What Happens if You Give Teens Free Birth Control?

[AggregateDemand]

A little of my taxpayer dollars that are paying for the trillions of dollars of the military-industrial complex, including the $20 billion a year more that Congress spends than even the Pentagon wanted, can go to the far far far cheaper birth control that will actually save money by not having so many unwanted babies.

Lets take that $20 billion, and pay for free birth control in every 3rd world country.

Defense is constitutionally enumerated, and it's one of the few entitlements with a proven track record of economic productivity. It built the post-war middle class. It produced many of the engineers and medical professionals that gave the US a stem advantage. For some reason, we continue to cut the military and all productivity spending relative to GDP.

I'm all for contraceptives in the 3rd world, but they won't do much without someone teaching/forcing people to use them.

[TJ in Oregon]

I imagine teenagers and their parents' views on this issue may diverge somewhat.

[7,052,770]

Free birth control = fewer abortions.
Republicans opposing fewer birth control = Republicans supporting more abortions.


If you are against free birth control, you aren't anti-abortion. Period.

[Deus Naturae]

Exactly.  That's the Republican mentality.  It reminds me of Kohlberg's theory of Moral development.  Republicans are stuck in the adolescent stage of moral development (stage 4).

What should we say then about liberals who believe people should be financially punished for making money?

It says a lot about conservatives' attitudes toward government that they think paying taxes is a form of punishment.

For the vast, vast majority of human history involving government, that has been the case. If you want to argue it no longer is that's fine but don't pretend like it's outrageous to believe that taxation is generally a negative force.

[DC Al Fine]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

[bedstuy]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Why do conservatives oppose emergency contraception then? 

[DC Al Fine]

As for the study itself, I agree with shua's point that the effect is there, but somewhat overstated. From what I read from the methodology, it appears that they got their test group from people who were referred, saw fliers etc. I would hazard a guess that a girl who is conscientious enough to sign up for a contraceptive study would be less likely to get pregnant or contract an STD than the population at large even without the aid of an IUD.

I'm reminded of those charts that compare the effectiveness of typical use of _______ contraceptive and perfect use of _______ contraceptive. Education and access are helpful, but they aren't cure alls either.

[DC Al Fine]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Why do conservatives oppose emergency contraception then? 

There's a widespread view that pills like Plan B inhibit implantation. IIRC the latest studies indicate that this is not the case, but such information takes quite a while to work its way through the people. Regardless, the opposition to emergency contraception stems from a belief that it's an abortifacient.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

This obviously isn't true of all pro-lifers or all socons, but the specific case of the rape-and-incest set of exemptions is enough to make me cast something of a cold eye on the motivations of people who support it while still maintaining that life begins at conception. It comes across as disingenuous, because if these are really human lives we're talking about, it makes little sense to make exceptions to their right to be alive on the basis of how they were conceived, whereas if banning abortion is about punishing women for having sex, it makes perfect sense. I've talked to Catholic priests who have said (I can only assume off the record) they'd be willing to live with overall laxer abortion regulations if it was necessary to ensure that the implicit sentiment (or the sentiment that they infer) that lives that begin with rape or incest are inherently worth less after they've begun wasn't enshrined in law.

[TDAS04]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Not all socons are that way but some are, and they are major hypocrites, and they are loud and prominent.  Many pro-lifers are sincere, and are driven by compassion and want to protect the innocent, and don't want to oppress women.

However, there are also several "pro-lifers" who clearly are more interested in keeping women "in their place" than in protecting vulnerable babies.  We see this with the socons who oppose things like SCHIP, and who oppose any aid to poor single mothers struggling to take care of their babies.  Now that birth has been given, the child's welfare takes a back seat to teaching the mother a lesson for getting pregnant.  

[bedstuy]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Why do conservatives oppose emergency contraception then? 

There's a widespread view that pills like Plan B inhibit implantation. IIRC the latest studies indicate that this is not the case, but such information takes quite a while to work its way through the people. Regardless, the opposition to emergency contraception stems from a belief that it's an abortifacient.

You're probably correct that the right's anti-science views come into play.  This is a party that seems to invent facts about how women's bodies work to suit their beliefs, e.g. Todd Akin.  However, you have to wonder why conservatives took up that myth about emergency contraception.  Did they just get uniquely bad information, or did the hear what they wanted to hear? 

The science indeed has never indicated that emergency contraception inhibits implantation.  If it does have an small impact on implantation, it would likely be less than ibuprofen.  Since Republicans have never raised the idea of banning ibuprofen, it's pretty suspicious to me, especially since emergency contraception prevents abortion.  Conservatives should be huge fans of emergency contraception and they would be if they were rational people who wanted to reduce the number of abortions.

[IceSpear]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Notice nobody ever said that this described all pro-lifers, or even a majority of them. It seems you're in denial if you think this segment of people doesn't exist.

[DC Al Fine]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Why do conservatives oppose emergency contraception then? 

There's a widespread view that pills like Plan B inhibit implantation. IIRC the latest studies indicate that this is not the case, but such information takes quite a while to work its way through the people. Regardless, the opposition to emergency contraception stems from a belief that it's an abortifacient.

