[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So now it costs twice as much.

Last I heard Norplant costs $50 for 5 years, that's pretty cheap.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Doesn't matter. It alleviates the burden in the same way that free birth control alleviates the burden of buying and using birth control. Namely "partly." The same people that decide not to pay $1 for a condom (or $200/year in condoms) in order to save $100,000 in child support over the next 19 years, are the same people that disregard the burden of that same $100,000 when faced with the prospect of $1000 every year for the next 19 years. It's not smart, but no one accused that person of being smart did they? Bottom line, there was already a strong incentive to use birth control, because being a parent is hard and costs lots of money. We have gone to great lengths in order to sabotage that natural incentive, and along the way we have argued that increasing/maintaining the birth rate and average youthfulness of the population is good for our national interest. To now argue the reverse, that preventing pregnancy is a new critical challenge and we have to reinvent the wheel to do so, rings untrue.

So your argument is that this policy will have a negligible effect on preventing unwanted pregnancies?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think we could follow Jonathan Swift's example.

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So your argument is that this policy will have a negligible effect on preventing unwanted pregnancies?

No, my argument is that without even attempting to evaluate the mechanics or effectiveness of the strategy (as you have repeatedly stated you have not, and reiterating what I said at first), the goal itself of reducing pregnancies is contradictory with the recent and not-so-recent philosophies of our society.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Right, because it's only the woman's responsibility.

You're always good for a laugh!

You actually -without the slightest inkling of the irony- used the dreaded *r* word! Classic.

Of course I know you're not bright enough to grasp that you're actually arguing with Obama's position, and the Democrat script. You're too busy frothing at the mouth about your obsession with Fox News.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, my argument is that without even attempting to evaluate the mechanics or effectiveness of the strategy (as you have repeatedly stated you have not, and reiterating what I said at first), the goal itself of reducing pregnancies is contradictory with the recent and not-so-recent philosophies of our society.

I guess I see your point. I'm not sure I see it with public policy, but with overall prevailing non-political (perhaps largely religious) attitudes that welcome procreation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

All of a sudden I notice the dumb-beat...

Doesn't the counter dumb-beat bug you too? The House Republicans had a press conference about this and one of them actually had the gall to say "and then they came for the Baptists..."

****ing really?

Really?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess I see your point. I'm not sure I see it with public policy, but with overall prevailing non-political (perhaps largely religious) attitudes that welcome procreation.

Isn't raising the average age of the population a serious danger to public policy too? Fewer productive members serving more non-productive members? Especially considering our social programs that specifically serve the elderly (ss and medi*) are already straining to keep up with the increase in population age that has already occurred since the programs were designed, I think that deciding to raise the age of the population further (on purpose) is distinctly risky.

[subego]

Isn't the goal reducing unwanted pregnancies?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Of course I know you're not bright enough to grasp that you're actually arguing with Obama's position, and the Democrat script.

No, I understood you were being sarcastic about preventing more "stupid liberals" from being born, and that it's in the conservative's best interest to support Obama's birth control measures to prevent that from happening.

I had a problem with you only blaming women, which is a common conservative trait.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're too busy frothing at the mouth about your obsession with Fox News.

You're too busy frothing at the mouth looking for clues where there aren't any. I simply provided counter examples to your overreaching claims. The only reason I mentioned FOX News (and I don't do that often) is because 8 of the 10 most watched news programs are on FOX.

So I would hope the irony isn't lost on you when you start blaming "the media."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Isn't raising the average age of the population a serious danger to public policy too? Fewer productive members serving more non-productive members? Especially considering our social programs that specifically serve the elderly (ss and medi*) are already straining to keep up with the increase in population age that has already occurred since the programs were designed, I think that deciding to raise the age of the population further (on purpose) is distinctly risky.

The goal is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, the sorts of people with a higher probability of never becoming productive, relatively speaking.

[Uncle Skeleton]

So you think that you can get "better" people for the next generation by only interfering with "unwanted" pregnancies, without harming the overall average demographics? Without being obscured by the statistical noise of "wanted" pregnancies that are not actually "better," or of older parents statistically resulting in more birth defects, or of the "want" of pregnancy being obscured by laziness or undue fear of responsibility or commitment, or of actual "wanted" or "undecided" pregnancies being interrupted too due to the sheer ubiquity of birth control, or of the actual implementation being carried out by governments working at cross purposes to each other, and despite the stench of eugenics to the whole endeavor, and despite the difficulty of achieving eugenic goals even by scientists fully dedicated to the task in the first place?

