Free Contraception in British Columbia - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-29-2012, 10:06 PM
Newbie
 
vancouverveggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12
This isn't really a debate - I just didn't know where else to post it. Anyway, if you support free birth control for all women in British Columbia, sign the petition here:

https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.o...l-bc-residents

My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Opt needs 70 more signatures to take it to the legislature under the same law that forced out the HST.
vancouverveggie is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 03-01-2012, 12:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Well it's not really free, someone has to pay for it.
Forster is offline  
#3 Old 03-01-2012, 12:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
vMaryv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 585
I dunno...I used to pay about $12 a month for a generic brand. It's affordable. I dont know why it should be free. Like Forster said, it's not really free. TAxpayers would be paying for it. It would be my personal choice to use it. There is no reason to force others to pay for this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the blog I write. It's mostly about food. Some healthy. Some junky. All vegan.

vMaryv is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 03-01-2012, 03:24 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Alibabble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 524
There were times as a student where I couldn't afford any of my prescription medications, including birth control. $12 might not seem like much but when you have a total of $80 for the month for food and gas then you get to choose between eating and medication. That's even assuming that you're lucky enough that one of the cheaper generics will provide you with the benefits from the pill you're looking for aside from BC and/or will not have unacceptable side effects.

Tax payer funded birth control can help prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce a drain on society associated with the costs of this. Furthermore, since the pill can be used for more than just birth control we would see women having an easier time managing other reproductive problems like PCOS and endometriosis. Right now I'm in the process of playing around with different types of BC to control extreme pain from cramping and I had a really bad night. I know that the cost of birth control was considerably less than my ER visit last night to get pain meds and an anti-emetic via IV.

For me BC falls into the same area as preventive medicine. It's a small price now to prevent a much larger cost later.
Alibabble is offline  
#5 Old 03-01-2012, 03:33 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Should a person get taxpayer provided cholesterol medicine? It's a small price now to prevent a much larger cost later. Or should said person with high cholesterol make changes in his/her lifestyle to take care of themselves?
Forster is offline  
#6 Old 03-01-2012, 03:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
beatricious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Should a person get taxpayer provided cholesterol medicine? It's a small price now to prevent a much larger cost later. Or should said person with high cholesterol make changes in his/her lifestyle to take care of themselves?

And the "change" in this analogy would be not having sex?
beatricious is offline  
#7 Old 03-01-2012, 03:52 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatricious View Post

And the "change" in this analogy would be not having sex?

If you and your partner can't afford birth control and you can't afford an unplanned pregnancy is it such a bad idea? There are other things one can do to gratify yourself other than unprotected vaginal sex. Personally I'd have forgone my beer money in college if the choice was between beer and sex. Hell if they had cell phones back in the day I'd have given up that for sex. Fortunate for my beer fund free/cheap bc was readily available.
Forster is offline  
#8 Old 03-01-2012, 04:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alibabble View Post

For me BC falls into the same area as preventive medicine. It's a small price now to prevent a much larger cost later.

Some taxpayers would apparently prefer to pay for the pregnancy and medical care for an unwanted child than pay the vastly cheaper cost of birth control. Because that's the choice in the real world, not the fantasy world they live in.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#9 Old 03-01-2012, 04:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

Some taxpayers would apparently prefer to pay for the pregnancy and medical care for an unwanted child than pay the vastly cheaper cost of birth control. Because that's the choice in the real world, not the fantasy world they live in.

Some would rather pay for neither... that being said I'm pragmatic enough to understand subsidized BC will be cheaper to the taxpayers in the long run. I'm also realistic enough to realize that it is human nature to avoid personal responsibility for ones behavior and risks to ones health... why should we we're conditioned to big brother looking out for us.
Forster is offline  
#10 Old 03-01-2012, 04:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Some would rather pay for neither... that being said I'm pragmatic enough to understand subsidized BC will be cheaper to the taxpayers in the long run.

There you go then. You want the world to be different but denying subsidized BC will obviously not have the desired effect, it will just cost more to everyone in the form of unwanted pregnancies and children.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#11 Old 03-01-2012, 04:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irizary View Post

There you go then. You want the world to be different but denying subsidized BC will obviously not have the desired effect, it will just cost more to everyone in the form of unwanted pregnancies and children.

But I can still ***** about paying for it... right? People do so like to ***** about other people, especially if they're being irresponsible, lol.

The choices are pay me now or I'll make you pay more later, both options IMO suck... I know, I know, "but what about the children."
Forster is offline  
#12 Old 03-01-2012, 04:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Irizary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

But I can still ***** about paying for it... right? People do so like to ***** about other people, especially if they're being irresponsible, lol.

Sure, as long as you don't try to make stupid public policy or obscure the facts.

Quote:
The choices are pay me now or I'll make you pay more later, both options IMO suck... I know, I know, "but what about the children."

