All employers must offer Birth Control.

[Mat]

The place I grew up in was like this. Unfortunately, if we are to have a system of social welfare, then we are simply going to have to put up with the fact that a minority of people will use it in ways we dislike.

I am not so sure that it is a minority based on myself growing up in the same situation and working with professionally. Part of it is the system itself and not the peoples fault but that I will save for another convo.

My question is should weightless pills and gym memberships also be included in what the gvt requires to be covered as part of health insurance? The same economic arguments could be argued perhaps with even more economic benefit than the cost of delivering a child. It has to stop someplace and people take responsibility for themselves I don't know there has to be a line somewhere though.

With regards to your post about a male being able to go out and fuck a different girl every night and not get pregnant it may be technically true but a guy still has to worry about and deal with the consequences of a pregnancy for the rest of his life or atleast until the child is 18 in the US if he is a horrible person. So a guy is not free to just go and have sex at will without worry of pregnancy.

Furthermore if said lady or ladies get pregnant not only may the guy be on the hook for the next 18 years for the upkeep of that child or part of it atleast but he does not have the choice to abort the child either while the lady can at will with no consultation decide that a child is not for her that also is a gender issue.

[Oor]

My question is should weightless pills and gym memberships also be included in what the gvt requires to be covered as part of health insurance?

They're already supplied in the UK on the NHS, specifically because of the perceived economic benefit. As are gastric bypasses for morbidly obese people, etc.

With regards to your post about a male being able to go out and fuck a different girl every night and not get pregnant it may be technically true but a guy still has to worry about and deal with the consequences of a pregnancy for the rest of his life or atleast until the child is 18 in the US if he is a horrible person. So a guy is not free to just go and have sex at will without worry of pregnancy.

This depends on whether the guy knows the woman - or more accurately, if the woman knows the guy. If she doesn't, she has no way of claiming child support etc.

You do highlight an inequality though - if a woman wants nothing to do with a child, she can hand the child over to child services and give it up for adoption, alleviating herself of all financial (and other) burdens. Men can't, if the woman decides to keep a child she can't afford. Or even one she can.

[Mat]

This depends on whether the guy knows the woman - or more accurately, if the woman knows the guy. If she doesn't, she has no way of claiming child support etc.

You do highlight an inequality though - if a woman wants nothing to do with a child, she can hand the child over to child services and give it up for adoption, alleviating herself of all financial (and other) burdens. Men can't, if the woman decides to keep a child she can't afford. Or even one she can.

Not making a judgement call on the woman or anything but I think if that is the lifestyle that the guy or the girl is undertaking than pregnancy is the least of their worries.

[Oor]

Not making a judgement call on the woman or anything but I think if that is the lifestyle that the guy or the girl is undertaking than pregnancy is the least of their worries.

Depends. If a person wants to engage in promiscuous sexual activity, it's entirely their prerogative. If they want to avoid STD's, hormonal birth control won't help them anyway. Condoms will. But if a person does engage in promiscuous activity, having calculated the risk involved in doing so with condoms, there is still an inequality in the possible consequences of condom failure. Which can be redressed by use of hormonal birth control.

[Drevan]

Although viagra per pop costs more, less people need or use it and so it is covered same reason medicare DOESNT cover prescription glasses

I understand the economical argument for Viagra being covered where prescription glasses are not - but if birth control is not covered where pregnancy, child-birth and the resultant child health costs are, the economical argument falls flat on it's arse.

So then we're left with, essentially, a pill that permits people to enjoy potentially extra-marital or gay sex (Viagra), and essentially promotes sex, against a pill (or implant, coil, etc) that stops a woman getting pregnant (inside or outside marriage) and has several other proven health benefits for women. I don't really see how the religious argument can be made. Unless they're only providing Viagra to married, heterosexual men coupled with fertile women.

One quick point, too - someone mentioned that birth control in the UK costs £7.65 per month. That's not the case. Even in England - the only UK nation left where people are charged for prescriptions - birth control prescriptions are free.

