It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should birth control be covered by universal health care?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 

Personally I am allergic to it, tried many different forms and it makes me sick to my stomach. I am also allergic to latex which really sucks but I am unable to have kids of my own now due to my endometriosis condition but I still like to practice safe sex. There are other alternatives.

I recommend trying Lifestyles Skyn condoms. Latex alternative and VERY nice so far (waiting for the other shoe to drop, has to be a trap here somewhere...)

Already do



I know some say it shouldn't be free or part of universal health care but like you pointed out Viagra is available. So it's ok for the guy to be able to get it up but it's not ok for both parties, esp the women, to be able to keep from getting pregnant and having a child they don't want nor can afford if they are too lazy to use a condom?

I don't think Viagra should be funded with tax dollars either, but conversely on your other point if women have the choice to 'do what they want with their own bodies', I think men should have the choice to be responsible for the child or not - no offense, ladies, but if you get to call one side of the field, the other half should get to call the opposing side.
Agreed but many times it's unwanted on both ends and the women gets "stuck" so to say with the baby because she has to carry it for 9mths and in that 9mths the guy has already taken off and probably gotten someone else pregnant. If neither party wanted a baby then they should have used some form of protection, so if a pregnancy results from their irresponsibility then they both should be responsible.

Personally with abortion I am on the fence. I DO think the man should know. I don't think it's fair to do it without telling him, he is the father after all no matter if it was a mistake or not. I have seen this scenario with people and it just isn't right imo but I do not judge those who do it. It is their decision.


I feel there would be less unwanted pregnancies if it were available.


True, perhaps, but there are ALREADY plenty of affordable options out there for women to address this issue. Lack of due diligence or self control does not a social healthcare issue make.


It is NOT only the woman! Why do you keep putting it all on the woman? It takes TWO to tango. BOTH need to be responsible! Also BC isn't cheap and neither are condoms if you are very sexually active
esp non-latex ones and they don't hand those out for free at the health dept!

BOTH parties need to address the issue.

I remember this little saying we were told in health class and it stuck in my head and it still does. Why I remember this I will never know lol I guess it was embedded into my head!


NATIONAL CONDOM WEEK
( Our friend “Robbie Rubber “ reminds us to… )



Cover your stump before you hump
Before you attack her, wrap your wacker
Don’t be silly … protect your wille.
Don’t be a loner,cover your boner
You can’t go wrong if you shield you dong
If your not going to sack it, Go home and wack it
If you think she spunky cover your monkey
Before you bag her sheath your dagger
It’ll be sweeter if you wrap your peter
If you slip between her thighs be sure to condomize
She won’t get sick if you cap your dick
If you go into heat package that meat
Wrap it in foil before checking her oil
A crank with Armor will never harm her
When in doubt; shroud your spout
Save embarrassment later…cover your gator
While you’re undressing Venus, dress up your penis
Off with pants and blouse? Suit up your trouser mouse
Never deck her with an unwrapped pecker
She’ll be into fellatio if you wrap your Horatio
Don’t be a fool …Vulcanize your tool
The right selection? Sack that erection


source




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 



Cover your stump before you hump
Before you attack her, wrap your wacker
Don’t be silly … protect your wille.
Don’t be a loner,cover your boner
You can’t go wrong if you shield you dong
If your not going to sack it, Go home and wack it
If you think she spunky cover your monkey
Before you bag her sheath your dagger
It’ll be sweeter if you wrap your peter
If you slip between her thighs be sure to condomize
She won’t get sick if you cap your dick
If you go into heat package that meat
Wrap it in foil before checking her oil
A crank with Armor will never harm her
When in doubt; shroud your spout
Save embarrassment later…cover your gator
While you’re undressing Venus, dress up your penis
Off with pants and blouse? Suit up your trouser mouse
Never deck her with an unwrapped pecker
She’ll be into fellatio if you wrap your Horatio
Don’t be a fool …Vulcanize your tool
The right selection? Sack that erection


Lol, who cumes up with this stuff. . . she’ll be into fellatio if you wrap your Horatio!
edit on 5/9/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 

Are you one of those who complains about wearing a condom? Seems so from your statement..

Hah! Quite the opposite, actually. With what I gather from the response, 45m-1hr on the low end is very acceptable, and I'm afraid I would shoot quite the other way otherwise. Durability and dryness are the issues here.


A women getting pregnant is BOTH parties fault...

Definitely agreed, which is one reason I don't think a women's right to choose should outweigh a man's right to support (or not).


I have ZERO sympathy for people who get knocked up because they wont use protection and if BC being free to people helps from having unwanted pregnancies, babies from being killed because they aren't wanted, children being abandoned because they aren't wanted then I am ALL for it!

Definitely agree with the opening - they're both idiots. The latter part is fine as well, but I can't see making all taxpayers pay for it instead of just those opting-in.