You're probably correct that the right's anti-science views come into play.  This is a party that seems to invent facts about how women's bodies work to suit their beliefs, e.g. Todd Akin.  However, you have to wonder why conservatives took up that myth about emergency contraception.  Did they just get uniquely bad information, or did the hear what they wanted to hear? 

The FDA mandated that they have a warning label on Plan B so presumably that's where the information came from.

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

Not all socons are that way but some are, and they are major hypocrites, and they are loud and prominent.  Many pro-lifers are sincere, and are driven by compassion and want to protect the innocent, and don't want to oppress women.

However, there are also several "pro-lifers" who clearly are more interested in keeping women "in their place" than in protecting vulnerable babies.  We see this with the socons who oppose things like SCHIP, and who oppose any aid to poor single mothers struggling to take care of their babies.  Now that birth has been given, the child's welfare takes a back seat to teaching the mother a lesson for getting pregnant. 

I think you are still committing the tendency I described earlier. Correct me if I'm incorrect here, but your logic is as follows:

1) A consistent pro-life ethic entails reducing abortions as much as possible
2) SCHIP reduces abortion
3) Congressman X opposes SCHIP
4) Congressman X does not have a consistent pro-life ethic

The problem with that is that it assumes that conservative pro-lifers have to adopt a sort of utilitarianism about abortion, which conservatives reject. You assume then, that opposition to to SCHIP combined with a pro-life ethic must be due to misogyny, which neglects the possibility that socons hold a different set of moral principles (which obviously they do or they wouldn't be socons).

[TDAS04]

I think you are still committing the tendency I described earlier. Correct me if I'm incorrect here, but your logic is as follows:

1) A consistent pro-life ethic entails reducing abortions as much as possible
2) SCHIP reduces abortion
3) Congressman X opposes SCHIP
4) Congressman X does not have a consistent pro-life ethic

The problem with that is that it assumes that conservative pro-lifers have to adopt a sort of utilitarianism about abortion, which conservatives reject. You assume then, that opposition to to SCHIP combined with a pro-life ethic must be due to misogyny, which neglects the possibility that socons hold a different set of moral principles (which obviously they do or they wouldn't be socons).

I think it could reduce abortions, and supporting SCHIP would also seem pro-life because it could save live children who need insurance for life-saving treatment.  It's not just about abortions, but also a question about how pro-lifers want to help children who are already born.  Conservatives such as Tony Perkins think that providing day care at schools for teen mothers is a bad idea, because girls need to get the message that pre-marital sex is a mistake.  Teach the girl a lesson, but that also hurts her baby.  I suppose one could make an argument that the government shouldn't encourage certain behavior by bailing pregnant girls out, and still oppose abortion, but this position seems to be rather tough-minded. 

Not all people who oppose both abortion and government funding for poor mothers are necessarily bad people or hate women.  It's hard for me to understand them, but I don't claim to understand everything.  Again, nobody in this thread said that all socons are just mean or thoughtless, but there are people on the right (and the left) who are nuts, and are justifiably lampooned.  Since they're good at getting attention, some people may unfairly conclude that they're typical of that ideology. 

[courts]

Teenaged girls are pretty bad at remembering to take their pills as directed. Giving them pills is better than nothing, but it's far better to place an IUD up there and remind her that's she still at risk for infections, including incurable ones like herpes and HIV.

^^^
that and condoms but that's never what people mean by birth control

[All Along The Watchtower]

Exactly.  That's the Republican mentality.  It reminds me of Kohlberg's theory of Moral development.  Republicans are stuck in the adolescent stage of moral development (stage 4).

What should we say then about liberals who believe people should be financially punished for making money?

It says a lot about conservatives' attitudes toward government that they think paying taxes is a form of punishment.

For the vast, vast majority of human history involving government, that has been the case. If you want to argue it no longer is that's fine but don't pretend like it's outrageous to believe that taxation is generally a negative force.

Yeah, it's such a shame that someone making $800,000 a year is only making around $400,000 after taxes. I can't imagine how they survive after such a punishment!

[DC Al Fine]

I think you are still committing the tendency I described earlier. Correct me if I'm incorrect here, but your logic is as follows:

1) A consistent pro-life ethic entails reducing abortions as much as possible
2) SCHIP reduces abortion
3) Congressman X opposes SCHIP
4) Congressman X does not have a consistent pro-life ethic

The problem with that is that it assumes that conservative pro-lifers have to adopt a sort of utilitarianism about abortion, which conservatives reject. You assume then, that opposition to to SCHIP combined with a pro-life ethic must be due to misogyny, which neglects the possibility that socons hold a different set of moral principles (which obviously they do or they wouldn't be socons).

I think it could reduce abortions, and supporting SCHIP would also seem pro-life because it could save live children who need insurance for life-saving treatment.  It's not just about abortions, but also a question about how pro-lifers want to help children who are already born.  Conservatives such as Tony Perkins think that providing day care at schools for teen mothers is a bad idea, because girls need to get the message that pre-marital sex is a mistake.  Teach the girl a lesson, but that also hurts her baby.  I suppose one could make an argument that the government shouldn't encourage certain behavior by bailing pregnant girls out, and still oppose abortion, but this position seems to be rather tough-minded. 

