Not without my ovaries.

[RKenshin]

I side with you till you say everyone should pay for it. Shut up really that argument is worthless here unless you pay for it. And then your off topic.

You're paying for it whether you like it or not; difference is would you rather pay less upfront, or far far more after the fact?

Kids aren't cheap, and the families that can't afford to have them are the same ones that stand to benefit the most from free contraceptives and/or abortion services.

Providing a women with birth control for their entire life and an abortion every year, for free, would be a small fraction of how expensive the potential welfare of having a single kid could qualify her for.

[Aksannyi]

I'm not defending it, but I'm guessing it's because it's an actual medical issue, whereas condoms are not.

Erectile dysfunction, while difficult to deal with, isn't exactly life-threatening. Neither is childbearing (in most cases), so I'm not trying cherry pick arguments. I'd say that having children is a lot more life-changing than having ED, that said, I know that ED can be a cause for depression and other more serious issues in men, then again, so can pregnancy/childbirth in women (post-partum, etc.). Can't really compare the two as they are apples to oranges, but I do find it a slight bit ridiculous that ED meds (basically, male reproductive health) are covered, but contraceptives and abortions (female reproductive health) are not. Or were not previously.

I just hope that we can keep moving in this equality direction. At the heart of this issue is that people are still trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, and that's wrong.

[Cliron]

You're paying for it whether you like it or not; difference is would you rather pay less upfront, or far far more after the fact?

Kids aren't cheap, and the families that can't afford to have them are the same ones that stand to benefit the most from free contraceptives and/or abortion services.

Providing a women with birth control for their entire life and an abortion every year, for free, would be a small fraction of how expensive the potential welfare of having a single kid could qualify her for.

I want to buy you a drink.

It's one of those things that doesn't seem 'intuitive': why do poor people have so many kids? Its a complex issue, but there is no denying that it happens. This has a huge role on that woman and the family as a whole.

Poverty is often cyclical. The 'Poverty+ many kids+ lack of appropriate healthcare/education' troupe (am I using this word correctly?) is pretty well established.

Like, I remember learning this in geography class when I was 13.

[Uzor]

You're paying for it whether you like it or not; difference is would you rather pay less upfront, or far far more after the fact?

Kids aren't cheap, and the families that can't afford to have them are the same ones that stand to benefit the most from free contraceptives and/or abortion services.

Providing a women with birth control for their entire life and an abortion every year, for free, would be a small fraction of how expensive the potential welfare of having a single kid could qualify her for.

Cultural difference, but I don't mind welfare. I'd rather pay more to increase the standard of living for the poor and sick, better education, healthcare etc. than to pay less and get worse equality. It's a safety net. I know that if I ever get in that situation myself, my countrymen will support me. And I know that if I have kids, I won't have to worry about being money to get them good healthcare and education, to allow them to be the best they can be. You give back to the community. Children are the future, so investing in them now allows them to make tomorrow better, so that they, in turn, can return the favor to the future kids.

Erectile dysfunction, while difficult to deal with, isn't exactly life-threatening. Neither is childbearing (in most cases), so I'm not trying cherry pick arguments. I'd say that having children is a lot more life-changing than having ED, that said, I know that ED can be a cause for depression and other more serious issues in men, then again, so can pregnancy/childbirth in women (post-partum, etc.). Can't really compare the two as they are apples to oranges, but I do find it a slight bit ridiculous that ED meds (basically, male reproductive health) are covered, but contraceptives and abortions (female reproductive health) are not. Or were not previously.

Like I said, I'm not defending it. I'm not sure how Viagra works in America, but in Sweden you need a prescription for it, and the insurance covers prescription drugs, hence why it makes sense Viagra would be covered under the current system. In Sweden, you need a prescription for Viagra, and - unlike other medicines - it is not subsidized by the government.

I just hope that we can keep moving in this equality direction. At the heart of this issue is that people are still trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, and that's wrong.

I agree, they should be free to do what they want with their bodies. I'm all for equality, me being gay makes equality a very important subject for me. People should have the freedom to do what they want in their spare time.

[archibaldcrane]

Goddamnit Uzor, your Swedish perspective is not useful in this conversation. No one is discussing how Sweden should manage their birth control but you.

[Day]

lmao

[Aksannyi]

I'm also confused ... yes I know ED drugs must be given via prescription, so must birth control. So by your definition, that should be covered, right?

[dejet]

You're paying for it whether you like it or not; difference is would you rather pay less upfront, or far far more after the fact?

Kids aren't cheap, and the families that can't afford to have them are the same ones that stand to benefit the most from free contraceptives and/or abortion services.

