Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds

[ch33zw1z]

So you are just jelly others have more sex than you and want to see that regulated.

I want to spend less through publicly funded programs on other people's children.

Do you tally sexual encounters? lol..."another notch in the ole bedpost"

 

[Atreus21]

When the pro-lifers start crying about abortions, I ask them how they feel about a system flooded with children who are welfare recipients and live in households that use them to get more money from the government.

These people don't care about these babies after they are born.

And I reply, "yes, they'd be better off dead."

 

[Darwin333]

I will stop bitching about irresponsible women when you stop expecting me to bail them out for their irresponsibility. Sounds fair to me.

If you really cared about cutting welfare spending. You would support my policy of mandatory abortions for women who could not afford children (paid for by loans to them, so net cost $0). It would save every penny that free BC does plus the cost of the BC plus the cost of supporting all the women who CHOOSE to have a child they cannot afford.

But really support for free BC has nothing to do with saving the tax payer money. It has everything to do with getting the government to bankroll women's choices. Why should I care about reducing the abortion rate?

You have a shitload of admin costs in their that you aren't providing for and then you miss the little itsy bitsy fact that by definition poor people aren't very likely to payback a loan. Your only possible recourse is to quite literally throw good money after bad with stuff like incarceration (raising the cost of your "idea" significantly).

 

[Darwin333]

Sex is not a necessity. Not at all, and using the "without sex noone would be born" excuse to promote BIRTH CONTROL is just plain fucking stupid.

Who gives a fuck if its necessary or not? If one thing that human history has shown us is that people are going to fuck, period.

So we have the following options:

Provide free BC to women (2nd cheapest option and most moral/ethical option especially if you are pro-life)

Have more abortions and poor children which society has to support for a very long time, quite possibly their entire life (what we currently do, most expensive option)

Have more abortions and poor children in which society doesn't support, we have a large segment of society that will literally look and act like the poor and starving in Somalia. Increase cost of police/jails/cost to society outweighs above options but this will be the cheapest option for the first few years.

It amazes me that people truly advocate that the greatest and richest nation in the world let its citizens children literally starve in the street like they do in fucked up places like Somalia. WTF is wrong with you people? I don't like the choices one damn bit either but I damn sure am not going to just say "fuck those kids, let em starve, because their parents are idiots". Since I am not willing to do that and neither is the vast majority of the country, how about we go with the cheapest option by FAR left?

 

[Darwin333]

This is a flat out liberal thinking. there are lots of privilages we regulate and people must wait until they are legally / mentally old(mature) enough to handle correctly.

Age restricted privilages

• Drinking/Tobacco
• Voting
• Driving / Piloting
• Employment / join military
• Legal Contracts
• Mature audience Games/Movies
• Hold public office
• Hunting / fishing
• Stay home alone overnight

Sex is no different.

So you want people to get licenses to have sex or something? LMFAO!!! You think prohibition was an utter flop, hell we can't even stop prostitution (and we never will be able to)! His point remains, regulate it all you want, pass as many laws about fucking you want, put as many barriers in place as possible and people are still going to fuck. Fucking is quite literally hard wired into our brains, as far as our brain is concerned its our "reason" for being here.

I had to teach my dog to lay down, roll over, shake hands, etc.... You know what I didn't have to teach him? To fuck! I stuck him in the yard with a female GSD and he knew exactly what to do even though he had never in his life done it before. You don't have to teach people how to fuck either, even though its a good idea to, they will figure it out all on their own. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I participated in this study 😉

Girlfriend at the time went to college in St. Louis and signed up for that program. Worth it in my mind 😀

 

[Darwin333]

When did I say that I want to deal with other peoples brats. Id like a quote please.

Lets see........
I earn money
The government steals it in the form of taxes
They use the stolen money to fund programs such as free BC
People take the free BC and fuck eachother with it

It isnt a difficult concept to grasp.

No one is fucking because they got the BC. They are going to fuck with or without it so no you are not paying people to fuck.

What you are paying for, at an extremely cheap price compared to the alternative, is for those people who are going to fuck regardless of having BC to NOT have a "brat" that we as a decent society must provide for.

You are not paying for them to fuck because they are going to fuck regardless. You are making a choice of either paying for BC or paying for the "brat" for a very long time. There is no 3rd option in a decent 1st world society (at least one that wishes to remain 1st world).

You are correct though, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Atreus21]

No one is fucking because they got the BC. They are going to fuck with or without it so no you are not paying people to fuck.

What you are paying for, at an extremely cheap price compared to the alternative, is for those people who are going to fuck regardless of having BC to NOT have a "brat" that we as a decent society must provide for.

You are not paying for them to fuck because they are going to fuck regardless. You are making a choice of either paying for BC or paying for the "brat" for a very long time. There is no 3rd option in a decent 1st world society (at least one that wishes to remain 1st world).

You are correct though, it really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Completely disagree. People aren't machines. They can control themselves, and they should.