Not all people who oppose both abortion and government funding for poor mothers are necessarily bad people or hate women.  It's hard for me to understand them, but I don't claim to understand everything.  Again, nobody in this thread said that all socons are just mean or thoughtless, but there are people on the right (and the left) who are nuts, and are justifiably lampooned.  Since they're good at getting attention, some people may unfairly conclude that they're typical of that ideology. 

Ok, that's fair enough. FTR, I prefer a Bismarckian system with free/heavily subsidized insurance for the poor for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion

[TJ in Oregon]

You're probably correct that the right's anti-science views come into play.  This is a party that seems to invent facts about how women's bodies work to suit their beliefs, e.g. Todd Akin.  However, you have to wonder why conservatives took up that myth about emergency contraception.  Did they just get uniquely bad information, or did the hear what they wanted to hear? 

The science indeed has never indicated that emergency contraception inhibits implantation.  If it does have an small impact on implantation, it would likely be less than ibuprofen.  Since Republicans have never raised the idea of banning ibuprofen, it's pretty suspicious to me, especially since emergency contraception prevents abortion.  Conservatives should be huge fans of emergency contraception and they would be if they were rational people who wanted to reduce the number of abortions.

One of the main reasons why a lot of conservatives think emergency contraceptives prevent implantation rather than ovulation is because they get Plan B mixed up with RU-486, which is an abortifacient. There was also one study that came out in the 70s or 80s suggesting one of the birth control meds (I forget which one) prevented implantation. That study has since been shown incorrect.

Some combination of these is likely the cause. Most people don't know these things so it's no surprised the details of exactly what it is that's an abortifacient became a little confused.

[AggregateDemand]

For the vast, vast majority of human history involving government, that has been the case. If you want to argue it no longer is that's fine but don't pretend like it's outrageous to believe that taxation is generally a negative force.

It's not a belief. It's observational science.

Taxes create massive dead-weight loss, which must be offset with economic productivity. Unfortunately, the liberal-wing of the Democratic Party rejects observational science, and they use the money for moral pursuits, like purchasing a constituency.

[AggregateDemand]

Yeah, it's such a shame that someone making $800,000 a year is only making around $400,000 after taxes. I can't imagine how they survive after such a punishment!

We don't need further confirmation that liberals are smitten with their arrested development.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well, it would be good news for the pro-lifers who actually want to stop abortions. It wouldn't be very good news for the ones who want to punish women for having sex and couldn't care less about abortions, babies, or children.

They exist. 

There is a pronounced tendency among social liberals to assert completely sans evidence that a conservative stance on sexual ethics and morality is due to hatred, bigotry, or in this case some bizarre punishment fantasy. Many social liberals either cannot or will not understand the where social conservatives are coming from, so we get to hear this incredibly self serving narrative about how socons are bad people rather than people who disagree on the basis of ethics.

This obviously isn't true of all pro-lifers or all socons, but the specific case of the rape-and-incest set of exemptions is enough to make me cast something of a cold eye on the motivations of people who support it while still maintaining that life begins at conception. It comes across as disingenuous, because if these are really human lives we're talking about, it makes little sense to make exceptions to their right to be alive on the basis of how they were conceived, whereas if banning abortion is about punishing women for having sex, it makes perfect sense. I've talked to Catholic priests who have said (I can only assume off the record) they'd be willing to live with overall laxer abortion regulations if it was necessary to ensure that the implicit sentiment (or the sentiment that they infer) that lives that begin with rape or incest are inherently worth less after they've begun wasn't enshrined in law.

The rape exception comes mainly out of a sense that banning abortion in case of rape is in one way or another asking too much.  What it is implicitly saying is that there are values other than life, and comes out of a reluctance to demand that people fulfill completely unchosen obligations.  It accepts the logic of appeals to reproductive choice up to a point, but that if one has chosen to have sex one takes responsibility for any life that arises out of that.  The alternative, to say that one has a duty to care for and protect a life one did not in any way choose, is in many ways a counter-cultural position, especially when asked of someone who has been victimized.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, it's such a shame that someone making $800,000 a year is only making around $400,000 after taxes. I can't imagine how they survive after such a punishment!

We don't need further confirmation that liberals are smitten with their arrested development.

This one reminds me of my friend... when unable to contribute anything to do with the actual topic, they swing it back to what they feel comfortable to talk about.

[AggregateDemand]

This one reminds me of my friend... when unable to contribute anything to do with the actual topic, they swing it back to what they feel comfortable to talk about.

I didn't start the conversation about arrested psychological development and wanton morality. I will; however, force Democrats to realize they are just as bad, if not worse, than the right-wing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

<insert mysogynistic Sandra Fluke line here>

[Cory]

I didn't start the conversation about arrested psychological development and wanton morality. I will; however, force Democrats to realize they are just as bad, if not worse, than the right-wing.

Lol.