Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Birth Control...

Birth Control...
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 08:07 PM
 
Should be distributed freely to all adults who want it. That means with your tax dollars.

I'm not interested in whether it's constitutional, the question is if it's a good idea.

Discuss.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 08:28 PM
 
No.

That's why I'm also against any insurance covering it.
Insurance should never cover regularly used / needed items. It should cover things that are unforeseen / unexpected, and therefore, INSURE against the financial burden of these events.

Just think of tour car insurance starting to cover oil change and tire rotation. What the heck for ?
Of course, it would raise the price, no matter if you do your oil change yourself or not.

-t
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 08:57 PM
 
I'm not sure what your argument is.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not sure what your argument is.
I was drawing (the obvious) parallel to the current debate about birth control in ObamaCare.

ObamaCare (up until now) requires every insurance to provide birth control.
It's basically the same as your "distributed freely to all adults [...] [paid by] your tax dollars."

I'm against it it (ObamaCare covering it, as well as government providing it "for free") because it takes away from individual choices, and will result in excessive use / cost.

Whenever you have people spending other people's money, fraud, waste and abuse are guaranteed.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:07 PM
 
Free birth control IS insurance.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:08 PM
 
How does it take away from individual choice? Its free, not compulsory.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Whenever you have people spending other people's money, fraud, waste and abuse are guaranteed.

-t
What's your rationale for where to draw the line?

I mean, you're obviously not an anarchist. You support some government spending despite the inefficiencies.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How does it take away from individual choice? Its free, not compulsory.
You lose the ability to chose how you spend the money which is garnered in taxes to fund the program.

Edit: at the least.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 09:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How does it take away from individual choice? Its free, not compulsory.
I heard about this on the radio yesterday.

Girls, 13, get secret birth control implant at school without parents; knowledge - Mirror Online
Girls as young as 13 have been injected with contraceptive implants at school without their parents’ knowledge.

The controversial procedure was carried out on pupils to cut underage pregnancies in one city.

It is unknown how many teenagers have taken part in the scheme at the nine secondary schools.

But the revelation has caused outrage among some parents who were unaware their daughters were fitted with the 4cm device which is implanted under the skin.

Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, blasted: “Parents send their children to school to receive a good education, not to be undermined by health workers who give their children contraceptives behind their backs.

“The last thing health authorities should be doing is fuelling the flames of promiscuity.”

The pupils were given the implants by NHS experts in Southampton.

Many panicking parents who knew nothing about it were forced to inspect their child’s arm for any sign of the device.

One angry mum, whose 13-year-old daughter was given the contraceptive, claimed the school went ahead without consulting their family doctor. The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “It is morally wrong.”

Service provider Solent NHS Trust defended sexual health experts going in to the schools, saying teenage pregnancies in Southampton dropped by 22%.

They insisted letters were sent to parents in 2009.

A spokeswoman for Solent NHS Trust and NHS Southampton said: “We are committed to ensuring local young people are able to access clinically appropriate sexual health support.”
They claim pregnancies dropped by 22%, but fail to mention if venereal diseases increased/decreased.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I heard about this on the radio yesterday.

Girls, 13, get secret birth control implant at school without parents; knowledge - Mirror Online


They claim pregnancies dropped by 22%, but fail to mention if venereal diseases increased/decreased.
While that's an interesting story, and the question of who has control of the choice for minors is a valid one, in an attempt to keep some focus, I specifically made the policy question about adults.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:16 PM
 
You can get condoms free in just about anywhere. They hand them at most school health centers.
NYC Condoms
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can get condoms free in just about anywhere. They hand them at most school health centers.
NYC Condoms


I pray to all that is holy I am never desperate enough to need government lube.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:27 PM
 
I suppose I just want to know the rationale behind insurance companies covering Viagra/Cialis for MEN … but not birth control for WOMEN?

OAW
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose I just want to know the rationale behind insurance companies covering Viagra/Cialis for MEN … but not birth control for WOMEN?

OAW
Great. Now I'm grumpy.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You can get condoms free in just about anywhere. They hand them at most school health centers.
You changed this from something like "major urban centers" which is true, to what's above, for which I'll need a citation.

Either way though, condoms have some serious disadvantages, mainly pertaining to the fact a lot of people don't use them, or don't use them consistently.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Either way though, condoms have some serious disadvantages, mainly pertaining to the fact a lot of people don't use them.
As compared to, umm, birth control pills ?

Dumb people will use neither. Smart people will use either.

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose I just want to know the rationale behind insurance companies covering Viagra/Cialis for MEN … but not birth control for WOMEN?

