can be severe, and can include death for the mother and the baby. According to the World Health Organization, the main causes of maternal death are:"Severe bleeding/hemorrhage (25%) Infections (13%) Usafe Abortions (13%) Eclampsia (12%) Obstructed labor (8%) Other direct causes (8%) Indirect causes (20%) Indirect causes, such as anemia, HIV/AIDS and other ailments. all of which may complicate pregnancy or be aggravated by it." [1]Obviously, all of these risks associated with pregnancy can be prevented with proper contraceptive use. The seriousness of pregnancy as a potential health risk is underscored by a rise in deaths among American women, as well. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that, "The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent." [2] Considering the potential health risks that can accompany pregnancy, especially unmanaged pregnancies, no argument that suggests that Pregnancy is not a "disease or detrimental health condition and therefore never requires medical care, prevention or postponement" can be credible. The fact is that contraception is critical to controlling the timing of pregnancies, allowing for higher levels of preparation for this important life event. Contraception is critical in averting the serious health problems that can be associated with uncontrolled pregnancy.Contention 2:Pregnancy is only a choice if contraception is available.CON seems to be suggesting that some unnamed aspect of pregnancy makes women undeserving of medical care, explicitly arguing that since it is a "choice" it should not be prevented by insurance. However, the only way that pregnancy can be considered a "choice" is if pregnancy can be controlled, which requires contraception. There are many other issues with this argument that also need to be mentioned.Female Sexuality ArgumentsCON often seems to be suggesting that abstinence as a contraceptive method should be a first resort for women who wish to prevent pregnancy until they are better prepared for maternity. For many reasons this view is degrading to women, couples and families. It also implies a goal of enforcing female chastity by using pregnancy as a punishment for sexual activity. As I showed in the previous round, most women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancy are married, since more married women have more frequent sexual encounters than their single counterparts. Attempting to punish these women for having sex with their spouses is a gross violation of the intimate lives of these partners. An inability to control the frequency of pregnancy can cause resources, nutrition and proper care to be divided up among too many children, which can negatively impact the health of the family.CON also seems to suggest that pregnancy and sexual relations are personal choices, akin to working in a hazardous occupation or eating unhealthy foods. He seems to feel that this factor excludes pregnancy as a health condition that deserves to be managed or prevented with help from a health policy. If this view is allowed to stand, then all such choices should also be excluded as conditions that should be covered by insurance. For example, should soldiers or firefighters who make the personal decision to risk their health not be covered by insurance if they are injured in the line of duty? Should high cholesterol be excluded by health care plans since the personal choice to eat fatty foods may have caused it? Pregnancy and the related health impacts are prevented by contraceptives, in exactly the same way that flu shots prevent influenza. The extreme costs of health care make preventive options impossible for almost all Americans without insurance. Many preventive medical procedures are unaffordable without insurance. For example, mamograms can cost up to $600 [3]; a colonoscopy can cost as much as $8,500 [4]; and a pap smear can range up to $200 [5]. To regularly conduct all of these preventive health care measures would be cost prohibitive... which is why the concept of health insurance was created. To protect against the possibly unaffordable cost of health care, a person purchases health insurance. Con argues that it is a matter of personal responsibility to pay for one's own preventive health care, and that other people should not pay for your personal upkeep. However, with any insurance plan, other policy holders will "pay" for your claims. In the case of health care, other people will pay for your hospital visits, Doctor's Office visits, and preventive care. And they, in turn, will pay for yours. This is just how all insurance policies work.Conclusions:Health insurance plans should make contraceptives available as part of their preventive care options. This allows more women to prepare for more healthful pregnancies and prevents many of the negative health effects of too many nonviable pregnancies.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.stltoday.com... [3] http://clearhealthcosts.com... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://cervicalcancer.about.com...

Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children 1) Unconstitutional Telling women that they are forced to take birth control if they wish to be sexually active (without having children) is a violation of the ninth amendment, which refers to the rights retained the people. 2) In addition to being a violation of the ninth amendment, the Pro's arguments are a violation of the first amendment.

Birth control given out in schools According to Plu,Edu.org giving out birth control in schools would increase the teen sex rate by 46% because they feel we are giving them the ok to have sex . . It is not the responsibility of the school to act as our parent. Plus there are side effects to birth control for example birth control pills prevent pregnancy 99.9% but they do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. According to Dr. Hutchinson from planned parent hood other side effects of taking birth control pills are depression, naseu, headaches and break through bleeding. Why are we teaching absitence in schools if there is another room in that school giving out birth control? We teach students to say to say no to drugs, we don't turn around and give the kids clean needles so they don't get diseases or infections. Let this be a family decision.

Birth Control I understand your side, and I agree that girls should be able to talk to their parents about obtaining birth control. However, in cases where a parent would not let his or her child obtain birth control, I believe a young woman should be able to receive it herself. If a young woman is interested in obtaining birth control, then chances are she has been or will be sexually active soon, with or without her parents' consent. If she is allowed to get birth control, then the risk of becoming pregnant is decreased significantly, a conclusion that I believe should be a young woman's own right. If you believe that someone needs parental consent, what age do they no longer need it, 18?

Banning the Pill It's their life. They should do as they please. Banning the pill can be helpful to them if they made an irresponsible mistake. It shouldn't matter what age she is. You said yourself, if the girl can get someone older to buy it, what's the point of changing the age when she can potentially still have access?

