Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#52 May 11 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
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.

Your rage is adorable...like a baby panda.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#53 May 11 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
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.
So, my example wasn't good enough because it wasn't specifically about the US? My, aren't we the ethnocentric little cretin.
____________________________
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
#54 May 11 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
***
2,155 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
I seem to distinctly remember taking a sex-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of sex, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs.

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


I can echo what Demea has mentioned, although I think for my class it was 7th grade. Same topics though. Rounded up all the boys in the 7th grade and filled in the cafeteria to talk about it fairly in depth, including contraception and STIs.
#55 May 11 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Demea wrote:
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 sex 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.


Maybe we should allow condoms to be bought with food stamps.
#56 May 11 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
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.
So, my example wasn't good enough because it wasn't specifically about the US? My, aren't we the ethnocentric little cretin.

Hi. You must be new here, so I'll welcome you to this internet website located in the United States of America. Most of the users here are Americans, and we tend to discuss American subjects on the message boards that this website has seen fit to provide to us.

Here's a little learning for you, since you obviously need some: if the rest of the world mattered, at all, it would have longer lines of people trying to get in to it illegally.
____________________________
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]
#57 May 11 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Guenny wrote:
Demea wrote:
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 sex 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.


Maybe we should allow condoms to be bought with food stamps.

Why not? They buy porn & cigarettes with EBT cards.
____________________________
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]
#58 May 11 2011 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
I seem to distinctly remember taking a sex-education course in 6th grade that included discussions of sex, pregnancy, contraception, and STDs.

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


I can echo what Demea has mentioned, although I think for my class it was 7th grade. Same topics though. Rounded up all the boys in the 7th grade and filled in the cafeteria to talk about it fairly in depth, including contraception and STIs.


Must've made that next meal in the cafeteria less pleasant.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#59 May 11 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Why not? They buy porn & cigarettes with EBT cards.

The more manjuice leaked into the binding of The New England Journal of Juggs, the less used to make welfare babies!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 May 11 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Why not? They buy porn & cigarettes with EBT cards.

The more manjuice leaked into the binding of The New England Journal of Juggs, the less used to make welfare babies!

Speak for yourself, old man. I can jerk it and still have a little left over for frosting a donut.
____________________________
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]
#61 May 11 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Quote:
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!


In my high school, we didn't get any kind of Sex Ed. class until we were in 10th grade. And there were no pictures of STIs (thank god).

Plus, parents are free to pull their kids out of those classes. So, even those kids are just as likely to have sex, they don't get the same lessons that other kids do regarding safe sex.

And my school definitely didn't have any way to get students cheap condoms. Only option in my town were the grocery stores, where everyone shopped, or the pharmacies (which, again, were quite busy). A kid trying to buy condoms without attracting too much attention couldn't. It's easier now that one of the stores have self check-out, though.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#62 May 11 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,627 posts
Nadenu wrote:
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...


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.


I know three children who were all conceived on the pill. Actually it may only be two; I think the third one was conceived after the father had a vasectomy. But they're hoping that taking out her ovaries will put a stop to it...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#63 May 11 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
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.


Let's first recall that hypothesis. You are claiming that it is less expensive to fund an organization which provides birth control than it is to pay for the social services for the "spawn" which would otherwise result. Thus, you are assuming that a dollar spent providing birth control will prevent a dollars worth of social services on child care. More specifically, you are assuming that the money spent on funding for birth control will cause a reduction in the number of children born needing those social services.

Quote:
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 sex 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.


This doesn't test or even address your hypothesis though. you're working backwards and asking if removal of birth control will result in increased procreation. That's the "at first glance it seems obvious" bit I was talking about. But the question should be "Does the introduction of readily available birth control to society as a whole via government funding actually reduce the rate at which children are born in conditions of need within that society as a whole".


That's a completely different question. It's equally obvious that if we take away a welfare check to a needy family, that the family will suffer. But the counter is that the availability of welfare checks decreases the incentives to avoid needing them, and thus increases the number of people "in need" in the first place. Similarly, the counter argument is that the ready availability of birth control increases the likelihood that young people will engage in sexual activities in general and with people they wouldn't marry if they were to become pregnant with specifically. And since a percentage of those people will either not use the birth control or use it improperly (or it'll just fail), we actually end out increasing the total number of people in society who end up pregnant with no ability to support the child on their own without government assistance.