Look at the big picture. I don't like my taxes going to half the welfare recipients in the state I live in but there is nothing I can really do about it is there? We aren't going to like everything our money goes to but I look at the end result with this issue..in the end it saves children from being unwanted or killed. It will also lower abortion rates which I do feel is a matter of choice but it shouldn't be used as a method of BC either...so you see giving out free BC and putting it in the bill helps in many ways.

And yet, abortion rates (I could be wrong on this, please check me if so) continue pretty much as they are, and you have to be mindful that there are other options as well (such as adoption or states with 'safe haven' laws) for those cases where someone, for some reason, couldn't afford to buy their own birth control (which isn't that expensive and has a multitude of options) or exercise self control when they knew they didn't have birth control at the moment. Does impulse and horniness for some reason outweigh the importance these decisions should carry?

I don't fault the people for seeing this as a good thing, since on some levels it is, but I can't see people's lack of diligence justifying taking money from the whole to pay for the actions of the few - to phrase it in machiavellian terms, I pretty much never believe the ends justify the means.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


I have no idea! We were given this in Health Class in 11th grade. I STILL have the paper. It's in my scrap book. I have remembered this for years lol

I found it funny and catchy which is probably why I prefer to use condoms



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 

Agreed but many times it's unwanted on both ends and the women gets "stuck" so to say with the baby because she has to carry it for 9mths and in that 9mths the guy has already taken off and probably gotten someone else pregnant. If neither party wanted a baby then they should have used some form of protection, so if a pregnancy results from their irresponsibility then they both should be responsible.

Agreed again, but like I said this is where it falls back on 'a woman's right to choose' which should also be balanced by a man's right, likewise, if he'll otherwise be stuck with half the responsibility.


It is NOT only the woman! Why do you keep putting it all on the woman? It takes TWO to tango. BOTH need to be responsible! Also BC isn't cheap and neither are condoms if you are very sexually active esp non-latex ones and they don't hand those out for free at the health dept!

BOTH parties need to address the issue.

I'm not saying it is, dear - the responsibility AND the decision making should be split equally. And I have to disagree, I can buy a bangload of skins, etc., for less than I waste on plenty of other things.

I absolutely agree that it's the responsibility of both parties involved - I do NOT agree that it's the responsibility of all the other taxpayers.

Thanks for the responses and keeping it all friendly, as I said before I don't mean to cause any strife here, or issue any judgement - I just also don't like being on the hook for other peoples' decisions when they have other options.

edit on 5/9/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 




I just also don't like being on the hook for other peoples' decisions when they have other options.
Well said. Do what you want, just don't ask me to pay for it. Pay for your own choices.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Praetorius
 




I just also don't like being on the hook for other peoples' decisions when they have other options.
Well said. Do what you want, just don't ask me to pay for it. Pay for your own choices.


Your comments seem to be centering around the financial/tax end of the problem and your choice to not have to pay for this service because you do not agree with it's validity.
Well, I disagree with lots our government spends (waists) money on (including ethnic studies) but does that give us the right to select what and where are tax dollars are going, on a situation by situation basis? This idea is ridiculous.
We elect officials (at least we think we do) to handle what and where are tax dollars are going. Though I agree with your point, I still feel paying for birth control is a cheaper alternative to the latter 18 years of welfare some will be using this for. Some people try to manipulate the system to there advantage or are just not mentally capable of making 'smart' decisions when it comes to safe sex.
Should I dare to say women who repeatedly have children but can't afford them should be forced to take birth control, such as Neuro-Plant injections? Or should we reduce the tax breaks on families with low income and multiple children?
edit on 5/9/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
I should not be paying for either. If you can't afford children, don't have them. Start thinking with the head on your shoulders instead of the other one.
so what about women who thought there man was behinde them but walked out after number 3 or just died and left them in a hole the only option you leave them is crime or death. i don't think you realise how horrid the world is when you don't help people. Thay don't die on the side of the road thay turn to crime and come take your stuff irrispective of life or destuction

look at countrys like pakistan you can't go out at night in most places. its a bandit world you want?

how would you like your wife and kids treated in this situation?
edit on 9/5/11 by Aceofclubs because: missing letters



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
In a civilized society the OPs question would not even be asked -- it is really pretty simple.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 




how would you like your wife and kids treated in this situation?

Wrong question. I love and take care of my kids, but my EX-wife can go hang herself for all I care. Point being though, I do not ask anybody else to pay for what my kids need. I provide it at my expense(well split with the ex per the custody agreement).



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
In a civilized society the OPs question would not even be asked -- it is really pretty simple.
I could not agree more. Everybody would take care of their own expenses without robbing others to do so.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by Aceofclubs
 




how would you like your wife and kids treated in this situation?

