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

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: 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.

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

Title: Schools give out free birth control pills Content: 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.

Title: should teenagers be required to inform there parents they are on birth control Content: 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)

Title: Birth Control Content: 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.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: 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.

Title: Banning the Pill Content: 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.

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

Title: Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children Content: 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.

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

Title: Get your working butt off Aleve,. believe in yourself. Content: You suggest buying more pills from Wal Mart, most likely?

Title: Banning of the "morning After Pill" Content: 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.

Title: Birth Control Content: 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.

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: 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.

Title: Banning the Pill Content: 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...

Title: Can’t throw money at the problem Content: Money doesn’t solve all problems but if providing access to contraception prevents at least some pregnancies then it must be worth the investment. No single thing will solve this problem and access to contraception would only be provided in conjunction with other forms of education and treatment. However, clearly contraception does work and making it more accessible would mean more people used it. Ergo, fewer pregnancies.

Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: 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?

Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: 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.

Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: 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.-

Title: ivf debate Content: Birth control may be taken. If birth control is not taken then there is a chance of cysts and the eggs not being fertilized at the correct cycle. If estrogen levels are not correct , then injections may be needed which may counteract the birth control being taken.The baby may not be correctly placed and may be stuck in the insertion catheter at the time of insertion.(http://www.shadygrovefertility.com...) It is insanely expensive to conceive babies through this fashion. A family that does not make over $75000 and is uninsured will have to pay about $8470 (https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com...)

Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: Of course periods aren't just menstrual products. Never said they weren't. But HuffPost is very left-wing (https://mediabiasfactcheck. Com/huffington-post) and not trusted, So I wouldn't reccomend using it in a debate. I already made clear that I don't think students should be provided with free condoms. Not sure why we are debating that. Toilet paper is needed by all sexes and all ages to stay clean after going to the toilet. Menstrual products are only needed by around half of women, And only a few days a month. So there is much less demand for menstrual products and they are more expensive than toilet paper. Which is why they're not provided at bathrooms and schools. I am not aware of any US state of country that doesn't tax foods. We tax foods, We tax soap, We tax dental products, We tax clothes. . . Why shouldn't menstrual products be taxed? They are used by a smaller fraction of the population than all the other products I just listed, So why shouldn't they be taxed? You haven't listed a single reason why menstrual products should be free/untaxed and why other necessary products used by a much higher percentage of the population shouldn't be.

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

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

Title: Birth Control Content: 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?

Title: Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance. Content: 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!

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

Title: Buy Accutane 30 mg Online Content: So you're basically saying I should buy a medicine online from a shady website with a ton of side effects to MAKE MY SKIN CLEARER? 1. Why would I risk health issues and overdosing on medicine to get rid of something that is not causing physical harm to me? 2. I can cover up my acne with makeup, And just upkeep my hygiene for free. 3. This is an ad on a debating site. Why are you posting an ad on a debating site? 4. I can go buy some other, Cheaper medication, One that has no side effects, And that I know works/ how it works. 5. You are risking awful side effects and overdosing WITH NO GUARANTEE OF RESULTS. 6. Seriously? Like, Are we gonna do this?

Title: Banning the Pill Content: 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?

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

Title: teens should beallowed to get birth control Content: 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".

Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: 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.

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

Title: Birth Control Content: 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?

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

Title: is birth control good or nah Content: 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.

Title: Birth Control Content: 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.

Title: Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent Content: 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.

Title: birth control in high school Content: Given Pro's premises, her conclusion comes as a surprise. After pointing out the negative consequences of no birth control, her conclusion turns out to be that "there should not be any birth control in high school."I think there should be birth control in highschool for all the reasons Pro gave--that having a baby in highschool may force a mother to have to dop out and get a crappy job.Anybody who has sex and doesn't want a baby should use birth control, whether they are in highschool or not.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: 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.

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

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: 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.

Title: Banning the Pill Content: 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...

Title: Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Content: 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...

Title: Birth Control Content: 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.

Title: Banning of the "morning After Pill" Content: 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.

Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: I see your point, And I guess I might change my argument a little bit. I think that menstrual products should at least not be taxed. Menstrual products add up over time and the taxes just make it even more expensive. I believe that menstrual products should at least be free in schools and other similar places such as public bathrooms. Toilet paper is free in public bathrooms and is used for hygienic purposes. Condoms are free at most colleges whereas menstrual products are not. This shouldn't be the case because condoms are not needed for health purposes. Even if we would have to pay taxes, It wouldn't be that much, Especially if it were split between everyone in the U. S. Menstrual products are very important because if they aren't used, Women will bleed through their clothing and stain it.