We might as well provide for free guns too. People are going to kill each other irrespective of our appeal to the contrary. We may as well make it easy for them.

 

[jackstar7]

Completely disagree. People aren't machines. They can control themselves, and they should.

Great. Now try and enforce your opinion. Or convince everyone to subscribe to it. I'd say wrap it in a religion if you want a good chance for success.

 

[Atreus21]

Great. Now try and enforce your opinion. Or convince everyone to subscribe to it. I'd say wrap it in a religion if you want a good chance for success.

Being responsible as opposed to acting on blind instinct like a dog in heat is a religious notion?

Atheists might have beef with that claim.

 

[jackstar7]

Being responsible as opposed to acting on blind instinct like a dog in heat is a religious notion?

Atheists might have beef with that claim.

Heh. Just trying to help you get the message out effectively. I don't think athiests do have impulse control issues as a corresponding trait to their lack of deistic standing.

 

[nehalem256]

You have a shitload of admin costs in their that you aren't providing for and then you miss the little itsy bitsy fact that by definition poor people aren't very likely to payback a loan. Your only possible recourse is to quite literally throw good money after bad with stuff like incarceration (raising the cost of your "idea" significantly).

Well then the loan incurs interest. And when it is time for them to collect SS/Medicare we take it out there.

 

[nehalem256]

Completely disagree. People aren't machines. They can control themselves, and they should.

We might as well provide for free guns too. People are going to kill each other irrespective of our appeal to the contrary. We may as well make it easy for them.

Exactly. People can control themselves. Animals cannot.

If "people" insist on being animals they should be treated as such.

 

[CycloWizard]

There are plenty of problems with this study. First, St. Louis has a lot of strange demographics which likely render comparison to the national average invalid. Why didn't the authors compare to a control group within St. Louis and control for things like religion, income, and all of the other obvious confounding factors? The answer seems clear if one simply reads the corresponding author's motivation for the study: he had to get this shit published before the election!

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert asked the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

As a WashU graduate, I'm appalled that such a shoddy study made it into the peer reviewed literature at all, let alone that it will be published in an expedited fashion to influence public opinion before a major election. This isn't science - it's politics wearing a lab coat. WashU's medical school has been playing this game to curry political favor and has been paid in kind with massive funding of research centers. It's great that the prestige of my alma mater has risen, but many of the reasons for it certainly have political foundations (see: huge centers for genomics, embryonic stem cell research, and others).

However, this article does nothing to address the concerns of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception crowd. You cannot ever justify potentially unethical behavior by pointing to a balance sheet. The left knows this damn well as they support social programs which have outrageous costs but perform what they feel is an ethical good. The counter-argument to such policy that the OP suggests is simply that I can save money by not giving people welfare and letting them die in the streets: I have ignored the ethical implications and simply pointed to the bottom line. We can certainly save money by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and SS by 100% by applying the same logic.

 

[jackstar7]

Exactly. People can control themselves. Animals cannot.

If "people" insist on being animals they should be treated as such.

You want to do what to people that you deem act like animals?

 

[nehalem256]

However, this article does nothing to address the concerns of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception crowd. You cannot ever justify potentially unethical behavior by pointing to a balance sheet. The left knows this damn well as they support social programs which have outrageous costs but perform what they feel is an ethical good. The counter-argument to such policy that the OP suggests is simply that I can save money by not giving people welfare and letting them die in the streets: I have ignored the ethical implications and simply pointed to the bottom line. We can certainly save money by cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and SS by 100% by applying the same logic.

As was pointed out by me. If your goal is to save money on social welfare programs by reducing births to poor people which method seems more effective at meeting that goal

(1) Handing out free birth control and hoping that poor people use it. Which will reduce unplanned births by the poor, but obviously do nothing for planned births.

or

(2) Mandating that all poor people get abortions if pregnant.

But for some reason liberals seem horrified by (1). Don't they want to save money?😕

 

[Darwin333]

Well then the loan incurs interest. And when it is time for them to collect SS/Medicare we take it out there.

Ahh, more administrative costs, hell you probably need an entirely new agency at this point, and even more politically unfeasible. What if they die before being able to collect SS/Medicare? What percentage are you going to take and who is going to oversee it? You will need a new system to calculate interest accrued as well as one to process payments. Since we are talking about poor people you will need to make it very easy for them to make payments as well. What about disputes, who handles those?

Sounds easy but in the real world, especially considering the Federal Government will be running it, it isn't quite as easy as you think.

 

[Darwin333]

Completely disagree. People aren't machines. They can control themselves, and they should.

We might as well provide for free guns too. People are going to kill each other irrespective of our appeal to the contrary. We may as well make it easy for them.

Of course people can control themselves, my point is its hardwired into our brains and no amount of talking or debating on this subject is going to change that. So we are back to our original 3 choices:

1. Pay for BC and reduce the number or births to poor people

2. Pay for more children born to poor people

3. Allow children born to poor parents to literally starve to death ala Somalia

That is the bottom line and I hope you forgive me if I do not support option 3. I would like to live in a much more civilized nation than that.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not against Birth Control for married couples. I'm not even against free birth control for married couples. But if there was zero non-marital sex, the need for birth control would drop by about 75%.

