Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#27 May 11 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Technogeek wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?



Show me where I suggested this. My point was only that your numbers were screwy since they did not adjust for inflation. I get that it's your opinion that the gov't shouldn't be spending on social programs. It's my opinion that they should.

That's why we have elections.

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!
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#28 May 11 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

Stupid sh*t.


My insurance covers the pill. I think a lot of insurance policies do now. They've wised up a little.

ETA: I don't know if Medicare would, though...

Edited, May 11th 2011 2:37pm by Belkira


That's good then. I've not had to take the pill in about 10 years so I'm not sure how it's done anymore. If insurance is finally covering birth control, that's one small step in the right direction.
#29 May 11 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
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.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#30 May 11 2011 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Well, that's a big, scary chart, but it's not adjusted for inflation. That makes it not quite as scary.

So you're suggesting overspending on social services decreases poverty?



Show me where I suggested this. My point was only that your numbers were screwy since they did not adjust for inflation. I get that it's your opinion that the gov't shouldn't be spending on social programs. It's my opinion that they should.

That's why we have elections.

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!


Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#31 May 11 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Demea wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

I'd rather fund cancer screening than birth control or STD testing; the former is a horrible and horribly expensive disease without selection bias, while the latter two are the result of conscious decisions while failing to take proper protection measures. I mean, honestly, condoms aren't that expensive.


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 *** is.
#32 May 11 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
Mostly just that you keep asking.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#33 May 11 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?

What makes you think I was talking solely about the United States? Are you familiar with the English language? I can help, if you like. "Every case" tends to be all inclusive. Thanks for playing, but shut the f'uck up.
Hi, read. This is what he was talking about you vapid excuse for a human being.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#34 May 11 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
Mostly just that you keep asking.


Actually, in my 3 posts in this thread, that was my only question. Perhaps you need new glasses.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#35 May 11 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Guenny wrote:
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 *** is.

So the answer is to publicly fund a birth control method shown emphatically to lead to less safe ***?
Baeten
Risk of HIV Infection in Oral Contraceptive Pill Users: A Meta-analysis
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#36 May 11 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
When will people realize that the availability of birth control is directly related to the level of poverty? If women are allowed control over their reproductive cycle, poverty drops. It's worked in every case, and yet we all want to look the other way and pretend we can cut PP like it's nothing needed. Sure, if you want to take the Constitutionalist standpoint and say it's up to the states to fund it, then make sure your state funds it. It is a necessity... for birth control, for STD testing, for women's health.

Prove it.

What makes you think he was talking solely about the United States?

What makes you think I was talking solely about the United States? Are you familiar with the English language? I can help, if you like. "Every case" tends to be all inclusive. Thanks for playing, but shut the f'uck up.
Hi, read. This is what he was talking about you vapid excuse for a human being.

Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#37 May 11 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Technogeek wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Awww, big scary troll is grumpy today. What makes you think I give a **** what you think either?
Mostly just that you keep asking.


Actually, in my 3 posts in this thread, that was my only question. Perhaps you need new glasses.

So, you didn't ask?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#38 May 11 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Because PP is most used by lower class peoples, and because the rate of STI transfer between them is already much, much higher in general, I actually agree with Moe that the pill should still be a personal cost. But I firmly believe that there should be easy and ready access to condoms across the board.

I'm not even considering my social or economic beliefs here--all I care about is curving the spread of STIs. The pill doesn't protect against them at all, and women on the pill have been shown to be vastly less likely to use condoms. It's really a bad move, imo.

If you are in a committed relationship, you have an incentive to use the pill instead. And you're much less likely to contract an STI. Plus, you can make the pill a shared cost.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 May 11 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,008 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
Even if one were to approach it from an economic instead of a humanitarian point of view, my guess it is less expensive to the government to continue to fund an organization issuing birth control, such as Planned Parenthood, than it would be to account for the tax breaks, welfare, other social programs were those same individuals to spawn. It honestly seems to me Daniels only signed this to earn "rep" with the Republicans.