Providing a women with birth control for their entire life and an abortion every year, for free, would be a small fraction of how expensive the potential welfare of having a single kid could qualify her for.

What I mean by this is that if you think it should be free then you should not be doing it with public money, im all for cheap birth control . Fuck I took advantage of it in college; free STD check ups, condoms and other shit. It was there and I was happy. However I can understand people might be pissed at the morning after pill and other forms being covered. Its not even close to being equal, but a good example of why you should not do public funding of stuff like this is why people get pissed at the death penalty. It is your tax money going to killing someone, weather you like it or not your money paid to kill that guy in some small way.

Same reason I dislike the idea of big corporations giving money to say a presidential fund, if I work for them that would piss me off. When you do something like that, you are speaking for everyone.

From the outlook people would rather pay for the kids, then to "kill" by their definition. Its not a money issue if you ask me. Most are not saying don't give out condoms, they are saying don't give out the morning after pill and the likes of that.

obamacare makes this government money in a way. I think that is why the line is a little blurred, its a hard fight but how can you be mad at someone for defending what they define as killing?

[Aksannyi]

Then the problem is people need to understand how the morning after pill actually works, because (as has been stated) it's not an abortion pill. It prevents ovulation. If ovulation is prevented, then an egg cannot be fertilized and conception cannot occur.

[dejet]

Then the problem is people need to understand how the morning after pill actually works, because (as has been stated) it's not an abortion pill. It prevents ovulation. If ovulation is prevented, then an egg cannot be fertilized and conception cannot occur.

Dont fight with me, like I said iv used the shit, and am happy to. im telling you how they see it lol reading my post again it does sound like im all for not using it.

edit:Sorry about that, that is not my view, just how I see it from some other POV

[Uzor]

Morning after pill is not a form of contraceptive. Well, yes, it is, but it is not healthy in the least to take and should only be used in case of emergency. Not as a way to have unprotected sex and pop morning after pills time and time again.

[Day]

It is exactly a form of birth control and I haven't seen the first person here say anything about taking it over and over.

[Aksannyi]

Morning after pill is not a form of birth control. It is not healthy in the least to take and should only be used in case of emergency. Not as a way to have unprotected sex and pop morning after pills time and time again.

I'm sorry, but if I am raped, I'm going to run down and get the morning after pill. (Assuming I wasn't already on the pill at the time, because I am right now.)

That said, it still should be available. No woman wants to carry her rapist's baby. Yes, abortion is legal and should be available, but rather than a woman having an abortion which is considered worse morally than the morning after pill (at least by some, no accounting for those who believe life begins at conception and that the morning after pill is an abortion pill), she could take something to prevent conception from ever happening. I know what I'd consider to be the lesser of two evils - and I am pro-choice, make no mistake, but I believe abortions should be the absolute last resort.

[Uzor]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be available. See my edit (was on the train, edited it right after, but you quoted the old one). It's better than abortion, I agree, and I'm not arguing either of them should be forbidden. I'm extremely pro-choice. And no, I don't consider rape unprotected sex.

Goddamnit Uzor, your Swedish perspective is not useful in this conversation. No one is discussing how Sweden should manage their birth control but you.

It wasn't part of my argument, it was a response to his welfare jab. I'm just saying I don't understand why you crazy U.S people are so anti-welfare

[dejet]

Im getting a mix message here, are we talking about taking the pill off the market? or just making it free with your healthcare? I mean if its taking it away altogether I think most would fucking say "GTFO" I thought the only part people are fighting over was how it should be paid for. As in fully covered, or you pay the 40 dollars yourself.

[RKenshin]

Cultural difference, but I don't mind welfare. I'd rather pay more to increase the standard of living for the poor and sick, better education, healthcare etc. than to pay less and get worse equality.

More equality would in fact be providing more choices/options, not less... it's not simply saying "if you're poor and like sex, too bad if you accidently make a kid... but hey, at least we'll help take care of it!"

Equality would, if anything, be giving them any help needed to make the choice they wish (contraceptives or abortion or not), and not just offering them the help after the fact.

As far as the quality of the welfare after the fact, that's a completely separate issue and discussion. But, regardless of how good or bad the quality is, I can tell you for a fact that unwanted kids with unready/unprepared parents can never be 'fixed' by just throwing more money at them.

EDIT:

What I mean by this is that if you think it should be free then you should not be doing it with public money, im all for cheap birth control . Fuck I took advantage of it in college; free STD check ups, condoms and other shit. It was there and I was happy. However I can understand people might be pissed at the morning after pill and other forms being covered. Its not even close to being equal, but a good example of why you should not do public funding of stuff like this is why people get pissed at the death penalty. It is your tax money going to killing someone, weather you like it or not your money paid to kill that guy in some small way.