I don't doubt the effectiveness of artificially "free" birth control towards reducing pregnancy rates (depending on implementation of course), but I highly doubt you will get "better" people born because of it. If any signal actually shows above the noise, I would anticipate a generation of spoiled ungrateful "wanted" single children with entitlement complexes and worthless skillsets.

[besson3c]

I think the outcome of unwanted pregnancies is a mixed bag, it all depends on various conditions.

If a pregnancy is unwanted because the family cannot even begin to think about affording the kid and no real prospects for this to change, because there is drug addiction in the family, physical abuse, or they plan to vote for Rick Santorum, than yeah, I think the probability of a "better" person is much less.

So, expensive safety net dependent pregnancies are a subset of overall unwanted pregnancies, but I'd also say that the probability is higher of expensive safety net dependent kids in that unwanted pregnancy category.

Is this not logical?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So you think that you can get "better" people for the next generation by only interfering with "unwanted" pregnancies, without harming the overall average demographics? Without being obscured by the statistical noise of "wanted" pregnancies that are not actually "better," or of older parents statistically resulting in more birth defects, or of the "want" of pregnancy being obscured by laziness or undue fear of responsibility or commitment, or of actual "wanted" or "undecided" pregnancies being interrupted too due to the sheer ubiquity of birth control, or of the actual implementation being carried out by governments working at cross purposes to each other, and despite the stench of eugenics to the whole endeavor, and despite the difficulty of achieving eugenic goals even by scientists fully dedicated to the task in the first place?

I don't doubt the effectiveness of artificially "free" birth control towards reducing pregnancy rates (depending on implementation of course), but I highly doubt you will get "better" people born because of it. If any signal actually shows above the noise, I would anticipate a generation of spoiled ungrateful "wanted" single children with entitlement complexes and worthless skillsets.

You cover all the angles of personal undesirability, but it's considered socially undesirable across the board for people to have children until after they've finished their education.

This of course depends on implementation, but I submit that readily available birth control would affect this group the most across the board. Slightly rearranging the time someone has a child certanly isn't eugenics.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Last I heard Norplant costs $50 for 5 years, that's pretty cheap.

Oh, I thought you were talking about tubal ligation or similar procedure. Norplant would simply be a long dose birth control that's harder to voluntarily stop than a normal pill.

How would you stop someone from having 10 or 12 kids, then apply for welfare?

At this point I don't disagree from a fiscal standpoint. I'd be worried about Constitutional issues and enforcement.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'd be worried about Constitutional issues

Uhm, why starting to worry about Constitutional issues now ?

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

You cover all the angles of personal undesirability, but it's considered socially undesirable across the board for people to have children until after they've finished their education.

This of course depends on implementation, but I submit that readily available birth control would affect this group the most across the board. Slightly rearranging the time someone has a child certanly isn't eugenics.

I don't see how this wouldn't reduce the number of young people, thereby increasing the average age of the population. Isn't that what you brought up "wantedness" in response to?

Furthermore, I submit that expecting to trick teenagers into doing the right thing is highly optimistic. That age range is the absolute least logical and predictable. Being contrary is their raison d'etre, and they are biologically built to take silly risks and not be cautious, even more so than the age range younger than them.

Finally, I don't see how birth control isn't already readily available. The biggest impediment to birth control when I was in school was being embarrassed about it. Cost was completely irrelevant (and small). And routing it through "the man" can only make it more embarrassing. Unless you're going to higher an elite squad based out of 21 jump street to infiltrate schools and plant contraceptives covertly, this is doomed to futility. IMO.

[besson3c]

They should just hand out condoms with cafeteria lunchs at all the schools

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Oh, I thought you were talking about tubal ligation or similar procedure. Norplant would simply be a long dose birth control that's harder to voluntarily stop than a normal pill.

Well, they'd need an X-acto and a decent tolerance for pain to dig out the implant, but it can be stopped prematurely.

How would you stop someone from having 10 or 12 kids, then apply for welfare?

"Ma'am, you qualify for 3 of those, but that's it."