It's about the solution creating the problem.

In a previous thread (a long time ago), we got into a debate about sex education, specifically education including instruction on birth control use, and one which taught just abstinence. The liberals on this board crowed about statistics showing that the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies among those who took the abstinence only courses were exactly the same as those who took the standard birth control courses. They argued that this proved that "abstinence only doesn't work!" since it didn't change the result.


But you can look at it the other way, right? Teaching about birth control didn't work any better either. The difference is that it costs nothing in terms of materials for someone to carry out the instructions about abstinence, but we have to pay to provide condoms and birth control for the other group. So... If the results are the same, why are we doing the one which costs more money? And remember that this is in a social environment where sexual activity is very much accepted and encouraged (and in some cases pressed on kids via peer pressure). I think it's quite safe to speculate that the availability of birth control options has had an impact on the social acceptance of sexual activity, which in turn creates the very problem we're trying to solve. One can absolutely argue that if we changed our government policies broadly and for an extended period of time, that those social behaviors might change as well.


Don't get me wrong here. I'm a hedonist. I want free love and casual sex for all. I'm just saying that we need to be realistic about the costs of those things and not pretend that our actions are perfectly safe just because we want to believe that they are.

Quote:
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.


It's really a side issue anyway. I would assume that the bill doesn't eliminate funding for birth control, and sti screenings, and cancer screenings, and whatnot. It restricts funding for those things to organizations which do not also provide abortions. It's really a wholly different issue going on. I just spotted what I saw as a really questionable assumption in your post and felt like challenging it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 May 11 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
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.
So, my example wasn't good enough because it wasn't specifically about the US? My, aren't we the ethnocentric little cretin.

Hi. You must be new here, so I'll welcome you to this internet website located in the United States of America. Most of the users here are Americans, and we tend to discuss American subjects on the message boards that this website has seen fit to provide to us.

Here's a little learning for you, since you obviously need some: if the rest of the world mattered, at all, it would have longer lines of people trying to get in to it illegally.
Gotcha! Go America!

I guess you guys should get on changing the plaque on the statue of liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" doesn't really seem to fit in with the modern day US. I mean, fuck people who weren't born there, right?
____________________________
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
#65varusword75, Posted: May 11 2011 at 3:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Mojo,
#66 May 11 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
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.
So, my example wasn't good enough because it wasn't specifically about the US? My, aren't we the ethnocentric little cretin.

Hi. You must be new here, so I'll welcome you to this internet website located in the United States of America. Most of the users here are Americans, and we tend to discuss American subjects on the message boards that this website has seen fit to provide to us.

Here's a little learning for you, since you obviously need some: if the rest of the world mattered, at all, it would have longer lines of people trying to get in to it illegally.
Gotcha! Go America!

I guess you guys should get on changing the plaque on the statue of liberty then "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" doesn't really seem to fit in with the modern day US. I mean, fuck people who weren't born there, right?
the baby panda doesn't speak for all of us...you're welcome here.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#67 May 11 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So, my example wasn't good enough because it wasn't specifically about the US? My, aren't we the ethnocentric little cretin.


No. Your example isn't good enough because it is specifically about developing countries. I mean, it's also not specifically about the US, but it's not even about a country like the US. The US is not even remotely close to being unable to feed and shelter its own population, so surely you can see how your example is completely irrelevant.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 May 11 2011 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,360 posts
gbaji wrote:
The US is not even remotely close to being unable to feed and shelter its own population,
But damn, do we try not to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 May 11 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
So, my example wasn't good enough because it wasn't specifically about the US? My, aren't we the ethnocentric little cretin.


No. Your example isn't good enough because it is specifically about developing countries. I mean, it's also not specifically about the US, but it's not even about a country like the US. The US is not even remotely close to being unable to feed and shelter its own population, so surely you can see how your example is completely irrelevant.
So, if you can't feed and clothe your own population, programs which help to limit population growth are fundamentally useful for preventing more people you can't feed and clothe, right?
____________________________
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
#70 May 11 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So, if you can't feed and clothe your own population, programs which help to limit population growth are fundamentally useful for preventing more people you can't feed and clothe, right?

You know, I agree with your fundamental point, but Christ, could you be any thicker about it? You took a statement which was meant to be applied universally and tried to defend it with statistics that only apply locally. Moe argued against it on those grounds and you immediately tried to defend it with.. the same data. Which is still not applicable in the US or, as even gbaji pointed out, developed countries in general.