Same reason I dislike the idea of big corporations giving money to say a presidential fund, if I work for them that would piss me off. When you do something like that, you are speaking for everyone.

From the outlook people would rather pay for the kids, then to "kill" by their definition. Its not a money issue if you ask me. Most are not saying don't give out condoms, they are saying don't give out the morning after pill and the likes of that.

obamacare makes this government money in a way. I think that is why the line is a little blurred, its a hard fight but how can you be mad at someone for defending what they define as killing?

Fair enough I guess, though I admit I thought you were talking purely from a spending/finance issue.

That said, a lot of this "I don't want my tax dollars paying for that service" argument comes from misinformed ideas of exactly what birth control, plan B, etc are used for and how they work. What is it, something like 60% of women are on BC for reasons other than/not just limited to contraception?

[Uzor]

Im getting a mix message here, are we talking about taking the pill off the market? or just making it free with your healthcare? I mean if its taking it away altogether I think most would fucking say "GTFO" I thought the only part people are fighting over was how it should be paid for. As in fully covered, or you pay the 40 dollars yourself.

That's what I don't get either, I've never said remove contraceptives, that's just crazy, but then Aksannyi mentioned that it should still be available.

More equality would in fact be providing more choices/options, not less... it's not simply saying "if you're poor and like sex, too bad if you accidently make a kid... but hey, at least we'll help take care of it!"

Equality would, if anything, be giving them any help needed to make the choice they wish (contraceptives or abortion or not), and not just offering them the help after the fact.

As far as the quality of the welfare after the fact, that's a completely separate issue and discussion. But, regardless of how good or bad the quality is, I can tell you for a fact that unwanted kids with unready/unprepared parents can never be 'fixed' by just throwing more money at them.

That is a fair point, and I agree, the problem for me is whether to make it completely free or not. I don't think it should be free for everyone with insurance. It should be free up to a certain age, however, which I've claimed from the start. My worry is that making it completely free for everyone included in your insurance could lead to anything from more expensive insurance, to discrimination for not using the free contraceptives.

I think a much better option is subsidized contraceptives - that is, make them cheaper, not free - after a certain age, like 25. And it should apply to everyone, not only those with insurance. If you only get free contraceptives through your insurance, then that opens up to discrimination. Either make it completely free for everyone even outside of insurance as not everyone has insurance, or don't make it free at all. But since free for everyone is unrealistic, it's better to make it cheaper so that they still make a profit. A middle road so to speak.

[Aksannyi]

Well I'd agree, it's better to have a preventive measure in place - and I know someone who literally gets pregnant every year or so and just has an abortion and that's her form of birth control - which I frown upon. It shouldn't be your primary method of not getting knocked up.

That said, I don't see why an emergency contraceptive can't be covered by insurance. Emergency surgery is covered, emergency trauma services are covered, etc. Granted, these aren't life-threatening, but they're an emergency service all the same. It should be available/covered.

Ahh, okay, I misread. I think it should be covered by health insurance. I also think that abortions should be, but limited. It shouldn't be "have all the abortions!" One, maybe two annually.

[Waraji]

Isn't the main argument in the courts right now pro-life advocates clamoring at the idea that birth control is a form of abortion when science would say otherwise. With that logic you could argue using a condom is a form of abortion, or male masturbation is a form of abortion.

If we're talking about preventive forms of birth control, these companies are bat shit crazy trying to get away from dodging the bill (albeit a very small bill). Plan B on the other hand is an O-Shit button, and I could see how they shouldn't rightfully need to pay for it, although I don't think/know if that is covered anyways under federal healthcare laws?

[Blubbartron]

There's a lot of misconceptions about what the pill does, and even Aksannyi doesn't have it completely right.

Basically, the pill causes a change of hormones that essentially mimics the effects of the progesterone drop that causes periods. This effectively prevents pregnancies in a variety of ways:
1) Preventing ovulation (although this is irrelevant if an egg is already present)
2) Preventing fertilization (although this is irrelevant if an egg is present and already fertilized)
3) Preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining (although this is irrelevant if a fertilized egg has already implanted)

Source: http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b

The only reason it's technically not an abortion pill is because it doesn't cause a miscarriage if a fertilized egg has already implanted when the pill is taken. However, there is very little real difference between a very early miscarriage (AKA spontaneous abortion), and a normal period that happens to flush out a fertilized egg before it had an opportunity to implant. The latter happens to tens (maybe even hundreds) of thousands of women each month, and most of them don't even realize it happened.

I hate my job for making me learn this much about women's health.