At this point I don't disagree from a fiscal standpoint. I'd be worried about Constitutional issues and enforcement.

No iron-clad birth control, no gov't assistance, that's the way I see it. They're free to live their lives, but they aren't free to make a whole lot of new life and expect everyone else to pay for it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

the probability is higher of expensive safety net dependent kids in that unwanted pregnancy category.

Why? The whole point of the safety net is to turn borderline kids into supported kids, so that instead of going hungry at the first stroke of bad luck, kids will be supported through bad times. On average, people want to procreate, it's their biological imperative, and the safety net allows them to do it with less risk. These are totally "wanted" kids, they just wouldn't have been (as) possible without a safety net to fall back on when bad luck strikes. So why wouldn't the cases where the net works as intended outnumber the cases where it fails?

[besson3c]

I've explained why, why not respond to what I've written?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't see how this wouldn't reduce the number of young people, thereby increasing the average age of the population. Isn't that what you brought up "wantedness" in response to?

Furthermore, I submit that expecting to trick teenagers into doing the right thing is highly optimistic. That age range is the absolute least logical and predictable. Being contrary is their raison d'etre, and they are biologically built to take silly risks and not be cautious, even more so than the age range younger than them.

Finally, I don't see how birth control isn't already readily available. The biggest impediment to birth control when I was in school was being embarrassed about it. Cost was completely irrelevant (and small). And routing it through "the man" can only make it more embarrassing. Unless you're going to higher an elite squad based out of 21 jump street to infiltrate schools and plant contraceptives covertly, this is doomed to futility. IMO.

I'm not saying it won't reduce the number of young people. I'm pointing out that despite the societial directive to skew our demographics lower, we're not willing to do it at any cost. Society considers people having children before they've finished their education to be worse than any demographic problems said attitude may entail.

As for the effectiveness of the program with impulsive youth who already have access, the results from Chongo's article seemed significant. Letting teenage girls get implants cut the pregnancy rate by more than 20%.

[subego]

I should also point out we don't live in a vacuum. We could alter our immigration policy to get whatever demographic makeup we want.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

We could alter our immigration policy to get whatever demographic makeup we want.

If that was that easy, why not get more entrepreneurs and 1%ers, so they can pay contribute their fair share of taxes and increase overall tax income.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If that was that easy, why not get more entrepreneurs and 1%ers, so they can pay contribute their fair share of taxes and increase overall tax income.

-t

I was talking about age.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, why starting to worry about Constitutional issues now ?

Why wouldn't I worry about Constitutional issues?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why wouldn't I worry about Constitutional issues?

Because it has been treated like trash in so many ways in the last 20 years, it really doesn't matter to think about it in a small issue like this.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was talking about age.

Age doesn't pay

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Age doesn't pay

-t

Precisely.

Cheap labor isn't cheap labor anymore if you're paying them a lot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've explained why, why not respond to what I've written?

I'm sorry. What part of what post supports that conclusion? I had originally written a response saying that the beginning of your post doesn't support the conclusion made in the phrase I quoted, but then I erased what I wrote because after re-reading your post, I noticed that you never claimed that it did. Is that the bit you're referring to?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm sorry. What part of what post supports that conclusion? I had originally written a response saying that the beginning of your post doesn't support the conclusion made in the phrase I quoted, but then I erased what I wrote because after re-reading your post, I noticed that you never claimed that it did. Is that the bit you're referring to?

I wrote this:

If a pregnancy is unwanted because the family cannot even begin to think about affording the kid and no real prospects for this to change, because there is drug addiction in the family, physical abuse, or they plan to vote for Rick Santorum, than yeah, I think the probability of a "better" person is much less.

as an explanation as to why I would assume that there is a higher probability of greater expense to society with unwanted pregnancies, while acknowledging that what I've described here would apply to a subset of unwanted pregnancies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not saying it won't reduce the number of young people. I'm pointing out that despite the societial directive to skew our demographics lower, we're not willing to do it at any cost. Society considers people having children before they've finished their education to be worse than any demographic problems said attitude may entail.

Oh

As for the effectiveness of the program with impulsive youth who already have access, the results from Chongo's article seemed significant. Letting teenage girls get implants cut the pregnancy rate by more than 20%.