OAW
Hmmm, Cigna offers coverage, as do other companies. Many are generic.
http://www.houstontx.gov/hr/oe11/inc...rget%20HEB.pdf
http://www.oberlin.edu/HR/healthcare...THREE.TIER.pdf

The question is, why would someone want to ingest a known carcinogen?

Known and Probable Human Carcinogens
Known human carcinogens
International Agency for Research on Cancer (AKA the World Health Org. of the U.N.)
Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans

Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
As compared to, umm, birth control pills ?
Yes. Absolutely.

I know plenty of people who like being on birth control without any sex. You can't say anything of the sort about condoms.

Despite the fact stupid is as stupid does, this dynamic enters into the equation.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2012, 11:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
The question is, why would someone want to ingest a known carcinogen?
Why is that the question? It's got some pretty obvious answers.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I pray to all that is holy I am never desperate enough to need government lube.
Don't you know that's the next phase of Obamacare? Where do you think the money's gonna come from?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Dumb people will use neither. Smart people will use either.
Then this happens:

Idiocracy - YouTube
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 02:39 PM
 
This excellent analysis spells out all that's wrong with Obamacare and/or government covering birth control for "free".

It will drive up prices and create all kinds of distortions.
This is typical of what happens when government provides something for "free".

There is no such thing as free birth control - YouTube

-t
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
This excellent analysis spells out all that's wrong with Obamacare and/or government covering birth control for "free".

It will drive up prices and create all kinds of distortions.
This is typical of what happens when government provides something for "free".

There is no such thing as free birth control - YouTube

-t
You've got to be ****ing kidding me. I'm not going to watch a 15 minute video. Do some summarizing for Christ's sake.


Edit: my bad attitude here comes from watching a few minutes of it against my better judgement.

I love it when old men pretend they understand how birth control works.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You've got to be ****ing kidding me. I'm not going to watch a 15 minute video. Do some summarizing for Christ's sake.


Edit: my bad attitude here comes from watching a few minutes of it against my better judgement.

I love it when old men pretend they understand how birth control works.
Geez, dude. Then don't.

I already said what it amounts to in a nutshell: HIGHER PRICES.

If you want to know why, watch the video. If you don't, well, whatever.

-t
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 03:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Geez, dude. Then don't.

I already said what it amounts to in a nutshell: HIGHER PRICES.

If you want to know why, watch the video. If you don't, well, whatever.

-t
To which I already responded.

There are plenty of things where you believe it's the best idea for the government to take care of, despite the cost inefficiency. You're not an anarchist.

What's your criteria for deciding this government inefficiency would be bad but others are acceptable?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Don't you know that's the next phase of Obamacare? Where do you think the money's gonna come from?

Fortunately you can also make government cheese out of government lube, so it's all pretty efficient.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's your criteria for deciding this government inefficiency would be bad but others are acceptable?
Uphold the Rule of Law (courts, police, public safety), protect the country (military), protect free speech, some (but limited) regulation to foster free market principles, some basic education.

This is not all inclusive, but covers the basics.

Government should NOT get involved in lifestyle choices, protecting people from themselves (i.e. "nanny state"), undermining any semblance of personal responsibility.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Government should NOT get involved in lifestyle choices, protecting people from themselves (i.e. "nanny state"), undermining any semblance of personal responsibility.

You do realize that this is completely impractical, don't you?

People are not responsible, I don't know why you have a hard time recognizing not only this, but that people's irresponsibilities can impact others.

For instance, seat belt laws. Under this criteria requiring them would be nanny state type stuff. In reality, what would happen if seat belt laws were not required would be that people either would buy cars without them, or else wouldn't wear them, they'd get flung from their cars on collision (in cars that don't have air bags), and then we'd have to pay for their ER visits and the visits of others impacted by their car accident, if they don't have proper health insurance coverage, which will be far more expensive because they would probably be facing head wounds and whatever other kind of fatal wounds rather than simply whiplash.

So your follow up is probably "since they are too dumb to know that they should wear their seat belts, they should be responsible enough to obtain full health insurance". Again, back to the same problem, they *won't* have necessarily have comprehensive health insurance through their work and they sure as hell won't get this on their own.

So, saying that people should be responsible is nice and everything, but it is completely and utterly disconnected from reality, because it *just won't happen*.

Call it nanny state or whatever you want, but if I had to choose between being told to wear a seat belt or having to deal with people being flung from their cars in accidents (again, for those that don't have air bags), it's kind of a no brainer. Same thing with having to breathe second hand cigarette smoke, speeding, drinking and driving, etc.

