Why Are Men Dominating the Debate About Birth Control for Women?

Status
Not open for further replies.
saywhatkid said:
Sad that you were so quick to jump to that conclusion.

Um....well, it was just a bunch of white guys posting. I would happily debate most topics with anyone. My point was that this, as a topic mostly related to women, that only white men were participating.
Click to expand...

Funny she asked you that when her opinions so far seem even more racist and sexist than the guys'.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Most women do not hold these beliefs. the ones who do are doing so from a privileged position where they feel it's easy to be judgemental because they have no idea exactly what they're judging because they've been lucky enough to be spared, or from some dogmatic religious belief that have no positive influence on the realities women around the world face every day or because they feel they will escape persecution if they reflect the same beliefs men hold. The latter part is especially true in societies where religion rule politics and governance.

It's interesting to note that in countries where abortion and birth control is forbidden, there's a higher rate of illegal abortions and a much higher rate of violence and oppression against women. Actually, it's not interesting, it's scary.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Babyblue said:
Women should have a right to chose birth control
Click to expand...

Agree

and have a right to have access to it regardless of income.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. they pretty much have that. Planned Parenthood offers the pill for as little as $15/mo and it can be cheaper if you have a state program or PP decides to reduce the fee based on income.

Obama sees this, and realize it is much cheaper to prevent a pregnancy, than having the government pay for unwanted pregnancies, labor and delivery and supporting the children welfare.
Click to expand...

It may be beneficial to the nation....but that doesn't necessarily make it right or A right.
 
Let me help out here a little.

Women (and Men) DO..DO..DO.. have an absolute 100% right to birth control (any method) that they pay for themself and not on someone else dime.
NOTE: if she/he is getting b/c from an insurance plan, that is still paying for it because of the insurance permiums being paid.
 
DeafCaroline said:
... 8. Before contraception men greatly outnumbered American women in colleges.
Today women outnumber men. In 1960, just before the Griswold decision, only 35% of college students were women. Today women represent at least 57% of students on most college campuses.

9. Before contraception there were no female CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies.
Katherine Graham became the first female CEO of a Fortune 500 company when she became Chairman of the Washington Post Company in 1973. She inherited the publication from her husband, who had inherited the role from Graham’s father, but Graham succeeded far beyond anyone’s expectations. Since her trailblazing ascent, more than a dozen other women have reached the highest rung on the corporate latter with a record-breaking 18 women serving as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies in 2011, the largest number in history.

10. Before contraception women were virtually invisible in Congress.
Just before contraception became officially legal in the U.S. (1965) there were 20 women in the House of Representatives and one female Senator, Margaret Chase Smith. None of them were women of color. (Patsy Mink, an Asian-American, was elected to her first term the year Griswold was decided by the Supreme Court.) Today there are 76 women in the House. Fourteen of them are African-American, four of them are Asian-American and seven are Latina. There are 17 women in the Senate.
Click to expand...
What is the point here? That women can't both be moms and successful in America? That contraception makes women smarter and more assertive? That "women of color" couldn't get politically active without contraception? (The Voting Rights Act of 1965 wouldn't have more to do with that?) What?
 
rolling7 said:
Let me help out here a little.

Women (and Men) DO..DO..DO.. have an absolute 100% right to birth control (any method) that they pay for themself and not on someone else dime.
NOTE: if she/he is getting b/c from an insurance plan, that is still paying for it because of the insurance perminms being paid.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
saywhatkid said:
Sad that you were so quick to jump to that conclusion.

Um....well, it was just a bunch of white guys posting. I would happily debate most topics with anyone. My point was that this, as a topic mostly related to women, that only white men were participating.
Click to expand...
Why bring up their race at all? Just because someone is white he can't participate?
 
rolling7 said:
Let me help out here a little.

Women (and Men) DO..DO..DO.. have an absolute 100% right to birth control (any method) that they pay for themself and not on someone else dime.
NOTE: if she/he is getting b/c from an insurance plan, that is still paying for it because of the insurance permiums being paid.
Click to expand...

So you prefer to use your tax dollars to pay for medicaid, Foodstamps, and other public assistance needs for people that concieves children that wanted access to free birth control.
 
I have so many thoughts about the issues and comments on this thread as well as the other related one, I could write for hours. However, the predominant one is this ... I believe the role of government, religion, communities and society in general is to take care of its people. Taking care of all people ensures a stronger, healthier, more productive and stable society. People change, the world changes and the needs of both changes, it is inevitable. When problems arise due to these changes (something is broke), is it not everyone's responsibility to work together to solve them (fix them)? Should we ever deny a solution based on the idea that it somehow infringes on your own personal ideology, at the risk of society's greater health and well-being?