Granted, Moe's statistics aren't any better, but at least he knows it.
#71 May 11 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,384 posts
Quote:
I know three children who were all conceived on the pill. Actually it may only be two; I think the third one was conceived after the father had a vasectomy. But they're hoping that taking out her ovaries will put a stop to it...


One of my best friends' boyfriend tells me that his parents adamantly claim that he was conceived while using both the pill and a condom. The same is apparently true for their youngest daughter. Only the two in the middle were planned.

[EDIT]
Quote:
You know, I agree with your fundamental point, but Christ, could you be any thicker about it? You took a statement which was meant to be applied universally and tried to defend it with statistics that only apply locally. Moe argued against it on those grounds and you immediately tried to defend it with.. the same data. Which is still not applicable in the US or, as even gbaji pointed out, developed countries in general.

Granted, Moe's statistics aren't any better, but at least he knows it.


Pretty much this. If I had to make a hypothesis, I would imagine that you were right (though perhaps not significantly so). But the data offered doesn't support your argument for the US.

Edited, May 11th 2011 6:06pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#72 May 11 2011 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
Fair points, it's just Moe seems to be of the opinion that if it doesn't apply to the US then it is moot. I also didn't make the blanket statement, I did reference what LeWoVoc was getting at, though. What he said was fundamentally true as well, in countries where women have control of their reproductive cycle, poverty is lessened (not eradicated). It doesn't apply to the US now because women already have control over their reproductive cycles thanks to things like PP.

Does that make sense?
____________________________
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
#73 May 11 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Good
***
2,155 posts
gbaji wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
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.


Let's first recall that hypothesis. You are claiming that it is less expensive to fund an organization which provides birth control than it is to pay for the social services for the "spawn" which would otherwise result. Thus, you are assuming that a dollar spent providing birth control will prevent a dollars worth of social services on child care. More specifically, you are assuming that the money spent on funding for birth control will cause a reduction in the number of children born needing those social services.


Yes, I would agree that is my guess. For sake of debate, I'll agree with your wording and say it's my "claim".

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
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 sex 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.


This doesn't test or even address your hypothesis though. you're working backwards and asking if removal of birth control will result in increased procreation. That's the "at first glance it seems obvious" bit I was talking about. But the question should be "Does the introduction of readily available birth control to society as a whole via government funding actually reduce the rate at which children are born in conditions of need within that society as a whole".


That's a completely different question. It's equally obvious that if we take away a welfare check to a needy family, that the family will suffer. But the counter is that the availability of welfare checks decreases the incentives to avoid needing them, and thus increases the number of people "in need" in the first place. Similarly, the counter argument is that the ready availability of birth control increases the likelihood that young people will engage in sexual activities in general and with people they wouldn't marry if they were to become pregnant with specifically. And since a percentage of those people will either not use the birth control or use it improperly (or it'll just fail), we actually end out increasing the total number of people in society who end up pregnant with no ability to support the child on their own without government assistance.


It's about the solution creating the problem.


Regarding the section I have indicated in bold above, isn't that also an assumption that would need to be justified? Assuming for a moment that it is true, you would still need to establish the "percentage that will use it wrong or not at all". I am finding it difficult to understand how you are justifying the assumption "In a world where birth control is made freely available (hyperbole), a larger number of people will choose to not use it than in a world where birth control is only available to those who purchase it". Perhaps I am misinterpreting your argument?

The way I am modeling the scenario is there are two situations - one with freely available birth control(Scenario 1) and one with restricted birth control (restricted by cost, Scenario 2). There are also a few different groups of people involved: those who can afford birth control (Group 1), those who cannot afford birth control (2), those who engage in sexual activity (3), those who do not engage in sexual activity(4), those who procreate(5), those who do not procreate(6). Naturally, there is mutual exclusivity between Groups 1&2, 3&4 and 5&6.

Your assumption, noted above, is that the percentage of Group 3 composed of members from Group 2 will increase under Scenario 1. That assumption would be tempered by the data for the percentage of Group 5 composed of members from Group 3 and Group 2 under Scenario 2. Without knowing the actual values, I do not think either one of us could compose a valid argument.

gbaji wrote:
In a previous thread (a long time ago), we got into a debate about sex education, specifically education including instruction on birth control use, and one which taught just abstinence. The liberals on this board crowed about statistics showing that the rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies among those who took the abstinence only courses were exactly the same as those who took the standard birth control courses. They argued that this proved that "abstinence only doesn't work!" since it didn't change the result.