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

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: 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.

Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: Wow, I realized I am really bad at debating. . . . Anyway, Periods aren't just menstrual products, There are many other things people buy to help them get through their periods. Https://www. Huffpost. Com/entry/period-cost-lifetime_n_7258780 You don't have to have sex in college, You don't need condoms if you're not going to be doing it. Yes, People need food, Water, Etc. But I believe that menstrual products. Many foods also aren't taxed (depending on where you live). I believe that menstrual products should at least be free in public places, Like toilet paper. When you are having your period, You can't just drive home to go get a pad or tampon, Especially at school. I see your points and now realize that it would be somewhat hard for menstrual products to be totally free but they should at least be free in public places such as bathrooms and schools.

Title: Women Should not be Considered for Front Line Combat Roles, and Additionally Excluded From the Draft Content: Ah, true, I suppose there are a few other things women do need. I don't know why I didn't think of that in the earlier round. I don't see how it would be too big of an issue however. The woman would just have to put up with a period potentially going on while in combat. This is something that the woman likely would think about before entering the military and perhaps can solve the issue herself. There are other solutions, for example, birth control pills usually prevent a period from occuring. They wouldn't need anything else beyond that, and they could just take that pill while they are not in combat. And as for the standards again, I don't think every single woman who tried to enter the military didn't meet the original high standards, which as you stated, the drop out rate was 85%, and not 100%. While the drop out rate is at 85%, why not allow the 15% to be in the military? I don't think the hygienic issues are big enough reasons to prevent them from entering the military, and I offered a way in which the woman can choose to solve the issue. Regarding that women would be a liability, I don't think they would be if we kept the standards high. The very few women who are the best of the best women, the 15% mind you, would probably not be a liability, especially if they were able to handle all of the hygienic issues you mentioned. It would probably be a good idea for them to be on a birth control pill that blocks menstruation. I don't see why any women who does that, and who meets the original standards for the military, can't be in the military. They would not be a liability. I again bring up my previous example: was Leigh Ann Hester a liability to the military?

Title: Abortion Content: For women who demand complete control of their body, they should prevent the risk of an unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception. If the person was not responsible, they should face the consequences.

Title: birth control should be covered by insurance Content: 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...;

Title: Banning the Morning After Pill Content: 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.

Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: 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)

Title: Diet pills should be banned Content: Hello everyone! I am new to debate.org so I apologize for any mistakes. I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. The testimonial on a leading diet website is gushing: "I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned.

Title: Diet pills should be banned Content: Hi ! I am also new here! ^^ I would like to propose a debate on the idea of diet pills. >>Diet pills are made for those people who want to lose weight easily, it means that it also needs an exercise and proper diet. It is not directly said that taking in diet pills will automatically lose the weight you desire to lose Nowadays diet pills became more and more popular. >>It became popular because many people witnessed on how effective pills are. "I lost all the weight I wanted and then more - now I really love my body!" Most people believe all you have to do is take a pill and magically the weight will disappear. >>As I have said, taking in pills will need an exercise and proper diet and I think that it is indicated or whether told by the doctor, because stupid people will not take those pills whenever they want to. We all know that everything is interconnected to another thing, simply means you can do a thing successfully if you will do it with some help. Considering they do more bad than good for a person, there is no question that the pills should be banned. >>How do you say so that they do bad more than good, it's not their fault to take those medicines maybe because it will help them a lot and you don't care about it, even a little, because those medicines affect their own bodies NOT YOURS!

Title: Birth Control Content: 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.

Title: Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent. Content: Quick clarifications:1) I never claimed you said that birth control doesnt protect against STDs, Im just showing that the health benefit of unlimited access to birth control would be very outweighed by the spread of STD's through sexually active teenagers2) I also never claimed that you said everyone would get them, Im just showing how teen pregnancies would not be wiped out3) My Dad buys guns and stuff to hunt gators not people.......... thanks for suggesting hes a murderer thoughYou claim that "When birth control is not used correctly by ANYONE it can be harmful not just teens." Birth control can be harmful to people when just ONE person does not use it correctly, It only takes one person to pass an STD onto another person and then those two people could accidentally give it to others later in life.... Implying that everyone has to use birth control incorrectly for harm to be done to teenagers is not true at all"This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy."The debate resolution is "Teens should be able to get birth control without their parents consent"Not"Teenage girls ages 15-17 who really want to be protected from pregnancy should be able to get birth control without their parents consent"Unrestrained access to birth control would affect far more groups than just the audience you really wish were the only ones getting unrestricted access. This idea of unrestricted birth control to all teens would have far more consequences as wellmy other arguments still stand

Title: Minors should need parental consent for abortions Content: 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.