Birth Control I understand your point however you may be misunderstanding me. I do believe girls should be able to obtain birth control to take control of their sex life and be able to prevent unwanted and unplanned mistakes. I agree with you on the fact that girls should be able to obtain such prevention and the high number of teen pregnancy further proves that. However I believe the users parents should be involved in the process. Even though a young girl may not want to talk about such topics with her parents, the discussion and decision to get birth control are things that should not be simply left to the opinions and maturity of a freshman or sophomore in high school. At that age girls are influenced by so many other things that may make a responsible decision difficult. Do you believe that such an important decision should be able to be made by a child of any age?

birth control should be covered by insurance Birth control is not a medical necessity for all women. In fact, I challenge my opponent to prove how it is since the burden of proof lies with her. On the subject of Viagra, Pro's claim is untrue; that medication is only covered by some insurance companies, not all. Other men have to pay for the medication just like women have to pay for birth control. There is no sexism behind this issue unless you wish it to be there. It is absurd to bring in the equal rights amendment considering that men cannot become pregnant. The situation is completely biased and that makes the issue moot. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she can practice abstinance or buy the birth control on her own. The implication that not covering birth control says that women's health is not important is incorrect and unfounded. If anything, it makes women more independent because THEY have to be responsible for their own selves. This is equivalent to men having to buy condoms; it is their responsibility and no one else. In conclusion, there is no reason for insurance companies to pay for any type of birth control, whether male or female. It is a purposeless endeavor.

birth control should be covered by insurance I would greatly appreciate some proof that the pill can treat cancer. I could not find proof of such a claim but instead found studies that showed it could be linked to breast cancer and cervical cancer in women. [1]Second, I've already expressed the fact that a woman can simply practice abstinance. There are a wide variety of alternative methods to the pill, such as IUDs, condoms, and surgery. Some of these are just as effective as the pill.Why should it be an insurance company's responsibility to look after a woman's womb in such a way? It is her personal responsibility to take care of that issue, not her insurance company. In the case of rape, providing birth control would apply to a large range of women and not just rape victims. They could also use one of the alternative methods mentioned above.Again for the Viagra case, my opponent's claim is inane. It is the company's right to choose what they cover and what they don't. Viagra actually treats a legitimate health problem, unlike my opponent's stark belief that birth control somehow prevents cancer. If it were proven that the pill prevents cancer by a reputable institution, then the argument might have more of a base.The final claim again is ludicrous to me considering that not providing birth control would in no way cause women to "suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world." Unless my opponent is referring to the pain of childbirth (which is uncontrollable for an insurance company), her statement has no support or reasoning behind it.1- http://www.cancer.gov...;

young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill. You are saying that it is no problem for a 11 year girls to walk into a pharmacy and purchase this pill why would 11 years old girls need to buy these pills ? Because in the first place they shouldn't be sexually active. At what age do we draw the line . The price of the plan B is $50 where is a 11 year old girl going to get that amount of money from if they are not telling their parents or don't need their consent . Don't you think because of the available of the pill now that more girls younger than age 11are going to start having sex? http://m.cvs.com...

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.

Contraception is a right. Please define your argument a little more specifically please. I think that women can defiantly take contraception if they please, however the way of the contraception being provided is the most debatable topic in this issue. I think that women should be able to go out and buy birth control, which is cheap, on their own dime. Their employers or the taxpayers are not responsible to provide this. Also, if you are having sex and taking birth control, you are having sex for recreational purposes. I love to go fishing on the weekends, but I don't demand from my employer that he or she pay for my fishing pole. Women should defiantly be allowed to use contraception, but I would like to debate how the contraception is paid for more.

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent I accept. I'm basically going to defend the position that it extremely irresponsible and dangerous to allow teenagers to play around with something as important as birth control behind their parents backs.

Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ... Widespread condom distribution will establish sexual activity as the norm among young teens, creating peer pressure to participate in sex. The added temptation to engage in sexual activity that is 'protected' will result in more women having sex at a younger age, perhaps furthering their exploitation.

Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. No need to wait, just jump right in. All I ask is that you address each of my points according to the number I gave it. 1. Contraception improves the health of women by allowing them to prevent pregnancy. 2. Childbirth is much more expensive than contraception. 3. No matter how you feel about abortion, people do have the right to choose what to do with their bodies as long as they do not hurt anyone. 4. Contraception saves money by allowing a person to avoid the cost of pregnancy, childbirth, recovery after childbirth, and so on. 5. Unwanted children are more likely to suffer and be abused, so why not prevent their conception. 6. Contraception is cost effective.

birth control in high school i think birth control is very high in high school they are all too young and they are making the wrong choses and they should really think about there choses because if they have a babie in high school then they have to drop out and then they have to get a crappy job to take care of that babie so there fore there should not be any birth control in high school

Banning of the "morning After Pill" Sex has become more socially accepted and teenagers are having sex at a younger age but this does not condone the use of a pill with a primary ingredient with many dangerous side effects . If anything this further proves my point because now the risk is being exposed to teenagers which are much more likely to need this "back up" plan more frequently than adults and further putting themselves at risk and continually damaging their menstrual cycles that can pair with their already complicated hormonal imbalance. The view of teenage moms and the financial Burdens they go through would be a solid defense if it was only used by teenagers but the fact is that the pill is used by females of all ages and poses a health risk that is not necessary.

birth control should be covered by insurance Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up.