But you can look at it the other way, right? Teaching about birth control didn't work any better either. The difference is that it costs nothing in terms of materials for someone to carry out the instructions about abstinence, but we have to pay to provide condoms and birth control for the other group. So... If the results are the same, why are we doing the one which costs more money?


If those are the only variables, I would agree it does not make sense to spend the funds in that situation. I think it would be worth it to determine how that behavior proliferated through the various generations afterwards, though. If one or the other had a better long-term outcome, then it could paint a more thorough picture.

gbaji wrote:
And remember that this is in a social environment where sexual activity is very much accepted and encouraged (and in some cases pressed on kids via peer pressure). I think it's quite safe to speculate that the availability of birth control options has had an impact on the social acceptance of sexual activity, which in turn creates the very problem we're trying to solve. One can absolutely argue that if we changed our government policies broadly and for an extended period of time, that those social behaviors might change as well.


I would agree that the availability has likely had an impact on the social acceptance of sexual activity. I may even agree with your point that it results in increased sexual activity across the board. However, if (and only if) the increase sexual activity included the increased use of the now-made-available birth control (where it wasn't available previously), I think you could easily see a situation where overall procreation rates decrease from an increased use of contraceptive.


gbaji wrote:
Quote:
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.


It's really a side issue anyway. I would assume that the bill doesn't eliminate funding for birth control, and sti screenings, and cancer screenings, and whatnot. It restricts funding for those things to organizations which do not also provide abortions. It's really a wholly different issue going on. I just spotted what I saw as a really questionable assumption in your post and felt like challenging it.


This was a side comment to the side issue as raised by another poster. I could see where it could be misinterpreted as me trying to shift the argument elsewhere, however.
#74 May 11 2011 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Fair points, it's just Moe seems to be of the opinion that if it doesn't apply to the US then it is moot.

No, Moe is of the opinion that if you're going to be a sh:t-raking, retarded ass hat who can't find a point if I shove a spear in your eye, I get to troll the f'uck out of you. And looky what we have here, you and lojack trying to turn a planned parenthood de-funding in the midwestern U.S. in to a Bob damned U.N. High Council on Human Rights issue. Well, f'uck that, f'uck you, the f'uck the 3rd random c'ock smoke who decided to chime in. F'uck you all right in your left ear.
____________________________
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]
#75 May 11 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,232 posts
Demea wrote:
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?


Quite a few, actually. I was. I got them from... wait for it... PP!

Quote:
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 skank. Hypothetical anecdotes don't hold much sway with me.


Have you ever actually met a 16 year old girl??

Quote:
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?


Based on the fact that PP is getting funding cut for birth control.

#76 May 11 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Quote:
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 skank. Hypothetical anecdotes don't hold much sway with me.


Have you ever actually met a 16 year old girl??

She told me that she was 18!

Quote:
Quote:
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?


Based on the fact that PP is getting funding cut for birth control.

Because Gov. Daniels is really in the pocket of Big Insurance! Or was there another point you were trying to make with that complete non-sequitor?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#77 May 11 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,901 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
Regarding the section I have indicated in bold above, isn't that also an assumption that would need to be justified? Assuming for a moment that it is true, you would still need to establish the "percentage that will use it wrong or not at all". I am finding it difficult to understand how you are justifying the assumption "In a world where birth control is made freely available (hyperbole), a larger number of people will choose to not use it than in a world where birth control is only available to those who purchase it". Perhaps I am misinterpreting your argument?


You are. They don't choose not to use it. They forget to use it. Or they don't think about it. Or they assume that "it wont happen to me", or "I'll just do this once!", and they end out pregnant. And it's not just about being able to afford it. I'm talking about a larger social effect than just whether one can afford to buy birth control. The problem is that we're teaching kids that because birth control exists, sex is "safe". The government handing out condoms and pills just reinforces the idea that sex among people who have no intention of raising a child together if that should result is perfectly acceptable.

It's not just about the economics of the issue.