Title: Banning the Pill Content: 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.

Title: Contraception is an easy and direct method of reducing population growth. The popularity and success... Content: There are often technical difficulties associated with implementing widespread contraception. The cost can be prohibitive, especially when considered on a national scale. Large numbers of trained workers will be required to educate the public on the correct use of contraceptives. Even with an investment in training, there is no guarantee that birth control methods will be used correctly, especially by the illiterate and uneducated – numerous anecdotal reports exist, where, for example, villagers, having seen a banana used as a prop for teaching condom use, proceeded to place their state-sponsored condoms on bananas.

Title: Menstrual products should be free Content: 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.

Title: Abortion is wrongly sought as an alternative form of birth control Content: Kristin Luker, Taking Chances: Abortion and the Decision Not to Contracept (1975) - "In short, there are no empirical grounds for assuming that women have an à priori preference for contraception over abortion."[27] In other words, women see abortion as a suitable alternative to birth control.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: No trolling allowed. You have wasted my time. Like I said, contraception is a right. If a woman wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. No one should be forced to go through pregnancy and raiuse a child.

Title: People should ask for cheaper alternatives Content: Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor’s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: 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.

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

Title: Abstinence-Only Education is Ineffective Content: First, let me respond to something you said. We both agree that abstinence is the only way to protect yourself from pregnancy or STDs (because, let's face it, birth control CAN be ineffective...there's no fool-proof or error-free method, no matter what some people may claim). However, to argue that "people will do it anyway" is similar to the argument of let's teach people junk food is fine and guns (no matter how responsible or irresponsible the owner may be)- everyone should own one because people will own it anyway. In other words, enabling something that's illegal or unsafe or immoral just because everyone does it makes as much sense as telling a person with diabetes "everyone else is eating this pie, come on, you're gonna die anyway, so why not enjoy yourself". I agree the method may be ineffective, but the principle isn't.

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: 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?

Title: Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage Content: Thanks for your well-thought out opening argument. I would like to address some of your points with comments."Contraception is not only critical to the health of women, but also crucial for healthy pregnancies and babies. Contraceptives play an important role in helping to ensure that more pregnancies are planned, provided for, and healthy."It is difficult to have this discussion as it appears we do not have the same definition of preventive care. In my opinion, being pregnant is not a health problem. One can be pregnant and healthy or not pregnant and unhealthy and vice versa. They are independent of each other. Back to the definition I posted in Round 2, I would like to highlight the key is "necessary intervention to avert a health problem." Contraception is critical to women's health, but should not be classified as a preventive health tool. More on that in my rebuttal/continuation."What is covered by the Affordable Care Act?""Why was pregnancy prevention added to the new health reform laws?"This is an ignoratio elenchi. We are talking about whether contraceptives should be considered preventive care. The reasons for inclusion in ACA is irrelevant and do not address the issue of contraceptives 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."Again, preventive care is not preventing all health conditions. It is specifically focused on disease and detrimental health issues. Being pregnant is not a health problem nor is preventing pregnancy the goal of preventive care."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."I completely agree with this statement. However, it is another ignoratio elenchi. Family planning is not a key component of preventive care.Rebuttal and ContinuationBeing pregnant is a not a detrimental health issue and pregnancy prevention is not a goal of preventive care. Being sexually active is a lifestyle choice. Therefore, the onus to do so responsibly falls on the individual. Going to the gym and working out has great benefits to health. In fact, regular exercise helps to control weight (less strain on joints and bones), combats heart disease, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol (actual health problems that preventive care seeks to prevent/mitigate), improves mental health, and provides more energy and better rest.(1) All of these things fall under the tenant of preventive care, yet a gym membership is not covered under preventive care by insurance companies. Why? Because it is a lifestyle choice and personal responsibility.Additionally, Pro's argument is specifically focused on women's health, which is understandable as only women can become pregnant. But that effectively ignores half of the population. If contraceptives are classified as preventive health, which would be fully covered without copay, then half of the population is paying for a service (through either taxes or premiums) to which they have no access. Don't get me wrong. Pregnancy prevention is a shared responsibility of both people involved. But because it ignores half of the population is another reason why it should not be classified as preventive health care. What concerns me about this mindset is that it promotes a culture of a lack of responsibility. Individuals who choose to be sexually active want others to pay for them to be responsible in their lifestyle choice. If I choose to drive without insurance, should others pay for my car to be fixed if I get in an accident? Should I expect others to pay for my toothbrush, toothpaste, and dental floss to ensure that I responsibly maintain the health of my teeth and gums? Better yet, in my example in paragraph one, should I have other people pay for my gym membership so I can work out and improve my health? Where do we draw the line as to what are preventive health issues and problems?Again, I would like to reiterate that my position is not that contraceptives should not be covered by insurance. It is only that it should not be classified as preventive health care, meaning zero out of pocket expenses. There should be plans that include contraception, just like there are plans that include family planning or dental. But it should be the responsibility of the individual to pay for those additional, and sometimes necessary, services.Pro cannot redefine the meaning of preventive care or she needs to clarify how she defines preventive care. As is currently presented, in my opinion, she has not adequately addressed why contraceptives should be classified as preventive health care.(1) http://www.mayoclinic.com...