I realize that most cars may have driver and passenger air bags these days, but you get my point... I also realize that this falls under your upholding the law thing, but guess what, these laws exist *because* people are irresponsible.

I hope this post is not revelatory to you, but this is not the first time you've gone on about personal responsibility, so I'm starting to wonder...
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You do realize that this is completely impractical, don't you?

People are not responsible, I don't know why you have a hard time recognizing not only this, but that people's irresponsibilities can impact others.
Of course the government needs to protect citizens from adverse impact caused by stupidity of people.

But for things that just affect the person committing stupidity, the government needs to let them go to hell.

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Of course the government needs to protect citizens from adverse impact caused by stupidity of people.

But for things that just affect the person committing stupidity, the government needs to let them go to hell.

-t
I agree. But I think prostitution is a far better litmus test than seat belts. I think it's obvious to all that seat belts are a reflection of a nanny state, but the costs are low enough that the "pick your battles" aspect obscures it.

So, turtle, do you oppose prostitution bans as fervently as obligate free birth control?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So, turtle, do you oppose prostitution bans as fervently as obligate free birth control?
Maybe not as fervently, but yes, I don't think it's the government's business.

Besides, as we all know, it really doesn't mater if prostitution is legal or illegal, it happens anyways.
Just as driving w/o seat belts.

Things would really be much easier if all the idiots driving w/o seat belts would just die. It would also result in lower cost to our healthcare system. Win-win.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Of course the government needs to protect citizens from adverse impact caused by stupidity of people.

But for things that just affect the person committing stupidity, the government needs to let them go to hell.

-t

I'm glad we agree!

See, the reasonable left and right are not as far apart as one would have you think, it's just absolute statements with no qualifications like this that often seem to stand in the way.

From here it's just a matter of deciding on which sort of things have a return on investment in protecting people from stupidity that impacts others. It's not nanny state vs. non-nanny state, it's just where to best draw the line in the middle of these two extremes.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Maybe not as fervently, but yes, I don't think it's the government's business.

Besides, as we all know, it really doesn't mater if prostitution is legal or illegal, it happens anyways.
Just as driving w/o seat belts.

Things would really be much easier if all the idiots driving w/o seat belts would just die. It would also result in lower cost to our healthcare system. Win-win.

-t

Wouldn't helping prevent unwanted pregnancies also lower costs to not only our health care system, but also our welfare system? Aren't the costs of a stupid piece of rubber about as low as the costs of wearing seat belts?

It's not like insurance companies are being forced to provide the fancy kind of chocolate flavored condoms that glow in the dark and you can eat when you are done with them.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Should be distributed freely to all adults who want it. That means with your tax dollars.

I'm not interested in whether it's constitutional, the question is if it's a good idea.

Discuss.
I've seen these various arguments against it here:

Moral hazard (socialize costs, privatize profits, people will up their usage any way they can think of). Since we implemented the reciprocal moral hazard long ago (having children), this effect serves only to restore balance at this point, IMO. If the incentives to procreate were repealed, then I would find the moral hazards of "free" birth control convincing.

Moral hazard (any merchant who can convince us that their product can be used for birth control would be on easy street). Only existing birth control methods should be covered. Allowing for new technologies should be a separate decision.

Slippery slope (insurance should be for the unexpected not the routine; why not provide free food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc). This is just a logical fallacy. Each "slip" on the slope can be considered on its own merits. Doing one thing doesn't obligate us to do the next, if we recognize that the next is a bad idea on its own merits.

Costs (of product / upselling). This is an easily solvable problem. Rationing the free products to a "believable" level would be trivial. Economies of scale would buffer this. Birth control done cheaply is a solved problem, so all that would be necessary to reign in costs would be actually trying to do it (which is not a foregone conclusion, but it is well within reach).

Costs (of enforcement / bookkeeping). This will have to be dealt with, but it is solvable. On the scale of government, it is imperceptibly small.

Unintended consequences. The video guy went on at great length about how this would increase the cost (and therefore disincentive) of employing women because the proposal is to provide it free only to women. This makes singling out women a bad idea, but it doesn't translate to the abstract notion of "free" birth control.

Privacy (including religious beliefs): This problem is easily solvable. Make it mail-order. Existing rules for religious exceptions should still be applicable.

Futility (people who don't use birth control do so because they are dumb, not because they can't afford it, and you can't fix stupid). This is true to some extent, but on the other hand these people cost nothing if they don't participate, and offering it doesn't make things worse.

In summary, I can think of no good practical reason not to provide free birth control, if done right. If done wrong it actually does have the potential to be a catastrophe.