Quote:
The way I am modeling the scenario is there are two situations - one with freely available birth control(Scenario 1) and one with restricted birth control (restricted by cost, Scenario 2). There are also a few different groups of people involved: those who can afford birth control (Group 1), those who cannot afford birth control (2), those who engage in sexual activity (3), those who do not engage in sexual activity(4), those who procreate(5), those who do not procreate(6). Naturally, there is mutual exclusivity between Groups 1&2, 3&4 and 5&6.

Your assumption, noted above, is that the percentage of Group 3 composed of members from Group 2 will increase under Scenario 1. That assumption would be tempered by the data for the percentage of Group 5 composed of members from Group 3 and Group 2 under Scenario 2. Without knowing the actual values, I do not think either one of us could compose a valid argument.


You're missing the group of people who, because the government hands out condoms in school, and funds free condoms and birth control via PP (and other organizations), don't think that having sex is such a big deal. Then, when they find themselves in a situation where they're horny and neither of them have actually bothered to go to those places and get their free condoms and birth control pills they're more likely to have sex anyway because they've been taught all their lives that sex isn't a big deal and is safe and whatnot. Add to that other government actions which have removed some of the negative consequences if a pregnancy should occur, and the factors against having unprotected sex are drowned out by the need/desire to have sex. It's short term gratification against the potential of long term consequences. Which do you think teens will tend to pick?

Quote:
If those are the only variables, I would agree it does not make sense to spend the funds in that situation. I think it would be worth it to determine how that behavior proliferated through the various generations afterwards, though. If one or the other had a better long-term outcome, then it could paint a more thorough picture.


Sure. I doubt any studies have gone that long yet though. We'll see.

gbaji wrote:
I would agree that the availability has likely had an impact on the social acceptance of sexual activity. I may even agree with your point that it results in increased sexual activity across the board. However, if (and only if) the increase sexual activity included the increased use of the now-made-available birth control (where it wasn't available previously), I think you could easily see a situation where overall procreation rates decrease from an increased use of contraceptive.


Obviously. But only if the rate of misuse and/or failure of the contraceptive is lower than the increased rate of sexual activity.


Here's the problem though. Since the 1950s, the percentage of children born to unwed mothers in the US has increased from 3% to 40%. So, if our objective (as you stated) is to prevent children from being born into the conditions in which they'll will require government assistance, then we have absolutely failed. We can argue about exactly what the cause of this is, but I think it's abundantly clear that comprehensive sex education and providing funding for free birth control hasn't slowed down, let alone prevented that increase.

So at the very least, perhaps we shouldn't be so focused on "provide more birth control and education" as the solution. That's clearly not the way to fix the problem you started out saying these things are supposed to prevent.

Edited, May 11th 2011 7:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 May 11 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Then, when they find themselves in a situation where they're horny and neither of them have actually bothered to go to those places and get their free condoms and birth control pills they're more likely to have sex anyway because they've been taught all their lives that sex isn't a big deal and is safe and whatnot.

Right, they've decided that sex is safe and all that because they've been told "use a condom or your dick will turn black and fall off." Brilliant deduction.

Teen pregnancy rate (per capita) by nation
Want to guess how sex is treated in France and Spain and Italy and Switzerland and Norway? Do you think they're telling teens to fear sex and it's a HUGE deal and making sure not to tell them about contraception or offer any because it'll just make teens have so much crazy sex that they all get pregnant?

Quote:
It's short term gratification against the potential of long term consequences. Which do you think teens will tend to pick?

Thanks for explaining why abstinence-only education is the worst possible sex ed option :)
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 May 11 2011 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,232 posts
Twiz, the point I was making is that for people that aren't able to get the pill (or UID, or whatever) through insurance, PP was a nice, affordable option. Belk said that her insurance covers it now and that's great. But 10 years ago when I still relied on the pill, insurance wouldn't cover it.
#80 May 11 2011 at 11:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening
Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
Hey, if you ask Republicans, that's an elective service.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#81 May 12 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
bsphil wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening
Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
Hey, if you ask Republicans, that's an elective service.

Are you suggesting that it's not or are you in agreement with them but lack the testicular fortitude to put forth the position?

If the latter, go figure, but if the former, do you know what elective means? No one is suggesting cancer screening is not important, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made to effectively cast is as not elective.
____________________________
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]
#82 May 12 2011 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,836 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:

None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.
Neither is public waste-water treatment and collection. Planned parenthood is simply another service that attempts to keep a community healthy and happy.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#83 May 12 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:

None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.
Neither is public waste-water treatment and collection. Planned parenthood is simply another service that attempts to keep a community healthy and happy.