The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women It is not the role of government to coerce it's citizens to fund what boils down to an obstruction of free market exchange between two consenting individuals. You have two major issues with you're position. First, if we Americans are truly free, the person who produced birth control should have the right to sell his or her product at whatever price he wishes. Then, a second party who wishes to purchase the birth control, can make an evaluation on if the utility of the product, in this case, birth control, is greater than the utility that could be otherwise provided by the money. This is part of being a free citizen. Beside the fact that a free person is able to interact with other free individuals without a third party interfering (in this case, the government), there are market issues. The lowering of the price of long term birth control artificially with government enforced price ceilings causes as an effect a mismatch between the utility provided, so consumption of the product (birth control) increases. To make this simple, would you go to the doctor more often if a visit costs you a dollar, as opposed to if it cost you $300 a visit? What if it costs the doctor $150 dollars to take a patient for an appointment? If people are going there because they suspect they have a very minor ailment (they feel tired that day, etc), that creates a problem, where there is a gap in financing that must be paid by a third party. This is what is going on here. Now people are consuming at a great that is artificially increased. Now, if you want the government to enact this by subsidizing with taxpayer money, I don't think I have any right to tell those people how their money should be spent, they earned it. If you expect them to just set a price ceiling, then who would want to produce at a price that would, more than likely, cause them to lose money. Why would I run a business that just loses me money? Then you have a shortage in the supply of long term birth control. Now either very few people will be able to get birth control, or the government has to produce it (either by paying someone or in-sourcing it). Once you enter that arena, where the government (with no efficiency motivation by profit), takes over major industries (pharmaceutical production), you have full blown communism. I could go on and on, but until I get more details, I'm going to think that you didn't fully consider the implications of what you are asking for. Even if it does provide a net positive outcome for society, the United States is a government that was founded on the idea that a government gets it's authority by the consent of a free populace. Once the government starts coercing people with the threat of force (you go to jail if you don't pay taxes), along with a monopoly on force (the military), it's not a free country. I don't think free birth control is worth being subjected to a communist government.

Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Hi Beverlee! Thanks for accepting this debate. I just want to clarify that the scope of this debate is strictly on whether all contraceptives should be classified as preventive care, not preventive care in general nor reproductive health, which has a larger scope than just contraception.For the purpose of this debate, I am defining preventive care as "a pattern of nursing and medical care that focuses on disease prevention and health maintenance. It includes early diagnosis of disease, discovery and identification of people at risk of development of specific problems, counseling, and other necessary intervention to avert a health problem. Screening tests, health education, and immunization programs are common examples of preventive care."(1)Preventive care consists of two basic functions:1. disease prevention 2. health maintenanceSome common methods of attaining said functions are:1. Screening and early diagnosis/identification2. Education and counseling3. Proactive prevention methods such as immunizationsAs you can agree, that is a pretty broad definition and there are definitely some aspects of contraception that can fall into preventive care. However, contraceptives as a whole does not meet the definition of preventive care. FDA-approved methods of contraceptives are "hormonal (e.g., birth control pills), barrier (i.e., diaphragms), emergency contraceptives (i.e., "morning after" pills) and select over-the-counter (OTC) contraceptives."(2) "Certain OTC contraceptives for women are covered at 100 percent including female condoms, emergency contraceptives (Next Choice", Next Choice One-Dose", Plan B One-Step"), and contraceptive film, foam and gel."(3) I will structure my argument around the function of preventive health care and relate it to the 3 FDA-approved functions of contraceptives (as OTC contraceptives fall into one of those three categories).A. Disease PreventionOne type of barrier contraceptive (condoms) does assist in preventing the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD). However, that is just a secondary function. I will argue that STD prevention is not a critical objective for preventive health care, the primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention, and the decision to have sexual relations is a privilege, not a right.Point 1: STDs are not considered a critical objective to preventive health careI would like to highlight some diseases on the CDC website for Preventive Screening recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF):(4)1. Alcohol Misuse2. Chlamydial Infection3. Hepatitis B only for pregnant women4. HIV only for high risk persons5. Obesity in Adults6. Tobacco UseHep B and C are on the list but the USPSTF only recommends Hep B screen for pregnant women and does not recommend or is neither for nor against screening for Hep C. Also, there is a distinct absence of other STDs, such as gonorrhea, meaning that STDs, in general, are not considered part of the preventive care regimen. Point 2: The primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention but pregnancy preventionSee definition of contraceptive. Also, the majority of FDA-approved contraceptives (hormonal, barrier other than condoms, and emergency) do not prevent disease. "The condom is the only form of birth control that also protects against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (the virus that causes AIDS)."(5)Point 3: Sexual activity is a choice, thus the use of condoms is a responsibility, not privilegeThe decision to be sexually active is a privilege, not right. In fact, abstinence is the only way to prevent the spread of STDs.(6) Just like purchasing care insurance, the cost of condoms for the purposes of STD prevention is the responsibility of the individual. While I fully agree that counseling for obesity or tobacco use should be included as preventive health care, the cost of tools such as gastro-bypass surgery and Nicotine patches are NOT covered by most preventive health care insurance nor required by ACA as preventative coverage. Review the Cigna Preventive Drug List and there is no category for weight loss or tobacco cessation.(7) Therefore, counseling and education on STDs should be covered by preventive care but not contraceptives such as condoms.I do not support full coverage of condoms under the guise of preventive health. Like the cost of maintaining a healthy lifestyle (gym membership, more expensive organic foods), using a condom is a personal responsibility.B. Health MaintenanceThis will probably be a greater point of contention in this debate as there are direct health benefits to the use of some contraceptives for specific individuals. I will argue that contraceptives as a whole do not promote health maintenance because only a few hormonal contraceptives help regulate health in specific circumstances and the use of contraceptives may actually be a health detriment.Point 1. Contraceptives used for health maintenance is limited to specific circumstances and typesOral birth control pills can help regulate numerous issues such as acne(8), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) (a debilitating form of PMS)(9), ease menopausal symptoms/discomfort(10), and even help prevent osteoporosis(11). However, each of these are only representative of a select group of hormonal contraceptives and health situations. Not all hormonal contraceptives are helpful in each of these specific cases. Other contraceptives have no bearing on an individual's health whatsoever. For the sake of clarity, becoming pregnant is not a health maintenance issue for a normal, healthy woman.Point 2. Use of contraceptives can actually be a health detrimentAccording to the World Health Organization, "the birth control pill increases a woman's risk for cancers of the breast, cervix and liver, but it decreases risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers."(12) Additionally, hormone imbalance is an issue where women may experience "anxiety, loss of appetite, insomnia and lack of concentration...sudden weight gain, a reduced sex drive, hot flashes and night sweats"(13) While there are several factors that can contribute to hormonal imbalance, "more commonly, medication such as birth control pills can also throw off your body's chemistry."(14) Other potential side effects of oral contraceptives "may include severe abdominal pain, chest pain, unusual headaches, visual disturbances, or severe pain or swelling in the legs"(15) as well as "sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences."(16)Contraceptives were never designed to be a health maintenance tool. I would support the limited use of certain oral contraceptives to assist in regulating hormones as a preventive health resource, but not all contraceptives in general.(1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.uhc.com..., Page 1(3) ibid.(4) http://www.cdc.gov...(5) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (6) http://www.webmd.com...; last bullet: Consider that not having sex is the only sure way to prevent STDs.(7) http://www.sjcme.edu...(8) http://www.webmd.com...(9) http://www.mayoclinic.com...(10) http://www.lifescript.com...(11) http://www.aafp.org...(12) http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...(13) http://www.sheknows.com...(14) ibid.(15) http://health.nytimes.com...(16) http://www.medicaln...

Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Regardless of a woman's right to her own body women have no medical need to have sexual intercourse and thus should not be forcing a health plan to fund their sexually active lifestyle (this entire argument by Pro is sexist since men need contraception too since they may be having sex with a girl who is not on the pill or want it for actual prevention of STDs which the pill does not offer).In Round 1 I stated that no one has to have sex but that some people need to be cured and can't afford it at time unless they are on a health plan. Health plans are about spending the money that all the insurance company's clients put in on the clients the need it the most. It is not fair to be spending valuable money on contraception and then realizing that not enough is left over for the people who actually need it (such as cancer patients undergoing chemo-therapy or donor recipients for a transplant operation).You did not rebut this at all and even when I expanded on it in R4 you state that the condoms should not be covered by insurance but the other methods (that prevent birth only) should. If you are going to not fund the STD-preventing method of contraception that is condoms but fund the less medically relevant sex-enabler that is just ridiculous.Okay, I am going to use big font here just to say the same thing that I have said all debate:If women do not want to get pregnant but cannot afford contraception there is this great money-saving tactic called not doing penile penetration during the experience of sexual pleasure. Furthermore if they do not want to risk STDs, there are options of masturbation with a variety of toys, both for men and women.There is absolutely no reason for the resolution to hold true.Thank you for reading.

Minors should need parental consent for abortions All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.

teens should beallowed to get birth control it is because of the peer pressure in teens lives with school, media, and music that they are having sex in the first place we all no that teens(not all ) are having sex and no matter how much the parents want to stop it teens will always be disobeying their parents. Additionally, most of pregnancies occur to unwed teen mothers. This means that even though most teens do not want to become pregnant, they are still becoming so as a result of sexual activity. While actual force to have sex is rare, many teenage girls (especially those under the age of 15) feel pressured to have sex. And, of course, the more intercourse a teenager has, the more likely it is that a teen pregnancy will eventually result. It's undeniable that kids today are maturing and growing up faster. Whether this is due to media influence or something in the meat they're eating, there is a definite sexual energy that permeates America's youth. And young teens are going to do what they do best: being sneaky and getting what they want. Three of Portland, Maine's middle schools have had a total of 17 reported pregnancies, a number that doesn't necessarily reflect any abortions or miscarriages. Whether because of outside influences or of their own accord, these students are exploring sexual avenues, and they are likely unaware of what can happen. Not all kids are comfortable approaching their parents about bodily and emotional changes. If a school can provide that service for free and guide them down a healthy path to the future, then allow that program to flourish. This won't be an enabler for kids who have already made their choice - it's going to protect them. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a report this week indicating a increase in teen birth rates for the first time in 14 years sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many — 62% — said they believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage pregnancies. (80%) of teens who have sex get pregnant unexpectedly Even though the use of contraceptives has increased among teenagers, its use remains spotty. Teens may use birth control to help prevent teen pregnancy, but most do not use contraceptives consistently. Erratic contraceptive use, however, is better than none. A sexually active teen that does not use any birth control has a 90 percent chance of becoming pregnant within a year.

Contraception is a right. To clarify, the basis of your argument is that women should be allowed to take birth control. If that is the case, I agree with you. I was evolving the discussion to a more controversial topic about who would be supplying the birth control as it has been the topic of many interesting debates and an important supreme court case. If you would like to debate more on this topic, I would welcome a response of any view.