I do object to the nanny state on principle, I even object to seat belt laws, because it's mandatory usage, not a mandatory option. In the case of birth control, it would only ever be a mandatory option. So I'm ok with that. Seat belts are not a big enough burden to get excited over, and neither is birth control, IMO. Assuming that both of them are done in a thoughtful manner, any reasonably intelligent person could implement them correctly to provide a fair compromise.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Wouldn't helping prevent unwanted pregnancies also lower costs to not only our health care system, but also our welfare system?
You're missing the big picture. The problem isn't that people have the freedom to be dumb, the problem is when we bail them out for something that is their own fault. In an ideal world, people would be able to give informed consent for stupid crap like BASE jumping or MMA hobbies, and the rest of us would not have to foot the utterly predictable bill for these extraordinarily dumb decisions.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I've seen these various arguments against it here:

Privacy (including religious beliefs): This problem is easily solvable. Make it mail-order. Existing rules for religious exceptions should still be applicable.
This is where it is going to fail. The "exemption" for religious reasons is very narrowly crafted. You have to primarily serve those of your faith or you are not exempt. Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity would not qualify for the exemption.
(B) For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an organization that meets
all of the following criteria:
(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the
organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the
organization.
(4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and
section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
In other words, churches themselves are exempt, their social service organizations, schools hospitals, etc. will not.

If you are self insured, as many companies are, they will still be forced to pay for BC drugs, mail order or not. It does not matter how many buffers there are. They are, in the end, paying the bills.

EWTN is suing HHS. They employee many who are not Catholic.

According to a White House statement, some religious institutions may no longer be required to directly provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs; however, this accommodation may not actually apply to EWTN or actually give any relief to the Network and other similar organizations. Like EWTN many religious institutions self-insure their healthcare plans, meaning that we will still be forced to pay for these services in violation of our religious beliefs. Today's announcement certainly does not give any hope to countless individual business owners and people of faith who share the concern about being required to provide for these services which they personally find immoral.


Read more: EWTN Sues U.S. Government To Stop Contraception Mandate
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Wouldn't helping prevent unwanted pregnancies also lower costs to not only our health care system, but also our welfare system?
Sure, but who says that handing out free birth control is the BEST way of helping ?

Couldn't education be better ?
Free castration would be optimal, since it's bullet-proof.

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
This is where it is going to fail. The "exemption" for religious reasons is very narrowly crafted. You have to primarily serve those of your faith or you are not exempt. Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity would not qualify for the exemption.
This is identical to the item I listed as unintended consequences, it focuses on the implementation not the concept described in the OP. It would be solved if the government provided birth control to citizens directly, instead of inserting the (1) employer and (2) health insurance as intermediaries. Either of (1) or (2) can complain about having to be hands-on with something they don't believe in, but they can't complain about where their taxes go any more than conscientious objectors can complain about the existence of an army.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Sure, but who says that handing out free birth control is the BEST way of helping ?

Couldn't education be better ?
Education is definitely not better. If it's mandatory then it's too intrusive, and if it's not mandatory then it's ineffectual. Either way it is a huge waste of money.

The cost/benefit of free hardware is way higher.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're missing the big picture. The problem isn't that people have the freedom to be dumb, the problem is when we bail them out for something that is their own fault. In an ideal world, people would be able to give informed consent for stupid fire like BASE jumping or MMA hobbies, and the rest of us would not have to foot the utterly predictable bill for these extraordinarily dumb decisions.

The problem is, this mentality is invalid.

As much as I'd love for people to be accountable for many of their dumb decisions, in actual reality we are all in this together, it just doesn't work this way. Their dumb decisions resulting in unplanned pregnancies affect me. If they cannot make the best out of a bad situation, this potentially impacts welfare, health care, education, possibly even domestic crimes, etc.

If we provide birth control our costs go up, if we don't provide birth control our costs potentially go up too. Either way, the whole accountability and responsibility thing seems pretty irrelevant.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but this is pretty much the way it is, as I see it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 10:17 PM
 
Maybe birth control should be mandatory for people on welfare.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Sure, but who says that handing out free birth control is the BEST way of helping ?

Couldn't education be better ?
Free castration would be optimal, since it's bullet-proof.

-t

I don't know if it is, but if raining condoms results in a measurable decrease in pregnancies, great. If you can do this with education and other ways, that's great too, we should do this too if this is effective and produces positive results at justifiable costs, but the beauty of raining condoms is that it is probably comparatively cheap when compared to some sort of school program and assigning some government workers to assess this program and measure its success and all of that.