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: 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.

Title: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ... Content: While birth control should be a priority in many developing nations, there are often other more pressing issues to be addressed. Improving basic healthcare and providing proper sanitation can improve the health of an entire family, in addition to reducing childhood mortality – often a major reason for parents wanting to hedge their bets by having plenty of children. Spending money on such infrastructure and services is a far better long-term investment compared to the ongoing cost of providing contraception.

Title: Banning of the "morning After Pill" Content: 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

Title: Businesses Providing Birth Control Products Content: 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.

Title: Preventive Health Care Content: 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.

Title: Preventive Health Care Content: 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.

Title: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ... Content: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced obstetric care, and the prevalence of disease and malnutrition, there is a high rate of mortality among pregnant mothers and their new-born children. This risk can be over 100 times that of mothers in developed countries. Birth control allows women to avoid the risks of pregnancy if they so wish.

Title: Birth control given out in schools Content: 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.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Contraception is defined as something that works before fertilization, not after. I take the affirmative position, and my opponent disagrees. My opponent will make the first argument.

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

Title: Birth Control is Immoral Content: ~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.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: Youy said that contraception is a sin. Prove it. This is my body. I have the right to prevent a pregnancy. Pregnancy would preent certain health risk for me. Are you saying that I should be forced to go through that?

Title: Women Have The Right to Contraceptives Content: Hello, TheOpinionist, I have recently come across your debate on this issue with someone else, and noticed they put up a very weak fight in discussing the subject. I would like to fill in their position in a hopefully more effective way in saying that women having access to contraceptives should logically be a basic human right. I apologize for the impromptu debate challenge, and you don't have to take this debate into account, however I would like for this to be something we may maturely dispute.

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

Title: Sex education in primary schools Content: It is a exciting having a debate... that's why I love this site lol Flaws in pro's case: [1] No method contraception is 100% reliable. However, male condoms are 98% effective, whilst female condoms are 95% effective. The contraceptive pill is 99% reliable. Contraceptive implants are 99% reliable. You could also use a condom and the pill together whilst having sexual intercourse, which makes it twice more reliable. Considering that contraception is so reliable. It is very unlikely that the 40% rise (and in areas where sex education has been specifically targeted) is to do with contraception being so unreliable. [2] Pro also states that another reason could be down to inexperienced teenagers. The whole point of sex education is to teach teenagers how to put a condom on. So, if more teenagers are struggling to put condoms on, that shows sex education is not doing it's job right and it is ineffective. Pro has shown this. Also, there are other methods of contraception, there isn't just a condom. I don't believe these two reasons is for the dramatic increase in teenage pregnancies in the last few years. Here are more of my points: [1] Sex education is also not right for the children ages. The images are so graphic for young children, and things are far too much. For example, 5-year-olds get taught about erections, masturbation, orgasms and prostitution. I'd hardly call that education children about contraception. In a nutshell it is teaching them how to do sex. They also tell 5-year-olds how their parents have sex. It is all in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... It is too much too young. This sort of material is not suitable for 5-year-olds. [2] The UK also lacks the teachers with training to provide a good sex education lesson. The teachers who tend to teach the subject are ones that come from all sorts of subjects. And who are not specially trained in teaching sex education. Which also puts UK pupils at a disadvantage. [3] The UK should learn from other countries when it comes to sex education. Did you know that teenage pregnancies in Holland is one-fifth as high as the UK. The way they teach sex education is different to how it is taught in Britain. In the Netherlands, sex education is brought to pupils in the form of a relationship and not in the form of a biology lesson. If we took lessons from countries with a lower teenage pregnancy rate than here, we may see an improvement in this country. [4] Also, I can understand teaching pupils how to use contraception. But why is it necessary to teach children how to actually have sex. It is a natural thing. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Why do we suddenly need to get taught how to have sex. I'm in agreement with teaching pupils how to use contraception and (like the Netherlands) relationship advice. But, like the link I posted above, why that sort of content? Source: [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://www.nhs.uk... Thank you and I look forward to the next round!