Women have the right to free contraception The fact remains that people have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If someone doesn't want to be pregnant, they don't have to. Saying that contraception is not a right is saying that people should be forced to give birth.

Preventive Health Care I would like to direct voters to the comments wherein I asked my opponent to clarify some of the round. She reiterated that R1 is her main argument, and so I'm going to take a more niche position. That is, we can maintain access without subsidizing those who choose to receive them. It's not clear to what extent 'preventive health care' is inclusive or exclusive of healthcare vs. sexual health. But I will start with the observation that the oft-repeated trope that the 'ounce of prevention is a pound of cure', etc. , is frequently without justification. We can delve into this claim, but as a rudimentary warrant, we should recall the scuffle over the frequency of mammogram testing 2-3 years ago. While we can draw a number of valid conclusions here, most important is that prevention is never an unlimited good--prevention has costs which can outweigh the benefit. Moving on to what appears to be my opponent's main focus, we should differentiate between the ability to purchase condoms and 'constant access to condoms'. For example, it's cheap enough to purchase condoms that we probably don't need bowls heaped with Trojan ultra-thins at the door to each high school classroom. Access without the subsidy. That same would apply to female contraceptives. While there's a reasonable argument that some could be sold over the counter, this in no way suggests that we need a blanket no-cost birth control guarantee of the sort imposed by the Obama administration earlier this year. We can, and potentially should explore this specific issue further, but my essential claim dovetails with the mammogram example--such a policy could only encourage migration to the most expensive forms of birth control for very marginal benefit. This has a second impact related to the host of potential consequences to sex--i. e. both pregnancy and STD. Clearly we have an interest in preventing both, but the focus on this policy only looks to the former and could potentially exacerbate the latter. Since my opponent apparently agrees sexual behavior carries with it implicit risks, I'd ask why a responsible policy would pretend these risk don't exist--i. e. access vs. subsidization. Paying for condoms vs. getting them for free.

teens should beallowed to get birth control I think that teens should get birth control because then they would be even more irresponsible than before now knowing that they can do whatever they what without parents consent and know they have a backup. That is very sick and really disgraceful to show that teens can get anything they want. Soon they'll be debating over if the legal limit of alcohol should be 16. I think that birth control should be for the adults because they will know when to use it and teenagers will use it maybe even daily. Birth control is a heavy burden and never be use to a teenager, even a responsible one.

Public Funded Birth Control Telling people not to have sex is just not going to do the trick, people are going to still have sex, the sexual drive is one of the main drives of humanity. That being said, I shall pull some statistics from Americanprogress.org to make you rethink your opinion. The average working women between the ages of 18-34 only earns roughly 27,000$ a year. Many of these women have put off seeing the doctor to get birth control just because of the cost. Now most of us being middle or upper class think birth control is cheap, but to these people it is expensive considering the limited amount of cash at their disposal. As for the insurance, true insurance does help pay for birth control, but it does not pay for the whole cost. Women with private insurance have to pay 50% of the cost still to get birth control. Women spend 68% more out of pocket healthcare cost then men do, in part because of contraception cost. With all this information, one can come to the conclusion that free contraception would free them of the financial strain and anxiety of having to worry about having access to contraception all the time. 2. You admit that publicly funded birth control would lower the abortion rate. I am glad we agree on that. A lower abortion rate would have huge societal benefits such as having less people go through the traumatizing experience of abortion and less people having to pay for an abortion which would help the economy since with all that extra money, they can spend it on other things they need or want (or save it). 3. True, there wouldn't have been any movement to do things in a certain way had it not been for high population growth. The past is the past though and we need to focus on the present. The world is projected to be able to support 8 billion people. We are at 7 billion right now, so as a world if we want to avoid a crisis or extreme inequality we should work and implement solutions (public funded birth control) now so that we can avoid the crises of tomorrow. 4. Colorado when they implemented this program, it was estimated that it saved the state 69$ million dollars alone for just the year of 2004. How they came up with this number was the cost that it saved both the healthcare system and the welfare system. Every year STD's cost the US healthcare system 17 Billion dollars. Publicly funded birth control in Colorado shows that it would save the US healthcare system money because in Colorado the STD rate dropped since the funding for birth control not only covered the oral contraception pill, but also condoms which prevent STD transmission. With this drop, the Colorado healthcare system as I said earlier said money. The Colorado welfare system also saved money because less welfare children were born. Since Publicly funded birth control would save both on healthcare cost and welfare cost, the savings would more then cover the cost of providing birth control to the public. Plus, not only will the program save the government money, it will also save the individual money so it is a win-win for everyone.

Contraception is a right. Contraception is a right. If a woman wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. Women own their bodies.

Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.Con: What does this have to do with anything?

Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps... Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps restore opportunities for education, employment, and social and political advancement. Birth control can therefore be a long-term investment towards political reform and greater protection for women’s rights – as more women enter the workforce and political system, their voices are far more likely to be heard, and their concerns far more likely to be addressed.

Young people need more help The young people most at risk of getting pregnant are also the ones who are most vulnerable. By providing them with easy access to contraception we also get the opportunity to talk to them about safe sex and about other issues which may be bothering them. Without this access young people are lost to us and become feral.

Birth Control I understand and respect your arguments. In response to your question regarding age, yes I do believe a girl should wait until the age of eighteen to be able to obtain birth control. I understand your point that you believe a girl who wants to obtain birth control is already sexually active, however I believe that in some cases the lack of birth control will keep them from becoming sexually active and possibly prevent a mistake from happening. By allowing a young girl of any age to obtain birth control with no knowledge to their parents, it is making it easy for young girls to make mistakes that they may be too immature to recognize at the time.