Well, that is the issue - the children who will be born who don't have any choice in the matter who need care.

Of all the things that suck in life, taxpayers paying for BC would be a minor and an impersonal problem I think. Being the unwanted child without proper care is much worse.

"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the civil war, don't look at where you stand on slavery today, look at where you stand on animal rights." - Paul Watson.

 

Every animal you eat
was running for her life

Irizary is offline  
#13 Old 03-01-2012, 04:23 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Envy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Heaven
Posts: 6,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatricious View Post

And the "change" in this analogy would be not having sex?

Vaginal sex is not the only way you know.

"Hell exists not to punish sinners, but to ensure that nobody sins in the first place."
Envy is offline  
#14 Old 03-01-2012, 09:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Should a person get taxpayer provided cholesterol medicine? It's a small price now to prevent a much larger cost later. Or should said person with high cholesterol make changes in his/her lifestyle to take care of themselves?

And what would those changes be?

High cholesterol can have factors other than diet. Sometimes the genetic factors can be so much of a risk factor that cardiovascular disease can start in childhood.
das_nut is offline  
#15 Old 03-01-2012, 09:56 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664
People don't just take hormonal birth control to prevent pregnancy, it can have a variety of health benefits from regulating painful menstruation to preventing ovarian cysts and cancer to curing acne. http://www.healthywomen.org/conditio...pills#hc-tab-1

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#16 Old 03-02-2012, 07:57 AM
Beginner
 
Shiftiness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Should a person get taxpayer provided cholesterol medicine?

Yes, obviously.

This isn't hard.
Shiftiness is offline  
#17 Old 03-02-2012, 08:13 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiftiness View Post

Yes, obviously.

This isn't hard.

Before or after they've exhausted non pharmaceutical lifestyle changes?
Forster is offline  
#18 Old 03-02-2012, 09:25 AM
Beginner
 
Shiftiness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 185
Before. And you know that on top of what Das Nut said making lifestyle changes is much simpler for some people than others depending on location and income level, for example if you're living in Beverly Hills then it's probably much easier to make changes than it is for someone living in a trailer park in the middle of rural Texas. Expecting everyone to be able to make those changes before being given the needed medicine is pretty classist.
Shiftiness is offline  
#19 Old 03-02-2012, 09:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiftiness View Post

Before. And you know that on top of what Das Nut said making lifestyle changes is much simpler for some people than others depending on location and income level, for example if you're living in Beverly Hills then it's probably much easier to make changes than it is for someone living in a trailer park in the middle of rural Texas. Expecting everyone to be able to make those changes before being given the needed medicine is pretty classist.

Oh please... rice and beans are cheap.
Forster is offline  
#20 Old 03-02-2012, 02:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

Before or after they've exhausted non pharmaceutical lifestyle changes?

*sigh*

From Wikipedia: "In strictly controlled surroundings, a diet can reduce cholesterol levels by 15%. In practice, dietary advice can provide a modest decrease in cholesterol levels and may be sufficient in the treatment of mildly elevated cholesterol."

And:

"Thus it was long ago proposed that restricting cholesterol intake may reduce blood cholesterol levels. However, when cholesterol intake goes down, internal production typically increases and visa-versa, though not always with complete compensation of production. Thus changes in diet, animal based plant based may, but don't necessarily create significant changes in total blood cholesterol levels."

Sounds as if diet is not really an effective treatment much of the time. Just looking from the figures for high risk (over 240 mg/dL) and healthy (less than 200 mg/dL), 15% of 240 mg still puts one at a borderline risk.

Diet. It ain't a magic bullet.
das_nut is offline  
#21 Old 03-02-2012, 03:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

*sigh*

From Wikipedia: "In strictly controlled surroundings, a diet can reduce cholesterol levels by 15%. In practice, dietary advice can provide a modest decrease in cholesterol levels and may be sufficient in the treatment of mildly elevated cholesterol."

And:

"Thus it was long ago proposed that restricting cholesterol intake may reduce blood cholesterol levels. However, when cholesterol intake goes down, internal production typically increases and visa-versa, though not always with complete compensation of production. Thus changes in diet, animal based plant based may, but don't necessarily create significant changes in total blood cholesterol levels."

Sounds as if diet is not really an effective treatment much of the time. Just looking from the figures for high risk (over 240 mg/dL) and healthy (less than 200 mg/dL), 15% of 240 mg still puts one at a borderline risk.

Diet. It ain't a magic bullet.

Dr. Esselstyn would disagree. Given my families history of high cholesterol and my results thus far so would I.
Forster is offline  
#22 Old 03-02-2012, 03:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
And your high cholesterol is exactly the same as other people's high cholesterol.

As for Dr. Esselstyn, Wikipedia once again: "He is now a physician and author of Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, in which he discusses his patients' reversals of atherosclerosis by following a vegan diet, in some cases combined with cholesterol-lowering medication."
das_nut is offline  
#23 Old 03-02-2012, 03:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by das_nut View Post

And your high cholesterol is exactly the same as other people's high cholesterol.