The libertarianish part of me agrees with Mat - that in a free market, health care providers should be free to sell whatever services they like for whatever prices they like, and the consumers will guide the market by purchasing the most affordable/relevant coverage over the less affordable/irrelevant coverage. And that those providers will be able to make informed decisions about whether providing X or decreasing the price by x% will increase the market share by a percentage that warrants it.

Alas, the humanistic/humanitarian part of me balks at the possibility that in one of the world's richest societies, citizens can be left without health care due to their lack of wealth.

Re: the abortion thing: "women should close their legs" is a trite and insignificant argument - more so when made with purposeful disingenuity by people who know better.

And 'consider adoption' might be more seriously considered when the approximate half-million children in care in the US already has decreased some. And if the 'consider adoption' argument is being made by the religious - maybe they could try reconsidering their stance on permitting gay couples to adopt the neglected and abandoned children of heterosexual people, before they suggest that adoption is the way to go.

Keep your Atheistic Rhetoric bullshit out of this please. No one ever mentioned Gays not being allowed to be Parents thru adoption except you. Stay on topic

[Mat]

Not making a judgement call on the woman or anything but I think if that is the lifestyle that the guy or the girl is undertaking than pregnancy is the least of their worries.

Depends. If a person wants to engage in promiscuous sexual activity, it's entirely their prerogative. If they want to avoid STD's, hormonal birth control won't help them anyway. Condoms will. But if a person does engage in promiscuous activity, having calculated the risk involved in doing so with condoms, there is still an inequality in the possible consequences of condom failure. Which can be redressed by use of hormonal birth control.

Yea I still do not see the inequality there the risk is present for both should they decide to proceed and condoms are not being given out either at the pharmacy with or without a prescription. If birth control pills are going to be made available for the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy than condoms must also be included in the health plan at a shared cost to everyone same as the pill.

[TreatRothschild]

Your choice but you cannot control what I take as my business and respond to accordingly and no it is not a troll to do so if it is discussed in open forum it is fair game. If there is any trolling here it is your snarky remarks that constantly are posted.

Well I'll tell you what I told the creepy old troll recently. Fix it. Don't respond to my posts and get in the line of fire of those "snarky" remarks or there is always FOE. I can guarantee you I'd be fairly happy either way even if I would miss the comedy show.

*laughs*

Creepy old troll!

Love it! You keep digging your hole, Kait.

[Oor]

Keep your Atheistic Rhetoric bullshit out of this please. No one ever mentioned Gays not being allowed to be Parents thru adoption except you. Stay on topic

So that's the usual inane, pointless, cuss-laden non-comment from you out of the way. Did you have an actual counter to my point, or an argument to put forward, or a... well... anything of substance at all?

And please... in an argument that absolutely does have religious undertones (it's the whole basis behind the fact that this is even a debate in the first place) don't try to silence me because my beliefs may happen to differ from someone else's.

The comment was:

"And if the 'consider adoption' argument is being made by the religious..."

If it's not, or the reason for the comment is non-religious, then don't address it. Address the relevant bit. But don't get automatically pissy and throw a tantrum because someone dared to point out a blatantly hypocritical behaviour.

Since you are apparently incapable of separating out two different arguments, I'll make it easier for you:

"And 'consider adoption' might be more seriously considered when the approximate half-million children in care in the US already has decreased some."

Any counter point to this disagreement with your 'consider adoption' policy?

[TreatRothschild]

Keep your Atheistic Rhetoric bullshit out of this please. No one ever mentioned Gays not being allowed to be Parents thru adoption except you. Stay on topic

Not too sure what Atheism has to do with it, Drevan.

[Mat]

Keep your Atheistic Rhetoric bullshit out of this please. No one ever mentioned Gays not being allowed to be Parents thru adoption except you. Stay on topic

Not too sure what Atheism has to do with it, Drevan.

Yea I thought I had missed something so let it alone.