Hmm. On the one hand, it perfectly supports what you said. On the other hand, it perfectly supports what I said. I posit that the limiting factor here is still not cost, it's the family's willingness to participate. The family may be acting prudishly for not wanting this procedure, or it might actually be very prudent. It does lead directly back to the reason Chongo posted it though. It is supremely creepy that a school would implant children with something against the wishes of their parents, let alone something that drugs them and may very well change their personality as a result. The fact that the child might want this in contradiction to the parents does not help much, as there are plenty of circumstances where a 13 year old is incapable of giving informed consent, and legitimately needs to be disciplined by their parents.

This isn't a totally crazy objection, like against fluoridated water. It would be perfectly reasonable to not want to give hormone therapy to a child, even if the child decides she wants it. For all we know it might have (biological) side effects that won't be known for decades (aside from the motivational side effects of enabling promiscuity), especially off-label use on children, which is a widespread and under-appreciated danger in hundreds of drugs -- just the sort of danger that I would want to be able to protect my family from at the risk of being represented as paranoid about.

I think that this is besides the issue of costs. We all keep bringing up the caveat of implementation and how it could be done rightly or wrongly. If the method of increasing "access" to birth control is to circumvent parental consent or knowledge that is otherwise required to be treated by a licensed doctor, I say that falls unquestionably under "wrongly." I would find that pretty abhorrent. But the article is quite brief, and I'm leaving open the possibility that what actually happened in that case wasn't as horrible as it sounds.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It is supremely creepy that a school would implant children with something against the wishes of their parents, let alone something that drugs them and may very well change their personality as a result.

You could replace the word implant with "give birth control pills to" and your statement would remain true. They both drug you and may change your personality.

Edit: and need a doctor.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If a pregnancy is unwanted because the family cannot even begin to think about affording the kid and no real prospects for this to change, because there is drug addiction in the family, physical abuse, or they plan to vote for Rick Santorum, than yeah, I think the probability of a "better" person is much less.

So, expensive safety net dependent pregnancies are a subset of overall unwanted pregnancies, but I'd also say that the probability is higher of expensive safety net dependent kids in that unwanted pregnancy category.

Is this not logical?

Let's see, you have set A (inferior/costly) and set B (unwanted/unplanned), and in the first paragraph you give examples proving the existence of A (but not the size). Then in the second paragraph you state a caveat that B is not entirely overlapped by A, and then (apparently) you conclude from this that the union of A with B is larger than the union of A with the inverse of B. I just don't see how that conclusion is supported. Can you enlighten me?

Edit: actually the more times I read your post, the less sure I am that I know what you're trying to say about A and B. Are you saying that the union of A and B is more than half of A or more than half of B, or more than half of the inverses of one of them? Either way it's not supported by what you said and I would need more info to be convinced, but obviously I can't be convinced when I don't know what you're trying to convince me of

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

You could replace the word implant with "give birth control pills to" and your statement would remain true. They both drug you and may change your personality.

Edit: and need a doctor.

Yeah, the part about needing a doctor is what gets to me. Why does it need a doctor? Because it's a significant decision and potentially dangerous. Correct me if I'm wrong*, but doctors usually need parent/guardian approval to prescribe treatments to children. This would be a glaring departure from that standard. That's why I would still find it supremely creepy if schools were secretly having 13 year olds take pills without the parent's knowledge or consent. It sounds like they accidentally enrolled in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

*I might be wrong about this

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, the part about needing a doctor is what gets to me. Why does it need a doctor? Because it's a significant decision and potentially dangerous. Correct me if I'm wrong*, but doctors usually need parent/guardian approval to prescribe treatments to children. This would be a glaring departure from that standard. That's why I would still find it supremely creepy if schools were secretly having 13 year olds take pills without the parent's knowledge or consent. It sounds like they accidentally enrolled in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

*I might be wrong about this

Not an unreasonable feeling, but I think it speaks to the supposed ease of access amongst the set who really need it.

[subego]

My position is malleable on this, but I think if you're old enough you're having sex, you're old enough to have the consultation which birth control requires in a private manner.

I'd sure as hell be more creeped out by my 13-year-old being pregnant.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not an unreasonable feeling, but I think it speaks to the supposed ease of access amongst the set who really need it.

