Should birth control pills be available over the counter?

Arguments left unchallenged as per opponent forfeiture. Von Con please.

Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.

Arguments extended to next round.

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!

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.

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.

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

I favor that the Affordable Care Acts requires health insurance policies to cover birth control products. I disagree with the idea that companies have the right to take away parts of the insurance coverage of theiremployees, because of the personal preferences of the employers.Not to be pedantic, but the title of this debate is misleading, because businesses are not required to buy birth control products for their employees.I will argue PRO.

Businesses Providing Birth Control Products

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.

Schools give out free birth control pills

They should not because the pills are very expensive and a teenager needs a parents help in this important ordeal.

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent

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

Emergency Contraception

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

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.

Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ...

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 Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children

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.

birth control should be covered by insurance

The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to provide birth control products to their employees. Many religious business owners have a problem with this, and want it to stop. I as Con want this requirement to go out of effect, Pro must want the opposite. First Round will be for acceptance. Otherwise the debate format is unstructured. Please note the 48 hour response time limit.

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.

Contraception is a right.

Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy. There are a lot of benefits from birth control, such as it can treat endometriosis, balance hormones and periods, ease cramps, make periods lighter and shorter, and lower the odds of ovarian and endometrial cancer. I do think that underage girls should tell their parents that they're on birth control, but some don't. I don't know about a requirement. Some parents think that if they're child is on birth control, they're more likely to have sex but studies have shown that women that are on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships. Due to this assumption, parents won't let their children get birth control which could effect them later in their life.(http://www.womenshealthmag.com... on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships than women who aren't using birth control)

should teenagers be required to inform there parents they are on 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 beallowed to get birth control

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.

Contraception is a right.

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.

Birth Control

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.

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

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...;

Extend my argument please. Cudos to my opponent for appologizing in the comments for the forfeit.

Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent

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 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.

young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.

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.

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.

Banning the Pill

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.

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?

Banning the Pill

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Banning the Morning After 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...

Banning the 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.

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.

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.

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.

Birth Control

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

The argument that every drug has side effects is not a sufficient enough excuse for the use of this potentially dangerous drug, and the fact that other drugs have side effects doesn't make it okay for them to be on the market especially one as unnecessary as this one. The example you use of water drags us to the red herring fallacy as you bring premises that have little to do with the conclusion and is pointing out one harmful ingrediant in our drinkingwater but ignore the fact that the positives and necessity of our everyday drinking water unlike this drug which is not essential at all There are plenty of other contraceptives out there already and just providing this harmful back up even further damage these woman and there decision making

Banning of the "morning After Pill"

First, let"s understand how birth control pills work in your body. Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized. If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month. When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle. Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don"t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates "normally." This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year.

is birth control good or nah

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.....

Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.

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.

Contraception is a right.

[ derpadoo! ]

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.

Banning of the "morning After Pill"

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".

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.

Banning the Pill

1. sex has become more socially accepted and statistics show that more teenagers are having sex at a younger age then they where ten years ago. 2. although the morning after pill is not a alternative to using condoms and other forms of safe sex. It gives you that second option in case a accident does occur. 3. not everyone can financially support a child. 80 percent of teenage moms end up on welfare and do not finish their education therefore limiting job opportunities in the future. c: the morning after pill should not be banned

Banning of the "morning After Pill"

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.

Menstruation. Something that is unavoidable women. Thousands of impoverished girls risk their own health and safety without access to these necessary products. Reverting to makeshift methods like plastic or grocery bags to try to keep themselves clean. While condoms are made readily available for free in various locations, girls in shelters and prisons and even some schools are denied easy access to these vital items. Should these products be made free and available to those in the aforementioned locations?

Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools

ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina. ProR: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it. ProR: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice. Con: That proves nothing... 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: What has this even got to do with the resolution? It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose. Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill? Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.

Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.

Push

The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women

Arguments extended.

Large companies get certain perks (tax benefits, bankruptcy protection). In return, they have certain obligations such as mediating between government and employees to make sure that the employees have health insurance. Health insurance are a part of the benefits that an employee has earned. So employers do not have a right to take away parts of the benefits of their employees. Whether the health insurance should have coverage for birth control is a matter between the employee, the insurance company and the government, and is not the business of the employee. The objection of some employers that they would be paying for birth control which is against their religion is misplaced. Health insurance that covers birth control is cheaper than health insurance that does not cover it. My opponent has dropped her argument that such a mandate would lead to discrimination, because, as I pointed out, the Affordable Care Act eliminates gender discrimination by requiring insurance companies to charge women and men the same premiums.

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.

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.

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

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...

Banning of 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...

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?

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.

Birth Control

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.

Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.

This is quite ridiculous,really.Condoms are easily available in all medical stores. Did it ever happen that you were walking past a store and thought to yourself,"Hey,a Condom.I should have intercourse tonight." It doesn't work like that. Does the availability of guns give you an "okay" to go ahead and involve yourself in killing ? Your whole argument is flawed. Now,let's look at the opposite.If you take away the condoms and contraceptive,can you even imagine the consequences ? Rampant STD's,unwanted pregnancies and a plethora of other evils.So,No.Access to Condoms and other contraceptives does not lead to promiscuity.