Not so much. Unattended waste water will cause disease & death. Un-screened women may have cancer. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it's worth pointing out, none the less.

EDIT: By will cause I mean has it has been historically shown that it will cause disease & death. By may have I mean who f'ucking knows, but it's a great emotional plea.

Edited, May 12th 2011 9:04am by MoebiusLord
____________________________
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]
#84 May 12 2011 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Unattended waste water will cause disease & death. Un-screened women may have cancer.

With a large enough sample, it's statistically probable that some unscreened women will have cancer. According to the gummint, 12.2% of women in the US are diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their life so you don't even need all that large of a sample.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 May 12 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
Cancer won't spread to others. Disease contracted from waste water will. It was poor reasoning by Elinda. I agree with Moe on this and I see how others could argue against him/us, but the example Elinda used wasn't an effective route.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#86 May 12 2011 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,836 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:

None of them can reasonably be said to be a necessity.
Neither is public waste-water treatment and collection. Planned parenthood is simply another service that attempts to keep a community healthy and happy.


Not so much. Unattended waste water will cause disease & death. Un-screened women may have cancer. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it's worth pointing out, none the less.

EDIT: By will cause I mean has it has been historically shown that it will cause disease & death. By may have I mean who f'ucking knows, but it's a great emotional plea.

Edited, May 12th 2011 9:04am by MoebiusLord
That's only addressing the cancer screening though. Honestly, I didn't know Planned Parenthood did cancer screening. However, unchecked genital crabs will spread causing uncomfortable itching to unsuspecting public toilet users. Likewise, controlling unwanted pregnancies can be seen to be a community health service.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#87 May 12 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
That's only addressing the cancer screening though. Honestly, I didn't know Planned Parenthood did cancer screening.

Excellent point. I was addressing that which was posited. I'm good like that.
Elinda wrote:
However, unchecked genital crabs will spread causing uncomfortable itching to unsuspecting public toilet users.

So a medical issue that someone doesn't go to the doctor for can spread? Sounds like someone should go take advantage of one of the other available medical assistance programs that I'm paying for.
Elinda wrote:
Likewise, controlling unwanted pregnancies can be seen to be a community health service.

You're right, it could be. Requiring every able-bodied, upstanding citizen to carry a firearm could be seen as a public safety service, too, but I doubt you'd buy that, either. At any rate, the best way to control unwanted pregnancies is not to get pregnant. I love how women want to be free to exercise choice but don't want me to be afforded the same courtesy. Public funding for Planned Parenthood forces a woman's choice on me.
____________________________
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]
#88 May 12 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
There would be no such thing as unwanted pregnancies if you fuckers would let us bring back child slavery.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#89 May 12 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Cancer won't spread to others. Disease contracted from waste water will. It was poor reasoning by Elinda. I agree with Moe on this and I see how others could argue against him/us, but the example Elinda used wasn't an effective route.

Really, my support for Planned Parenthood is based less on any "women" style concerns (oh no, breast cancer!) and more on the basic fact that I'm in favor of government supported health care. It would be swell if all of PP's functions could be transferred to government facilities with no loss in accessibility or service but, until then, funding someone else doing it is the next best thing.

I understand that this basic theory puts me immediately at odds with Moe and his ilk.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 May 12 2011 at 8:59 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Really, my support for Planned Parenthood is based less on any "women" style concerns (oh no, breast cancer!) and more on the basic fact that I'm in favor of government supported health care. It would be swell if all of PP's functions could be transferred to government facilities with no loss in accessibility or service but, until then, funding someone else doing it is the next best thing.

I understand that this basic theory puts me immediately at odds with Moe and his ilk.
I'm all for free healthcare, its one of the greatest things about living in Canada. What I don't understand about PP is that if there's such an issue being kicked up about them receiving government funding and the concern that some of it goes to abortions when its not supposed to, why don't they just stop doing them and ask their sponsors that provided the money to them to do them to support another organization that doesn't receive government funding. They don't have to be a one stop shop. Because so long as they continue to operate like that, they'll always have opposition and the potential for defunding, which is ridiculous. They're just being retarded about it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#91 May 12 2011 at 9:04 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm all for free healthcare...