Title: Goverment should have authority over birth rights of family Content: A controlled birth rate you say? I think wars from time immemorial have been fought over the basic needs. How do you control birth for a certain period of time, by inserting pills in the food we eat?

Title: Legalizing abortions leads to irresponsible sexual behavior Content: The assertion that obtaining an abortion is always the result of irresponsible behaviour is disrespectful to every woman undergoing an abortion. Using birth control is a completely different decision from getting an abortion. Besides, contraception, though effective, is still not accepted, available or affordable for women in certain countries. Moreover, even when legalized, abortion will only be a last resort in the cases where the quality of life of the baby or mother or both will be in danger.

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

Title: Banning of the "morning After Pill" Content: 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.

Title: Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why. Content: 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.

Title: Contraception is a right. Content: You still have not even tried to establish that birth control is a right. Therefore, I will give you "argument" its due, which is nothing. Since you failed to prove your case, I win.

Title: Overpopulation and Contraception Content: Contraception can reduce family sizes. This will allow a greater proportion of resources to be alloc...

Title: the Catholic Church is justified in forbidding the use of barrier methods of contraception. Content: Birth control within monogamous relationships.

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

Title: Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Content: Again,you provide no basis for your argument . I repeat my question to you, "Did it ever happen that you were walking past a store and thought to yourself,"Hey,a Condom.I should have intercourse tonight"" Also.yes,condoms and contraceptives are not full proof.But they are very effective.STD's and unwanted pregnancies are there but without these,their rates would have been a lot higher. A study to validate my point: http://www.reuters.com...

Title: free contraception for teens in schools Content: I have no doubt that giving teens contraceptions is useful, nor that encouraging them to purchase contraception will statistically improve birthrate in the nation.The issue I have is with FREE contraception.

Title: Birth control Content: First, I would like to apologize for this round, as I am not able to handle all arguments as fully as I would like to. Please do not hold this overly against me 1. Failure RatesMy opponent cites unsourced statistics of success from the Catholic Diosceses of Richmond. I don't think I need to say what's wrong here.2. Pill CancerIt does help women who might otherwise have gotten one of the types of cancer the pill protects against. I assume the risks probably mostly balance each other out. Regardless, if one fears cancer so much, one need not use the pill. That does not preclude using another type of birth control.3. STDs and Condoms I don't feel like pointlessly rehashing an argument here, so I will simply quote a government site. Note what I said last round about any protection being better than nothing. "Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including diseases transmitted by genital secretions, and to a lesser degree, genital ulcer diseases. Condom use may reduce the risk for genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-associated diseases, e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer." [1]4. NFP and Divorce I invite my opponent to make a case regarding this instead of using her source as an argument. 5. More PregnancyThe birth control did not increase the birth rate, that was the students being stupid and having more sex. Birth control cannot be blamed for people's idiocy.6. Abortion I concede this point fully.New Arguments:A. Natural Family Planning is not always possible It is complicated, and generally only usable by people in a stable relationship. Additionally, it provides no STD protection, and requires abstinence. The biggest issue is, of course, the complexity and relationship requirement. NFP is pretty much useless unless you are married or in a very stable relationship [2]. You can't just be like "Tonight let's use NFP" out of nowhere, it requires an excessive amount of preparation and is easier to screw up than pretty much any other tactic. Do note that my opponent seems to have dropped the argument from the Bible. Sources:1. http://www.cdc.gov...2. http://www.nhs.uk...;

Title: Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors. Content: 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.

Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: I accept. position: I believe Pharmacies should sell whatever is good for mind and body

Title: Overpopulation and Contraception Content: Contraception can help save the lives of women in the developing world. Due to the lack of advanced ...