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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 May 11 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a ****, huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#41 May 11 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
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?
#42 May 11 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
gbaji wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
Even if one were to approach it from an economic instead of a humanitarian point of view, my guess it is less expensive to the government to continue to fund an organization issuing birth control, such as Planned Parenthood, than it would be to account for the tax breaks, welfare, other social programs were those same individuals to spawn. It honestly seems to me Daniels only signed this to earn "rep" with the Republicans.


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.


I agree, I would need data to validate my hypothesis. The actual truth is very likely that not every case of removal of birth control would result in procreation. I think it's a pretty good assumption, though, that people are not going to just stop having *** at all. They may fill the birth control void with a different method of contraceptive, but (again, decent assumption) birth control via PP is usually aimed at those whose options are already quite limited.

I also agree with comments echoed above regarding public health consciousness via STI screenings. I had not considered that viewpoint, but I agree with the sentiment.
#43 May 11 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a ****, huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.

"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.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#44 May 11 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:


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

Not today, but someday.

I hope it's soon.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#45 May 11 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,579 posts
Nadenu wrote:
No, condoms are not expensive. But let's try to live in the real world, shall we? How many 16 year old boys that wanna score with their 15/16 year old girlfriend are going to wear one?

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

Quote:
Not many, because kids at that age have no idea about consequences. I know, I was once that age.

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

Quote:
And if the girls ask them to wear one, the guy will complain and the girl will cave to either avoid an argument or because she's afraid of losing him.
Sure, if she's a co-dependent *****. Hypothetical anecdotes don't hold much sway with me.

Quote:
The pill is usually the best option, but like I said, most insurance companies would rather pay for the expensive delivery and subsequently cover the kid for 18 years or so rather than help the woman with 50 bucks a month for her pills.

This statement is based on... what, exactly?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#46 May 11 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:


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

Not today, but someday.

I hope it's soon.

Down, girl. Daddy's got no time to scratch your belly right now.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#47 May 11 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a ****, huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.

"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.
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?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#48 May 11 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,579 posts
Guenny wrote:
Demea wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Yes, birth control and cancer screening are important, but what's really important for EVERYONE's health is easy access to STD testing. The less people that are getting tested, the more likely sh*t will spread. It's a scary world we live in.

I'd rather fund cancer screening than birth control or STD testing; the former is a horrible and horribly expensive disease without selection bias, while the latter two are the result of conscious decisions while failing to take proper protection measures. I mean, honestly, condoms aren't that expensive.


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 *** is.

But condoms offer at least some protection from STDs and pregnancy, right? And there's always abstinence, right?

It's funny, because I don't recall hearing about any $5 products on sale at every grocery store, pharmacy, and gas station in the country that protects even a little from cancer.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#49 May 11 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Demea wrote:
How many 15- or 16-year-old girls are on birth control?

Not enough, apparently.
Demea wrote:
I seem to distinctly remember taking a ***-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of ***, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs. We had to look at slides of genital warts!

I pulled out a good 3, maybe 4 times after learning that *** could lead to kids.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#50 May 11 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ohhhhh! I get it now. In the U.K. "every case" means "every time the U.N. monitors the spending in some 3rd world sh:thole." Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

Seriously? You can't be have that tenuous a hold on normal brain function.
Ooh, so you don't see studies that show that putting money into programs like planned parenthood helps poor people be less poor as relevant? Awesome, I guess the 44 million US citizens who live below the poverty line can go suck a ****, huh?

Again, go fuck yourself.

"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.
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?

As I said, prove it. I have shown, clearly, that increased spending on social services, of which Planned Parenthood is a part in this country, does not lead to a significant decrease in poverty. You have yet to provide any data to refute that.

I understand why. It's because there is none. You keep pointing to your backwater sh:tholes study though, because that's so effective.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#51 May 11 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
I seem to distinctly remember taking a ***-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of ***, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs.

Things must have changed dramatically between when you and I were in 6th grade (assuming *** 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
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (52)