That glosses over an important distinction. If ease of access is limited by money, then it's all well and good to easyficate that access. But if ease of access is limited intentionally by parents, then the whole notion of increasing the access by undermining those parents' direct intentions is not a good thing.

I can see the possibility that parents in that story maybe didn't provide birth control only because it was too expensive, and after the story broke they feigned outrage out of embarrassment that someone else provided for their child what they couldn't afford to provide. But something tells me that isn't the reason the girls didn't have birth control implants before now, know what I mean?

[subego]

A side question.

Assuming they intend to use it (which I'll grant is no small assumption) is there any circumstance in which it's a good idea for a teenage girl who's having sex not to have access to birth control?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

My position is malleable on this, but I think if you're old enough you're having sex, you're old enough to have the consultation which birth control requires in a private manner.

I'd sure as hell be more creeped out by my 13-year-old being pregnant.

I don't know about that. I'm the last person to go for the whole "all natural, organic" trend, but I am strongly swayed by the argument that pregnancy is at least natural, as opposed to birth control drugs which for a 13 year old are off label and untested interventions. There's also the issue that it promotes the idea of "better living through chemistry" to a person who is in the most danger of falling victim to illegal pharmacology. I am sympathetic to the idea that consenting adults should be able to imbibe whatever the F they want without big brother launching a jihad against them, but for a 13 year old? They can hardly be relied on to make informed decisions about fashion, let alone drugs, and their neurobiology is far more sensitive to both the usual adverse affects of narcotics AND the largely unknown developmental affects. All in all it just stinks to high heaven, and while pregnancy is not ideal, I have a hard time concluding that it's worse than experimenting with the Jetsons pill-world fantasy that we're better at nature than nature is.

It's not like the pill is the only birth control method, and there are still STDs to worry about. I would be VERY wary of the use of the pill on a 13 year old. Has it ever been tested even once on that age group? For problems or even for effectiveness? These drugs have been approved for a long time. Drug makers aren't in the habit of retesting approved drugs, and sadly neither is the FDA. Hundreds of non-controversial drugs get prescribed to children all the time, as if children are no different than tiny adults. This is not a safe practice, but it's still routine. Most of the time it passes under the radar, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

[subego]

A note while I consider your response. You have more or less answered my side question.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I would be VERY wary of the use of the pill on a 13 year old. Has it ever been tested even once on that age group?

Depends on the pill. Ortho Tri-Cyclen has because it's an acne treatment too.

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't know if its recorded systematically anywhere but I'm fairly certain there have been very large numbers of 13 year olds on the pill for at least a decade now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't know if its recorded systematically anywhere but I'm fairly certain there have been very large numbers of 13 year olds on the pill for at least a decade now.

By very large, do you mean less than 13% of teens to age 15?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Very large numbers of 13 year olds smoked cigarettes for over 100 years before we knew how damaging it was to children. So what?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By very large, do you mean less than 13% of teens to age 15?

I was talking in terms of numbers rather than percentages. No idea what the percentage would be, just that there ought to be a reasonable sample size if anyone was actually keeping track. Thats all I was saying.

As for comparing it to smoking, I think we are a little better at medical science now than we were 50-80 years ago but I suppose the point still stands to a less alarmist extent. Taking any kinds of hormones during adult development strikes me as something you'd want to be careful about.

[Chongo]

There are claims that women who have been on birth control long term, especially those starting in their teens and before their first child, have difficultly getting pregnant when they do want children.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

As for comparing it to smoking, I think we are a little better at medical science now than we were 50-80 years ago but I suppose the point still stands to a less alarmist extent. Taking any kinds of hormones during adult development strikes me as something you'd want to be careful about.

True. What I meant was more along the lines of drawing a distinction between casual observation of the public and deliberate scientific/medical inquiry. Even something as severe as smoking was able to go on for a long time in a huge number of people, without bystanders spontaneously noticing that it increased the risk of developmental abnormalities or cancer. There can be plenty of harmful effects that go unnoticed if you're not looking for them in the right way, no matter how prevalent it is among consumers.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't know if its recorded systematically anywhere but I'm fairly certain there have been very large numbers of 13 year olds on the pill for at least a decade now.

What happens to guys if they take the pill? Always wondered that...

[Waragainstsleep]

Man boobs I think.