Abortion as birth control should be illegal. In short:Unenforceable.In detail:Abortion is a complex issue to which even the opposition to it tends to agree that it's a valid medical procedure, unfortunate, but sometimes necessary. This is compounded by the number of things that are likely to go wrong for the woman during a pregnancy, to include: Anemia, Depression, Ectopic pregnancy, Gestational diabetes, High blood pressure, Hyperemesis gravidarum, Placenta previa, Placental abruption, Toxemia [1].Such problems are further compounded by high cost of medical care even if nothing goes wrong, which one expert summarized as: "So how much does it cost to have a kid without insurance? According to my experience, just about $12,638.31" [2].Attempting to have no exceptions to allow abortion, leads to the level of negative intelligence seen in the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology's "legitimate rape" comments [3].However once decent and logical exceptions to allow it are in place, it becomes foolish to try to over regulate under what circumstances a woman is allowed the procedure... For sake of clarity, such reasons shall be laid out in the rebuttals, and use cross examination.Rebuttals:"Clinics ... should only give abortions to people who would either risk their lives to carry, or who were victims of rape or incest."In the case I rape I wholly agree she has a right to an abortion, due to the growing tissue inside her being a continuance of the initial violation.For rape or incest (both illegal in the USA), would a conviction be required before she gets the procedure, or a mere accusation? If a conviction: our legal system is very slow, possibly setting the abortion only being finally allowed sometime after the third trimester. If an accusation: innocent people would likely be accused, similar to the current problem of paternity fraud."The message we send to our kids about respecting life and making good decisions."Good decisions include financial decisions. Pregnancy as proven above, is very often a bad decision for such."If a man wants their child to be born and has means to support it, is it right the mother can still go have an abortion?"In such cases she could easily claim it's a different father. If any man claiming to be the father was enough to prevent (or delay until genetic testing is done) an abortion, there would probably be nutjobs activists going in and claiming to have fathered the child of any woman entering an abortion clinic (yes this would be fraud, but seeing how they've already done murders and kidnappings over the issue, I believe it's a fair prediction of their behavior)."There are other options, such as the morning after pill, condoms, withdrawal, IUD's, and etc."No option is guaranteed. Further getting into these moral areas, some states have inflicted the social experiment of teaching abstinence only, leading directly to increased pregnancy rates among the already financially disadvantaged [4].Sources:[1] http://www.womenshealth.gov...[2] http://www.babybankruptcy.com...[3] http://www.cnn.com...[4] http://thinkprogress.org...

Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children I believe that, barring extraneous circumstances (such as health), women who declare they do not want children should find it mandatory to take birth control (specifically of an implant-type) if they wish to be sexually active. The mandatory length of commitment is 1-year and is reevaluated annually. I believe this would greatly reduce accidental pregnancy.

birth control should be covered by insurance Birth control should be covered because its a medical necessity for women. Viagra is covered for men because its seen as being medically necessary to treat men with erectile dysfunction but women who have certain forms of vaginal cancer are not being covered for birth control which helps treat their condition, thus making this problem into a very sexist issue. Birth control is used as way to protect a woman's body from an unwanted pregnancy, a protection which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the equal rights amendment also warrants women with equal rights as men under the law. This is not just about being sexist this is also about women's health. And insurance companies not covering birth control is simply saying women and their health are not important.

Contraception is a right. This debate is about contraception being a right, not let versus right. Stay on topic. Contraception is aa right because women own their bodies. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she has the right to prevent that.

Banning the Morning After Pill The morning after pill should be allowed for all ages. Some teens who engage in sexual activity younger than seventeen can become pregnant if her partner was not careful in wearing a condom. People go to parties or clubs and hook up, some I knowlingly do not use a condom, the morning after pill can help because it will delay her ovulation.

Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes. Beforecontinuing, there are some essential points of knowledge that are needed to beestablished: {1} The term "birth control" was meant to apply to allcontraceptives, not just "the pill."{2} In this debate, I will be using the term "comprehensive sexeducation" against "abstinence-only sex education."Comprehensive sex education is sex education that includes information aboutcontraceptives.With this information established, I move on toward my contentions.[Contentions]Contention 1: Eradicating teenage sex is unfeasible.Despite the success and efficiency of comprehensive sex education inreduing teen pregancy and amount of teenagers engaging in sexual activity,teenagers still engage in sexual activity. Sub-point 1a: Teenagers have a strong probability to engage in sexualintercourse."Although only 13% of teens have had sex by age 15, most initiate sexin their later teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 female and maleteens have had intercourse." [1] "More than half of all teenagers aged 15-19 has engaged in oral sex. 55percent of boys and 54 percent of girls have given or received oral sex, while49 percent of boys and 53 percent of girls have had intercourse. (Tamar Lewin,Nationwide Survey Includes data on Teenage Sex Habits, NYT, 9/16/2005)" " By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S.males have initiated vaginal sex." [2]Sub-point 1b: Teenagers face heavy peer pressure to have sexualintercourse. "One in three boys ages 15-17 say they feel pressure to have sex,often from male friends. Teen girls feel less pressure--only 23 percent saidthey felt such coercion. Researchers questioned 1,854 subjects between the agesof 13 and 24 in a national survey. The study, released by the Kaiser FamilyFoundation, also found that teens feel strong pressure to drink and try drugs.The study findings show a need for sex educationat a young age, say the study authors. A separate study released this week,sponsored by the NationalCampaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy,finds that one in five teens reported having sex before they were 15." [3]Contention 2: Adequate knowledge of contraceptives is essential.Because so many teenagers engage in sexual activity, the knowledge forcontraceptives is needed in order to prevent complications, and onlycomprehensive sex education will achieve this. Sub-point 2a: Knowledge of contraceptives prevents HIV and STDTransmission."It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occurbefore the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexualintercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infectionsoccur because young people don't have the knowledge or skills to protectthemselves. To address this important health issue, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supportedsex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teachyouth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protectthemselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Based on over15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality educationprograms for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use,and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delaythe onset of sexual intercourse. Research shows that one in five adolescentswill have sex before the age of 15 and most who continue to be sexually activedo not use condoms consistently. Although some youth acknowledge their fearsabout HIV/AIDS, many do not perceive themselves to be at risk and lack accurateinformation about what circumstances put them at risk for HIV infection.According to the CDC, the use of condoms can substantially reduce the risk ofHIV." [4] Sub-point 2b: Knowledge ofcontraceptives aids in the prevention of teen pregnancy."The number of teen births in the U.S. dropped again in 2010, according to a governmentreport, with nearly every state seeing a decrease. Nationally, the rate fell 9 percent to about 34 per 1,000 girlsages 15 through 19, and the drop was seen among all racial and ethnic groups.This is the lowest national rate for teen births since theCenters for Disease Control began tracking it in 1940, and CDC officialsattributed the decline to pregnancy prevention efforts. Other reports showthat teenagers are having less sex and usingcontraception more often." [5] Contention 3: Comprehensive sexeducation is more effective.Because comprehensive sex education realizes the factor of teenagesex being something that cannot be eradicated and provides information abouthow to prevent problems, it is more effective at ameliorating suffering thanabstinence-only sex education. Sub-point 3a: Comprehensive sex education is effective in deterrence."In contrast to the limited and discouraging results for studies onabstinence-only programs, the published research on sex and HIV educationprograms is far more conclusive and encouraging. According to EmergingAnswers, “A large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex andHIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity– they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and donot increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIVeducation programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, orreduce the number of sexual partners.” 19 Several specific studies havedemonstrated positive outcomes from sex education curricula, including delayedinitiation of sexual activity, increasedcondom use, and decreased number of sexual partners. Ekstrand and colleagues47studied the effects of an intervention titled Healthy Oakland Teens inOakland, California. The program involved 7th graders in five adultled andeight peer-led sessions. Students were provided with information on HIV andSTIs, substance abuse and preventive behaviors. Issues such as perception ofpersonal risk, costs and benefits of preventive behaviors, refusal skills andcondom use were all addressed. The researchers found that those students in theintervention group delayed initiation of sexual activity. One intervention,called Reducing the Risk, was found tobe effective when independently implemented and examined by different researchersin different locations. Kirby and colleagues 48 studied this intervention inurban and rural areas throughout California through15 sessions in 9th to 12 thgrade health education classes. The intervention included extensive roleplaying and emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or usingprotection. The control group received existing sex education programs of equallength. At 18 months postintervention, theprogram was found to have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequencyof contraceptive use for females and lower-risk youth, and reduce the frequencyof unprotected intercourse among more sexually inexperienced youth." [6]Sub-point 3b: Abstinence-only is incompetent. " Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found thatteenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or getsomeone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed thatabstinence-only programs had “no impactson rates of sexual abstinence.” [5][Sources][1] Abma JC et al., Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity,contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth2006–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 30. [2] http://advocatesforyouth.org... [3] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] http://www.apa.org...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...[6] http://ari.ucsf.edu...

Contraception is a right. Sire, no problem. I believe in contraceptive rights because I know what it is like to need contraception. I used contraception after i was raped, and I would do so again.

Emergency contraception encourages irresponsible sexual behaviour. If you have unprotected sex, you... Whether intentionally or otherwise, people do sometimes have unprotected sex without wanting to get pregnant. When this happens, emergency contraception enables women to ensure that they are not pregnant, without the stress, uncertainty and increased health risk caused by waiting until a pregnancy can be confirmed and then, if desired, having an abortion.

SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission THIS IS OR A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT, I DONT THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BEECAUSE, IT CAN BE DANGEROUS TO THE GIRL WETHER IT'S ABORTION OR PILLS, OR ANYTHING. AND YIT IS AGAINST gOD

Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ... Given the existence of the various unpleasant side-effects discussed, nobody would sensibly choose the morning-after pill over other forms of contraception, or risk unprotected sex on the grounds that they can take a morning-after pill afterwards. Emergency contraceptives are for use in emergencies - and emergencies really do happen, and really do need to be dealt with.

Banning of the "morning After Pill" 1: The "morning after" pill presents the risk of levonorgestrel the main source for the pills effectiveness throwing off woman's menstrual cycles which can have long term effects especially if used habitually. 2: The pills other side effects include significant weight gain of on average 15 pounds, depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death 3: Studies show the woman who use the pill are more then likely to use the pill habitually which can only increase the chances of the individual being effected by the side effects. C: The "Morning After Pill" should be banned. Source:http://www.pop.org...

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Im sorry for the forfeit. Teenagers are going to have sex. They are NOT going to tell their parents, and while people say they should, they wont. So you're going to let them have a child instead of giving them birth control? Sure its expensive, but so is diapers, food, and everything else a brand new human being is going to need. The common age for teenager girls to have sex is 15.. you really think all these 15 year olds want to tell their parents? No. Let them have protection.