Wrong question. I love and take care of my kids, but my EX-wife can go hang herself for all I care. Point being though, I do not ask anybody else to pay for what my kids need. I provide it at my expense(well split with the ex per the custody agreement).
so what if you die? and i like the way you ignored the rest of my post answer the other question. you want your kids to live in a bandit world where if you need something(food) you have to take it or die?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
so what if you die? and i like the way you ignored the rest of my post answer the other question. you want your kids to live in a bandit world where if you need something(food) you have to take it or die?
Serious question here, where are you from? Maybe you don't know, so no insult intended. Here in the United States there are companies that sell a product called life insurance. It could be that they do not have this where you are from. What life insurance does is act as income replacement in case of the death of the covered individual. I purchase "term life insurance" the proceeds of which should be more than sufficient to see my children properly cared for. You may want to look into it.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


True. Then again, there's all sorts of hard times and suffering in life. Perhaps all money that everyone earns should just go to the government, who can then make sure that everyone's needs are met, and give us all a stipend by way of refund so we can all buy ourselves something nice.

Does anyone else here not see the logical extension of this argument? Should universal healthcare, even if we could afford such a thing with our current standing, cover all medical and societal ills caused by people's bad decisions? Where does it end? If people know all of their decisions will be covered by other people, will they not decide to further abuse things?

Come on, give me an honest evaluation of where the line gets drawn here. All the arteriosclerosis, atherosclerosis, diabetes, lung cancer and so forth that is derived from what people decide to do to themselves. Where's the money come from when everything is free and there's no consequences or responsibility required for one's own self?

You're horny and can't do without sex? I've got a hand, and I've even used it before. Where WOULD you all draw the line? Ever?
edit on 5/9/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


i live in the uk i know about life insureance its a luxury that most i know would not be able to aford and theres always going to be just some poor joe who ends up with nothing be it due to there moronic attitude or just bad luck

at the end of the day you are going to pay for the pills or the kids you live in the us so you have to take that into account when you answer. the question did not take into account your perfect world stance
edit on 9/5/11 by Aceofclubs because: rouge letter



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aceofclubs
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


i live in the uk i know about life insureance its a luxury that most i know would not be able to aford and theres always going to be just some poor joe who ends up with nothing be it due to there moronic attitude or just bad luck

at the end of the day you are going to pay for the pills or the kids you live in the us so you have to take that into account when you answer. the question did not take into account your perfect world stance
edit on 9/5/11 by Aceofclubs because: rouge letter


I would rather pay for the pills then the kids any day.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
No!
The only thing I would agree with is universal health care for the elderly
I'll only allow myself to be forced to pay for others if they cannot support themselves.
But at the same time I wouldn't force this ideal on others



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I think contraception should be covered by health care, more than just the pills, the pills themselves also have some positive side effects to them such as menstruation regulation and controlling acne, but condoms i think definitely should, for prevention of disease alone, they should be free in my opinion.

Another thing that isn't covered where i am that i think should be is dental, i personally do not have dental insurance, and dental costs are very expensive, dental hygiene is important for overall physical health, poor dental hygiene can lead to a variety of problems with overall health such as strokes, heart disease, bone loss, as well as of-course gum disease or infection.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnteBellum

And I'm not just talking about the pill but other more modern types as well.
Anything that directly impacts the health and well-being of the person covered should be covered by health care. Few things impact a woman's health more directly and forcefully then becoming pregnant. If this obvious fact is not sufficiently convincing, there are also economic factors that should be considered. If a woman brings an unwanted pregnancy to term and delivers a child, it is likely to end up in our overburdened child welfare system. This places a financial burden on the child welfare system in addition to the expenses involved with the delivery. If the woman decides not to carry the child, there are expenses attendant on having an abortion. The only reasons put forth for not including birth control in universal health care are those based on religion, and religion should not dictate our public policy. Certain cosmetic surgeries, dental implants, nutritional and dietary assistance, and in some cases even Viagra prescriptions are some of the things that ARE covered by universal health care...but NOT birth control?
A question, "If birth control were to be left out of universal health control, would women have the basis for a class action suit against the government for discrimination based on sex?"
edit on 5/9/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)


1) Birth Control and Viagra are two different things. Once upon a time when America was a Matriarchy the only real legitimate grounds for divorce(also adultery) was if the guy couldn't get it up for whatever reason.

Also it is more akin to a hormonal treatment, and if I remember correctly hormonal treatments for women are also covered under this.

2) Male birth control technology has existed for over 20 years now. But because of traditionalist's( who are still reeling over the female birth control pill) and feminist's( don't want men to interfere with a woman's "right" to get pregnant) the male birth control pill has been sand-bagged every 5 years or so.

So if us guy's are being denied our own birth control why should we help pay for yours? You could always buy a cost effective female condom. You know they do make condoms designed for women. You could also get your tubes tied if it is that big of a deal or just keep your pants on.

(the last paragraph is semi-sarcastic reminder of the things people tell us guy's when we complain of our lack of options)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


Absolutely. Birth control of any kind should be FREE. We dont need more people, and anyone trying to be responsible and limit their breeding should be rewarded for that behavior.

Instead, we cut funding for it, both at home and around the world.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join