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

SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission

Con will argue that teens should only be given birth control if their parents are told. I am not looking for a 'formal' debate. I am not planning on posting sources or doing any of that formally, unless con asks me to, and in that case, i will. Thank you to who ever accepts to be con, and good luck:) -i will say this before you accept, i am not in this for winning. I am in this to hear others opinions on this situation, and also to give out my opinion.-

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.

Preventive Health Care

Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments.

I accept.

Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes.

Teens should feel free to do as try please. It's their life and body. He/she should be responsible for themself. The morning after pill would not decrease of increase their chance because they would still be having sex. Banning the pill for people who are younger than 17 can be beneficial but scarcely.

Banning the Morning After Pill

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.

Accoring to this article by Ezine " use of morning after pill raises the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. In such a pregnancy, the embryo gets lodged in the fallopian tubes rather than in the womb" whenever an argument comes up about the morning after pill it alway about the positive aspects . What about the long term and short term side effects that comes along with it. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com...

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.

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)

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.

Schools give out free birth control pills

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

Condoms in Schools

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?

~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a "birth control". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write "no argument as agreed upon" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.

Birth Control is Immoral

ConR1: No one has to have sex until they want to conceive.Pro: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting.ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina.ConR1: If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse.Pro: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women.ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it.Pro: Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women.Con: That proves nothing... Pro: If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child?Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution?Pro: Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive.Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill?

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.

Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps...

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?

Birth Control

I sure hope this isn't really for school because if it is I have a feeling you won't get a good grade for forfeiting the rounds, I stand firm on my arguments.

I believe that any female who is using illegal drugs/narcotics should be forced by the law too take contraception in order too prevent them giving birth too drug addicted babies. I believe any woman who is taking drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc should not be allowed too get pregnant. Too many babies are born too scumbag women who are in no fit state too care for themselves yet alone a baby. I think any woman who gives birth too a drug addicted baby should be charged with child abuse.

Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception.

The mental image of condoms stacked in a bowl like Halloween candy is quite humorous, but truly a ridiculous misinterpretation. I'm not saying to stuff the pockets of teens with rubbers. I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse, it merely increases the levels of pregnancy and STD's in teens. As a sort of case study, I present the words of an anonymous teenage mother, (they have been edited for profanity) " When I was 14 I got (sexually active), but I didn't know how dangerous ( sexual intercourse) was. I didn't take some health class or even know what a condom was. My (partner) didn't have condoms cuz the lady at the gas station told him to go get his parents. I wasn't gonna ask my mom to take me to a (gynecologist) so I just hoped my friends were right when they said you cant get preggers the first time... If I knew what I know I would be a college junior and not a baby-mama." If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful. These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... "A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion." All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety. These statistics show more information to back my position.

Preventive Health Care

The debate is about, Teens should be able to get birth control without their parents consent. Not STDS! I know that STD's are spreading throughout the nation, but you did not include how many babies are born with STD's. everydayheath.com I never meant that your dad is a murderer, I was trying to imply that guns are accessible it is up to the person to use them correctly. Just like with birth control, it is up to the person use it to use it correctly. Sorry if I offended you.

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

Contraception is a right.

you are right the morning after pill does come with side effects just like every other drug on the market. . The water we take our medication with contaminated with fluoride that can damage the brain and bones of the consumer. It is banned in over ten countries including china, Japan and all of Europe but yet is nearly found in all aspects of American consumption. I am not saying the morning after pill makes it ok to have unprotected sex regardless of what age you are. We know teenagers are not the only ones using this product although they are the majority, we are just giving does how are unprepared for a child or not ready to have one the option of not doing so.

Banning of the "morning After Pill"

I am strongly against the idea that a pharmacy is legally allowed to sell contraception like condoms and spermicide to people under the state's legal age of consent. All that this does is encourage our nation's teenagers is to have sex knowing that they have contraception to help. But what most teens don't realize is that a condom, spermicide, or both don't work 100% of the time against pregnancies and STI's/STD's. In fact, per every 100 condoms, 2 are reported to be broken. Not to mention the 1-5% that slip off or the 3-13% that slip down the penis during intercourse (stats from http://hamovhotov.com...). But it's not just that condoms fail, but it's the shockingly high number of teenage pregnancies. In America in 2010, 367,752 infants were born to girls between the ages of 15-19. Granted those numbers did fall from 2009 when the numbers were about 9% higher, but that number is still too high if you ask me (stats from http://ww.cdc.gov...). And you do have to imagine that there are more pregnancies if you consider that there are some girls under the age of 15 who engage in sexual activity. Then you have to consider the cost of raising a child from day 1-year 18. In health class (I'm only 13) I discovered that raising a child from day 1 to year 18 for just the bare essentials (food, shelter, child care, etc.) averages around $250,000! How many teenagers do you think have the financial support to afford that? That is too big an investment for a person who's independent life hasn't even truly begun. My last point is the transmission of STD's and STI's. Every year in America, 3 million teenagers contract an STD. One of the most common STD's is chlamydia, which affects up to 40% of girls between the ages of 15 and 19. And chlamydia can cause sterility in both males and females. Another common STD that strikes among teens is HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which affects 15% of sexually active teenage girls, and the most common strain can lead to cervical cancer. And some teenagers are going to have to live with the fact that some dumb choices they made will affect their lives forever (stats http://www.bhg.com...). Now, my rambling may seem senseless at first, and would be a good sermon to tell teens why not to have sex, but there's a method to my madness. And my method is, when a teen puts on a condom or injects spermicide or uses another method of contraceptive, they tend to get cocky. They tend to feel that they're 100% in the clear if they use contraceptives. But what they don't realize is that nothing will work 100% of the time. But the thing is, who supplies the 15 year old, the 14 year old, or even the 13 year old with the condom package with that one broken condom? And what happens if that teen puts on the broken condom? But that could be avoided if the teen never got the condom, never felt on top of the world, and never had sex.