And if we had magic unicorns that shit gold bricks everywhere we wouldn't have a deficit.

 

[nehalem256]

Ahh, more administrative costs, hell you probably need an entirely new agency at this point, and even more politically unfeasible. What if they die before being able to collect SS/Medicare? What percentage are you going to take and who is going to oversee it? You will need a new system to calculate interest accrued as well as one to process payments. Since we are talking about poor people you will need to make it very easy for them to make payments as well. What about disputes, who handles those?

Well all those people who use to handle social welfare programs will have to be kept employed somehow 😉

And the simplest solution is to have it set up as a ~$500 reverse tax credit. The IRS would then collect the $500 and if not paid continue assessing interest and penalties until it was.

Or are you going to argue that the IRS is incapable of collecting money? 😛

Sounds easy but in the real world, especially considering the Federal Government will be running it, it isn't quite as easy as you think.

Sounds to me like we should end all social welfare programs since they are clearly unimplementable 🙄


EDIT: And your argument is also an argument against free birth control. I mean how would the federal government even distribute it? 😀

 

[Darwin333]

Well all those people who use to handle social welfare programs will have to be kept employed somehow 😉

And the simplest solution is to have it set up as a ~$500 reverse tax credit. The IRS would then collect the $500 and if not paid continue assessing interest and penalties until it was.

Or are you going to argue that the IRS is incapable of collecting money? 😛




Sounds to me like we should end all social welfare programs since they are clearly unimplementable 🙄


EDIT: And your argument is also an argument against free birth control. I mean how would the federal government even distribute it? 😀

Ok, you win. You write up your proposal for .gov mandated (and temporarily funded) abortions and send it to your critter. Wanna make a wager on how successful it will be?

OTOH, it would be rather easy to setup free BC to poor people. A ton of them are already on .gov health care of some sort so it can be given to them at a regular doctor visit. Combined with places like planned parenthood we already have the foundation. Hell, I would offer incentives for women on public assistance to get some sort of long term BC (IUD or that shot that lasts 3 months). Instead of charging them I would give them $50 and I guarantee that my way saves us way more money.

Seems like a lot of people in this thread are just deadset on paying for other peoples kids..... Regardless of what you may think or believe, that is the only other realistic option.

 

[Atreus21]

Heh. Just trying to help you get the message out effectively. I don't think athiests do have impulse control issues as a corresponding trait to their lack of deistic standing.

It'd be a massive thread-jack if I argued otherwise.

 

[nehalem256]

Ok, you win. You write up your proposal for .gov mandated (and temporarily funded) abortions and send it to your critter. Wanna make a wager on how successful it will be?

Send me my grant money and I will start right on it 😉

OTOH, it would be rather easy to setup free BC to poor people. A ton of them are already on .gov health care of some sort so it can be given to them at a regular doctor visit. Combined with places like planned parenthood we already have the foundation. Hell, I would offer incentives for women on public assistance to get some sort of long term BC (IUD or that shot that lasts 3 months). Instead of charging them I would give them $50 and I guarantee that my way saves us way more money.

So now your plan is to not only give free birth control but to give women free money.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread to bad for men. Not only do they have to pay for their own birth control they don't get extra $$$ for using it.

Seems like a lot of people in this thread are just deadset on paying for other peoples kids..... Regardless of what you may think or believe, that is the only other realistic option.

That would be pretty much everyone except me. But especially liberals. Who appear to be completely fine with paying for poor people's kids so long as it is a planned pregnancy. Which for the record comprises a MINIMUM of 20% of all births (30% unplanned birthrate vs. 53% of infants receiving WIC).

 

[Atreus21]

Of course people can control themselves, my point is its hardwired into our brains and no amount of talking or debating on this subject is going to change that.

What is hardwired into our brains? The desire to have sex? The biological impulse to reproduce?

And you say we can indeed control it.

So we are back to our original 3 choices:

1. Pay for BC and reduce the number or births to poor people

Birth control is already quite affordable. There's no need to mandate it. Taxpayer-subsidized welfare should be for essential needs only.

2. Pay for more children born to poor people

If people can control the desire to reproduce, it follows that they are bound to the fruits of the act.

3. Allow children born to poor parents to literally starve to death ala Somalia

Completely false choice. There are already multitudes of services, by both public and private entities, provided to the poor so that they may eat.

 

[Darwin333]

That would be pretty much everyone except me. But especially liberals. Who appear to be completely fine with paying for poor people's kids so long as it is a planned pregnancy. Which for the record comprises a MINIMUM of 20% of all births (30% unplanned birthrate vs. 53% of infants receiving WIC).

So you are completely fine with children quite literally starving to death in the greatest nation on Earth? Might I ask what religion you are?