I lol'd.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#92 May 12 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Really, my support for Planned Parenthood is based less on any "women" style concerns (oh no, breast cancer!) and more on the basic fact that I'm in favor of government supported health care. It would be swell if all of PP's functions could be transferred to government facilities with no loss in accessibility or service but, until then, funding someone else doing it is the next best thing.

I understand that this basic theory puts me immediately at odds with Moe and his ilk.
I'm all for free healthcare, its one of the greatest things about living in Canada. What I don't understand about PP is that if there's such an issue being kicked up about them receiving government funding and the concern that some of it goes to abortions when its not supposed to, why don't they just stop doing them and ask their sponsors that provided the money to them to do them to support another organization that doesn't receive government funding. They don't have to be a one stop shop. Because so long as they continue to operate like that, they'll always have opposition and the potential for defunding, which is ridiculous. They're just being retarded about it.

An elegant solution that would solve all of their problems. They won't accept it because that's not their core mission, but it would work. Their core mission, regardless of what the advertising says, is providing cheap/free abortions and contraception.
____________________________
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]
#93 May 12 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
Demea wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I'm all for free healthcare...

I lol'd.
Free at the time of delivery of service.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#94 May 12 2011 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,836 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Cancer won't spread to others. Disease contracted from waste water will. It was poor reasoning by Elinda. I agree with Moe on this and I see how others could argue against him/us, but the example Elinda used wasn't an effective route.
Only Moe made this about cancer screening. I'm not really in agreement with the medical manufacturers/insurers/regulators pushing cancer screening on the medical professionals and the public at large. Much if it is not justified.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#95 May 12 2011 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
They won't accept it because that's not their core mission, but it would work. Their core mission, regardless of what the advertising says, is providing cheap/free abortions and contraception.

Their core mission is providing women's health services (primarily reproductive) which includes abortion and contraception. While abortion remains legal, they have all the rationale they need to not capitulate to politically driven attacks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 May 12 2011 at 9:15 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,003 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Cancer won't spread to others. Disease contracted from waste water will. It was poor reasoning by Elinda. I agree with Moe on this and I see how others could argue against him/us, but the example Elinda used wasn't an effective route.
Only Moe made this about cancer screening. I'm not really in agreement with the medical manufacturers/insurers/regulators pushing cancer screening on the medical professionals and the public at large. Much if it is not justified.

And pushing the cost of STD testing and abortion services on the public is justified?

There's the disconnect for me.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#97 May 12 2011 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I would like to know where they plan on sending the money that would have gone to PP.

Also, doesn't PP take donations? If someone is concerned about them, then send them a check.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#98 May 12 2011 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,625 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Also, doesn't PP take donations? If someone is concerned about them, then send them a check.


The issue is that this would make it so they cannot accept Medicare, or any other government assisted type insurance program. Which a lot of poor people have.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#99 May 12 2011 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ailitardif wrote:
I would like to know where they plan on sending the money that would have gone to PP.

Other state Medicaid reimbursements, presumably.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 May 12 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,616 posts
Belkira wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Also, doesn't PP take donations? If someone is concerned about them, then send them a check.


The issue is that this would make it so they cannot accept Medicare, or any other government assisted type insurance program. Which a lot of poor people have.
Let me get this straight. Because they get funding from the government, they can't accept donations?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#101 May 12 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
Only Moe made this about cancer screening. I'm not really in agreement with the medical manufacturers/insurers/regulators pushing cancer screening on the medical professionals and the public at large. Much if it is not justified.

Untrue. The original article specifically mentions it, in an attempt to make this about something it isn't. Driftwood then took the bait and called it terrible that they would be taking that away. It was then seized by Guenny, Twizzle & idiggory. I simply clarified the conversation.
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
They won't accept it because that's not their core mission, but it would work. Their core mission, regardless of what the advertising says, is providing cheap/free abortions and contraception.

Their core mission is providing women's health services (primarily reproductive) which includes abortion and contraception. While abortion remains legal, they have all the rationale they need to not capitulate to politically driven attacks.

You are absolutely correct. They are well within their rights to continue doing it. Continuing, however, proves that this is not about women's health, but politics. When a perfectly viable solution is available, but they choose to press for the contentious they lose the moral high ground.
____________________________
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]
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
lolgaxe, Samira, Shaowstrike, Anonymous Guests (59)