Now, specific to birth control. What is the argument against providing it (forgive my ignorance in this area, I am just not getting it, so help is appreciated)? Money? How much do unwanted pregnancies cost society, financially and emotionally, vs expected costs of BC? Rights? Does it really matter if it is a right to have sex or not - it happens either way? Moral stance? While one may not agree with BC, should they prohibit others from using it or even deny others access to it if it is best for one's health and well-being? Access to BC will increase or encourage 'promiscuity'? History and statistics have proven otherwise. As I said, I am obviously not getting some key element of this argument against providing BC so all constructive help is welcome.
 
Babyblue said:
So you prefer to use your tax dollars to pay for medicaid, Foodstamps, and other public assistance needs for people that concieves children that wanted access to free birth control.
Click to expand...

Nope, I have long said that if you can not properly care for a child do not bring that child into the world. Men can go to thousands of drug stores (among other places) an buy condoms. Women can get b/c at the same drug stores. Where it comes to cost, you should be prepared to pay for your own. If having sex is so important to you, the cost of b/c has to be accounted for. If anyone has a good head on his/her shoulders they certainly know to use protection and hold themself accountable.
Those that do not take the necessary steps and do have a child they can not support are drainning the rest of us. They want free everything mention in your quote above, with or without a kid. So having a kid makes no difference to them...they still want their "freebies".
 
rolling7 said:
Nope, I have long said that if you can not properly care for a child do not bring that child into the world. Men can go to thousands of drug stores (among other places) an buy condoms. Women can get b/c at the same drug stores. Where it comes to cost, you should be prepared to pay for your own. If having sex is so important to you, the cost of b/c has to be accounted for. If anyone has a good head on his/her shoulders they certainly know to use protection and hold themself accountable.
Those that do not take the necessary steps and do have a child they can not support are drainning the rest of us. They want free everything mention in your quote above, with or without a kid. So having a kid makes no difference to them...they still want their "freebies".
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Journey said:
I have so many thoughts about the issues and comments on this thread as well as the other related one, I could write for hours. However, the predominant one is this ... I believe the role of government, religion, communities and society in general is to take care of its people. Taking care of all people ensures a stronger, healthier, more productive and stable society. People change, the world changes and the needs of both changes, it is inevitable. When problems arise due to these changes (something is broke), is it not everyone's responsibility to work together to solve them (fix them)? Should we ever deny a solution based on the idea that it somehow infringes on your own personal ideology, at the risk of society's greater health and well-being?

Now, specific to birth control. What is the argument against providing it (forgive my ignorance in this area, I am just not getting it, so help is appreciated)? Money? How much do unwanted pregnancies cost society, financially and emotionally, vs expected costs of BC? Rights? Does it really matter if it is a right to have sex or not - it happens either way? Moral stance? While one may not agree with BC, should they prohibit others from using it or even deny others access to it if it is best for one's health and well-being? Access to BC will increase or encourage 'promiscuity'? History and statistics have proven otherwise. As I said, I am obviously not getting some key element of this argument against providing BC so all constructive help is welcome.
Click to expand...

Ok, here's what you are missing. At least as far as the U.S. is concerned.

A) Rights- Churches have them. Religion is specifically named in the Bill of Rights unlike birth control. They cannot be forced to pay for or provide something that goes against their beliefs.

B) Cost- We already have low cost birth control. Planned Parenthood, which is subsidized by the federal government provides low cost birth control sometimes it's even free. We also have medicaid, free clinics and state programs for the extremely poor.

C) Politics- Obama could have proposed this as a government plan which would have made more sense since theoretically this will save the government money in the long run. But that could potentially cost him votes especially among women (ironically) and minorities. So Obama chose to put this mandate upon the private sector in order to frame them as the "bad guy". Now instead of facing the music he can deflect and say "look at the way religion/business hates women and many of his followers will fall for that.
 
Anybody should have a right to get BCs or else. I don't think sex does come without consequence. Sounds so impossible, but sex is not a crime or pregnancy is not a punishment, is a matter of cause and effect...

Someone chose to have sex,
Someone chose to or not to use protection,
Someone chose to ignore or to aware the risks and responsibilities that come with having unsafe sex with the drunk person from the bar someone don't even know the name of.
Someone chose to use protection but may or may not ignore the risks and responsibilities.
Go on...

I don't know why people think sex does come without consequence. :confused:
 
DeafCaroline said:
:roll:
Click to expand...

Let me help you out DC.

I have the right to hearing aids and my insurance does not cover them.
Are you, DC, going to pay ofr them? Tax dollars?

I have a right to hearing aid batteries and my insurance does not cover them.
Are you, DC, going to pay for them? Tax dollars?

I have a right to good healthy teeth and my insurance does not cover them.
Are you, DC, going to pay? Tax dollars?

Don't worry I wont ask you to pay. I worked for over 50 years and planned for the days and I can pay for anything the insurance does not cover. Try to remember for over 50 years all that $$$ I paid in permiums. Why should MY tax dollars be needed to pay for those who take no responsibilities of themself? Remember I started with nothing, just like they did. Only difference is, I never went looking for a handout but pulled myself up by the bootstraps. (no, I'm not patting myself on the back...because..that is what is expected of everyone)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top