As for Dr. Esselstyn, Wikipedia once again: "He is now a physician and author of Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, in which he discusses his patients' reversals of atherosclerosis by following a vegan diet, in some cases combined with cholesterol-lowering medication."

Only in a few cases to get them below his magic number of 150. We'll see though. My numbers dropped over 20% 2 months after changing my diet, gonna get them tested again at the end of the month see if there is further improvement.
Forster is offline  
#24 Old 03-02-2012, 09:07 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
So basically, lets let people with bad health problems change their lifestyle first, to prove that they aren't at fault?

Even when Dr. Esselstyn's direct involvement with patents showed that diet alone wasn't enough in some cases?

Wow, what's next? Tests on those having heart attacks to see if it's from their diet or genetics before we treat them?
das_nut is offline  
#25 Old 03-03-2012, 08:55 PM
Newbie
 
vancouverveggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12
To all those opposed to helping low income women access contraception: this isn't, as rush limbaugh might lead you to believe, about "paying (these women) to have sex". It's about preventing child abuse. Children that are a result of an unwanted pregnancy are far more likely to be abused. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is the most cost effective way to prevent child abuse. It's also the most cost effective way to prevent abortions.
vancouverveggie is offline  
#26 Old 03-04-2012, 07:20 AM
Veggie Regular
 
beatricious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

If you and your partner can't afford birth control and you can't afford an unplanned pregnancy is it such a bad idea? There are other things one can do to gratify yourself other than unprotected vaginal sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Envy View Post

Vaginal sex is not the only way you know.

Yes I am aware that there are other things straight folks can do than have PIV intercourse, and many couples just do other things and that's fine, but the vast majority of straight people enjoy PIV and participate in it regularly. History tells us that they'll still have PIV even when the consequences of unexpected pregnancy (not to mention STIs in the days before penicillin) are much worse than they are today. I really don't think telling people to just not have sex is a realistic solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouverveggie View Post

Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is the most cost effective way to prevent child abuse. It's also the most cost effective way to prevent abortions.

This. Anyone who is against abortion and against better access to affordable contraception is a major hypocrite.
beatricious is offline  
#27 Old 03-04-2012, 01:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Alibabble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by beatricious View Post

Anyone who is against abortion and against better access to affordable contraception is a major hypocrite.

Clearly you didn't get the memo. The penis should only meet the vagina if bank balances have been checked or an egg meeting a sperm is your thing. That way you can afford contraceptives easily without any assistance or you want a baby. Magical disappearance of the problem
Alibabble is offline  
#28 Old 03-04-2012, 01:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
t0mmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 526
The title is rather misleading, as it doesn't seem like it would be "free"; it would be shouldered by the taxpayers.
If the problem is not having enough money to pay for medication maybe it's simply an economic issue. At which point you find the banksters being a core problem.

Fear is simply the consequence of the acceptance of ignorance; reject ignorance and accept knowledge-- with knowledge all fears are relinquished and the light of truth within shines through to guide your path.
t0mmy is offline  
#29 Old 03-04-2012, 01:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Forster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alibabble View Post

Clearly you didn't get the memo. The penis should only meet the vagina if bank balances have been checked or an egg meeting a sperm is your thing. That way you can afford contraceptives easily without any assistance or you want a baby. Magical disappearance of the problem

Actions, consequences and responsibility for those consequences have somewhat been divorced by the social safety nets put up by society. When the responsibility for the consequences on an individual's actions have been pushed onto society as a whole, one shouldn't be surprised when certain members of the society ***** about it.

That being said I do fully understand the reality of the situation and am pragmatic about it. The costs of preventing unwanted pregnancies are going to be cheaper than the alternative.

I'd like to go one step further (and probably piss some people off, or at least give them something to think about), that if one were to fail to avail oneself of such "free" government provided contraception (or better yet free sterilization... vasectomies, tubals) one would be barred from receiving public assistance (not counting education of course, I'm not that heartless) in providing for the upbringing of their kids.

Yes I know accidents happen, this is just hypothetical.
Forster is offline  
#30 Old 03-04-2012, 01:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Alibabble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forster View Post

I'd like to go one step further (and probably piss some people off, or at least give them something to think about), that if one were to fail to avail oneself of such "free" government provided contraception (or better yet free sterilization... vasectomies, tubals) one would be barred from receiving public assistance (not counting education of course, I'm not that heartless) in providing for the upbringing of their kids.

Yes I know accidents happen, this is just hypothetical.

I thought I should clarify BEFORE yelling in a rare display of restraint on my part Are you talking about parents not receiving any assistance or their children? Also, how would you separate the two and how would you justify the impact upon the children caught up in the situation?
Alibabble is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off