I apologize for not noticing that bit about the punishment. However, there still remains no source for that. I would appreciate one. Also when speaking of God's mercy, forget you not our old pal, Uzzah. As the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (I apologize for using the outdated version last round, this round I use the official version from the Vatican's website) says (2 Samuel 6:6-7)"(6) Postquam autem venerunt ad aream Nachon, extendit manum Oza ad arcam Dei et tenuit eam, quoniam boves lascivientes proruperunt.(7) Iratusque est indignatione Dominus contra Ozam et percussit eum super temeritate; qui mortuus est ibi iuxta arcam Dei." [1]God killed Uzzah, who was only trying to help out. Why not kill Onan for polluting? Also, some random folks on Wikipedia agree with my random assertion that he was killed for disobedience, so we cannot rule that out so quickly. [2]As far as I know, contraceptive side effects are fairly uncommon. Perhaps some statistics would bolster Con's argument. Regardless, most every drug has a side effect. Surely Con does not propose that we discontinue pharmaceuticals? Additionally, while Con's argument is unsourced, I leap to the conclusion that most people who use NFP do so for a religious reason, which would also keep them from divorce. It is likely a coincidence based on the groups of people likely to use NFP and the groups of people unlikely to divorce overlapping. Also, as I will go into later, NFP can fail. A lot.Contraceptives do not have high failure rates. Additionally, they are greatly superior to NFP. Some things are pretty easy to screw up, but there aren't that many ways you can mess up taking a pill. Not so with NFP. NFP, even used perfectly, has a 1-9% failure rate (not to mention when used imperfectly) as opposed to the 0.3% failure for perfect use of birth control pills. Even imperfect use is only 8%. There are even options like the etonogestral implant that have a very low 0.05% failure rate. Even properly used condoms have a low failure rate of 2%. Even perfectly used withdrawal can be more effective (4%). [3]Even though condoms do not protect 100%, they are still far superior to the 0% protection offered by no contraceptives whatsoever. My source claims they are "very effective" in preventing HIV/AIDS. It goes on to say that they reduce the risk of any STD, including HPV. [4]Contraceptives best allow for planning, and they can prevent STDs. Additionally, there is no compelling reason for not using them. The resolution is affirmed.Sources:1. Biblia Sacra Vulgata2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.cks.nhs.uk...4. http://www.cdc.gov...

Birth control

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...

Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage

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.

Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent

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.

So, You change your argument from "menstrual products should be free" to "menstrual products shouldn't be taxed". Let's get to that, But first some of your arguments. You say that condoms are free. I personally don't think condoms should be free, As they are extraordinarily cheap and accessible. But colleges don't want students to get pregnant, So I see the reasoning. Saying that people won't have to pay a lot for free menstrual products is ridicolous too. Does that mean you can tax them because you don't want to pay for your own hygiene products? Of course not. Why should men and women in menopause pay for something they will never use? The argument that menstrual products are very important doesn't mean they should be free or shouldn't be taxed. Dental products are important, Toilet paper is important, Soap is important, Shampoo is important, Clothes are important, Food is important. . . Something being important for humans to live doesn't mean it should be free or not taxed. Please find a better argument than "women need menstrual products". I need to floss my teeth everyday, But do I advocate for floss being free or not taxed? Menstrual products are very cheap. You can go and buy 30 tampons for $7 at Walmart. That's cheaper than condoms, Which you are so against being free. Don't tell me that an average American woman can't go to a store and buy cheap menstrual products. That's crap.

Menstrual products should be free

Final push...thank god.

UK-specific argument: Even though abortion is legal, emergency contraception is not covered by the t...

Emergency Contraception

I sure hope this isn't really for school because if it is I have a feeling you won't get a good grade for forfeiting the second round, I stand firm on my arguments.

And it's all over!

Resolved: Information on birth control ought be included in sex education classes

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.

Birth Control

Extend

This has been open and unaccepted for a few days, so I thought I might as well give it a go. I accept my opponent's challenge and eagerly await their argument.