Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

It's called a yes or no question.

I don't give a flying f'uck what you believe, because you're a dumbass. Also because it's entirely beside the point. The point is not whether or not spending should occur, but that there is no significant decline in poverty associated with increased spending. Avoidance is childish, so I provided you with an out, knowing you wouldn't take it. Thanks for playing, though!

Making condoms cheap and available is a pretty wise option, imo, considering the frequency of STI cases in this country.

Making the pill available is less important to me. Condoms are useful in that they stop pregnancy and the spread of disease. The pill only stops infection and is far more expensive. Of course, that's not to say the pill doesn't have additional advantages, but the STI aspect of condoms makes it the better thing to fund, imo, if you can only pick one.

Having funding for neither, though, seems like a horrible decision to me.

But PP definitely offered a wide range of services that were extremely useful to the society as a whole. Cancer screening has already been mentioned. Other pregnancy-related services are offered. Counselling.

No, condoms aren't expensive, but they also don't protect you 100% from STDs. There's really no way to be 100% safe from STDs or pregnancy, no matter how much protection/birth control you use, short of abstinence. And since we all belong to the human species, which is very sexual, we better think about the real world and how effective telling anyone to just not have sex is.

Hi, read. This is what he was talking about you vapid excuse for a human being.

So the answer is to publicly fund a birth control method shown emphatically to lead to less safe sex?
Baeten
Risk of HIV Infection in Oral Contraceptive Pill Users: A Meta-analysis

So, you didn't ask?

To support this argument, you'd need to show that government funding for birth control actually decreases the rate at which children are born into the conditions you describe. While it seems at first glance like it must obviously be true, it's not really that cut and dried.

Of course, when it's your argument that has no numbers backing it up, it is that cut and dried, right?

"every case"

Say it with me, slowly, one syllable at a time. It's simple, because there are only 4.

"every case"

See? It's easy. Even for a Brit.

It's a terrible burden, being right. I shall, someday, succumb to the immense pressure, I think.

Not today, but someday.

How many 15- or 16-year-old girls are on birth control?


I seem to distinctly remember taking a sex-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of sex, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs. We had to look at slides of genital warts!

Sure, if she's a co-dependent *****. Hypothetical anecdotes don't hold much sway with me.


This statement is based on... what, exactly?

It is every case you fuckwit. You don't think the US' poverty statistics would be a lot worse off if birth control weren't as readily available as it is?

Not enough, apparently.

I pulled out a good 3, maybe 4 times after learning that sex could lead to kids.

Things must have changed dramatically between when you and I were in 6th grade (assuming sex ed in IL is broadly the same across local districts). 5th grade was learning about changing bodies and how babies are made, 7th grade was the same thing but more in depth (and I think some STD information) and the first mention of contraception came during 10th grade health.

Edited, May 11th 2011 4:01pm by Jophiel