Practicality and finding value in programs > ideology. I'm glad that you are at least receptive to the idea of these sorts of investment, there are many on the right that don't even seem interested in these sorts of assessments (maybe cause it amounts to more work?) needed to come to some sort of well-informed conclusion.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Maybe birth control should be mandatory for people on welfare.
Uhm, yeah, and every morning, the social worker makes them take the pill at gun point ?

Like I said, mandatory castration FTW.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 12, 2012, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uhm, yeah, and every morning, the social worker makes them take the pill at gun point ?

Like I said, mandatory castration FTW.

-t

Where would they put all of the castrated parts?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 01:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The problem is, this mentality is invalid.
No it's not. We don't do it currently, but that doesn't make it invalid.

As much as I'd love for people to be accountable for many of their dumb decisions, in actual reality we are all in this together, it just doesn't work this way. Their dumb decisions resulting in unplanned pregnancies affect me. If they cannot make the best out of a bad situation, this potentially impacts welfare, health care, education, possibly even domestic crimes, etc.
"We're all in this together" is another way of saying that we've already decided to bail people out of whatever mess they (knowingly or otherwise) get themselves into. It wouldn't impact welfare, health care, education or "possible" other things if we hadn't already decided to bail them out by providing those things with no strings attached in the first place. This is circular reasoning.

The bail-out path is not a one-way ticket, we're allowed to revisit that decision any time we want.

If we provide birth control our costs go up, if we don't provide birth control our costs potentially go up too. Either way, the whole accountability and responsibility thing seems pretty irrelevant.
If we provide birth control, the cost of birth control goes up. It happens to anything we decide to remove people's responsibility for. People will treat it as worthless when their perceived cost for it is distorted. Sometimes this is a worthwhile trade-off (like in my opinion, farm subsidies) and sometimes it isn't, but the "whole accountability and responsibility thing" is always relevant.
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 02:20 AM
 
It should be put into the water supply in Haiti and "palestine"

bitch all you want about how wrong it would be but it would be a huge step forward in solving the problems of those countries.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Maybe birth control should be mandatory for people on welfare.
A huge percentage of the populace is cool with chemical castration for pedophiles.
So i don't see why anyone would object to mandating that for men or forced Implanon use for women who are convicted of child neglect, use of drugs while pregnant, or any crime where a parent put the welfare of a child in danger.

If you're all in for protecting the kids people shouldn't be such a pussy about extending it to the unborn.
( Last edited by Captain Obvious; Feb 13, 2012 at 02:30 AM. )

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No it's not. We don't do it currently, but that doesn't make it invalid.
I'd say it's invalid, because I don't see another fathomable way for this country to be run.

"We're all in this together" is another way of saying that we've already decided to bail people out of whatever mess they (knowingly or otherwise) get themselves into. It wouldn't impact welfare, health care, education or "possible" other things if we hadn't already decided to bail them out by providing those things with no strings attached in the first place. This is circular reasoning.
What's your point? We aren't going to disband welfare, Medicare and public education anytime soon, so what productive purpose does thinking along these lines serve?

If we provide birth control, the cost of birth control goes up. It happens to anything we decide to remove people's responsibility for. People will treat it as worthless when their perceived cost for it is distorted. Sometimes this is a worthwhile trade-off (like in my opinion, farm subsidies) and sometimes it isn't, but the "whole accountability and responsibility thing" is always relevant.
Again, what productive purpose does thinking along these lines serve? The cost of birth control will go up, the savings from having fewer unplanned pregnancies could very well offset this, so what? You can't just look at one component in isolation without also looking at the broader picture.

I think that the perceived costs of some things might change when it is more readily available and it doesn't have to be paid out-of-pocket, but I don't think this holds true across the board. I think people understand that roads are expensive, that public education is expensive, etc.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
A huge percentage of the populace is cool with chemical castration for pedophiles.
So i don't see why anyone would object to mandating that for men or forced Implanon use for women who are convicted of child neglect, use of drugs while pregnant, or any crime where a parent put the welfare of a child in danger.

If you're all in for protecting the kids people shouldn't be such a pussy about extending it to the unborn.

Forced implantation, as in tubal ligation for women, vasectomies for men? I'm cool with this, but these surgeries are both reversible.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington + Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 03:02 AM
 
Abstinence is the best birth control. Just saying.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2012, 05:28 AM
 
Permanent castrations will only end up with lots of lawsuits being filed by people who feel wrongly castrated which will be most of them.

As for mandatory birth control for people on welfare, there are injections that can be administered every few months. Don't go in for yours, no more cheques.

Abstinence never works as a social or educational policy. Maybe heavy iron chastity belts could be used to enforce it more successfully.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,