The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women The government has the right to negotiate health care costs just like an individual. Not only do they have the right, the frequently do. The United States government has been involved in the health care market for years. Medicare and Medicaid (created in 1965) are both long term examples that show government involvement in these matters actually helps both individuals and the market. Medicaid and Medicare are also examples of the government negotiating and participating in the market. It is not only our government that negotiates prices for health care services, the insurance companies also participate in manipulating the market in this fashion. The newest health care laws, namely the ACA, have not caused the economic problems that you are suggesting. One reason would be the fact that health care demand is very inelastic (you get health care or you shorten your life). The supply for health care is also pretty inelastic. This is because the companies who make health care products/services cannot easily change their product. Economics 101 shows us that 2 inelastic supply and demand curves result in very little shortage when a price ceiling is introduced. Both the economic math, real world data, and history show that providing affordable health care (including birth control) does not hurt the economy, it actually helps individuals and the society. One of the government's jobs is to take taxes and use them in ways that help society as a whole. Your argument about this government policy would be a whole different debate, so I would like to not open that can of worms in this debate. Can we both agree that this is a role that our current government holds?

Contraception is a right. Ok... Hope we maybe could debate the funding of contraception at a later time if you have apposing views in relation to mine.

Women have the right to free contraception There you go putting money before people like a conservative or libertarian would. So you are saying that women who cannot afford contraception should be forced to give birth? People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. My body, my right to choose. If I do not want to be pregnant, you have no right to force me. All conservatives care about is money. Liberals care about people.

Banning of the "morning After Pill" you say that all the other drugs on the market that have side effects is not a sufficient enough argument but what does the pill defer from other ones that cause all types of cancers and altzers . Taking the morning after pill does not guarantee any of the symptoms its simply a warning that there maybe a risk when taking the pill. The same risk you take when you consume any prescription medicine. It is up to the consumer whether they want to take it or not. Only one person can decide if the risks are worth it and that is the women faced with the life altering decision of having a baby. If we didn't have this pill more babies would end up at the doorstep of churches or behind dumpsters abandoned by mothers who can not handle it.

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...

Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Con: "there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment." I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: "Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate." Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: "Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant." I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: "Con: What does this have to do with anything?" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.

Preventive Health Care So, the crux of your argument appears to fall generally under the heading: " I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse". Even if this is the case, it's a position unresponsive to the argument I advanced in R1. We should extend my argument as not responded to--access can exist without the subsidy. Since the subsidy has harms and I don't see my opponent advancing any claims wherein the benefits to access are only unlocked if it's paired with a subsidy, then Con gets the Pro advantages--access reduces the bad things she talks about, while the lack of subsidy keeps costs under control.

Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ... Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its widespread easy availability would encourage women to have unprotected sex. This increases their risk of getting or passing on sexually transmitted diseases which are prevented by barrier contraceptives such as condoms but not by emergency contraceptives which are taken after sex.

Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps... Women may not have a choice, even if contraception allows them the option of reproductive control. In many developing nations, there can be a cultural preference for sons over daughters, religious pressure to have as many children as possible, and a traditional male dominance in sexual relationships and family planning decisions. Birth control may not even be socially acceptable. Even if contraception allowed a woman the potential for biological control over childbearing, these factors can prevent her from exercising this new-found choice. It is also unclear if women’s rights are advanced by contraception. In reality, contraception typically forms part of a wider population control policy by national government. Such policies (e.g. China’s one-child policy), when considered as a whole, often violate the women’s rights that advocates of contraception claim to value so highly.

Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Hi! INTRO/EXPLANATION: Because of the sometimes astronomical cost of health care, the Affordable Care Act includes a new provision that makes many preventive services available patients. These services will not require co-pays or deductibles, and will apply to both self-inusured and fully insured plans. Among these preventative services are FDA-approved contraceptives for men and women, with some restrictions. This provision was included as a way to drive down costs, to reduce pressure on overburdened systems, and to remove cost barriers - ensuring that more women maintain access to preventative health care. [1] Only half of Americans have historically sought health care as a normal preventative measure, and this has driven up medical costs in the US exponentially. [1] Additionally, women's health care needs in particular can be difficult to meet, especially in relation to reproductive health, where the health of an infant may be necessarily included. [2] Hopefully, this debate will help to explain some of the reasons for including preventative health care and reproductive health care in particular, as part of any new health care reform laws. I look forward to an interesting exchange! --------------- For the record, this is a link to a DDO Opinions section that covers this subject: http://www.debate.org... [1] http://www.hhs.gov... [2] http://www.hrsa.gov...

poor access to contracptives is not the main problem having read articles and watched documentaries on the subject, i completely disagree with the subject of this debate. Not having access to contraceptives is not the major cause of teenage pregnancy. Apart from all the other 'no' points, another contributor is the immature attitude of teenagers have to sex, with excuses ranging from 'I forgot to take the pill' to ' i didn't think you could get pregnant if you just did it once'. the fact is teenagers know all about their rights and not about their responsibility. 'Yes you may get away with underage sex but do you fully understand the consequence of your actions?' and let's face it, Sex Education in Secondary schools doesn't really touch on the subject. Making contraception easier to access shouldn't be the major priority, what should be the priority is making teenagers fully understand the consequences of unprotected sex or even underage sex...... from getting pregnant to STIs and STDs.