If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   GOP: We must do something to stop abortion. Science: How about some free birth control?   (vitals.nbcnews.com) divider line 279
    More: Obvious, GOP, dog foods, Guttmacher Institute, St. Louis area, First Things, birth control, Affordable Care Act, NBC News  
•       •       •

2560 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Oct 2012 at 5:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 05:25:33 PM

austerity101: Except you're *not* out, because we don't have a choice but to provide for these kids, both morally and legally.


So it's "Fark you pay me."

What other aspects of life should we apply this concept to? I mean seeing as "society" is the only responsible party here you say we should just fork over cash to anyone for anything they might do that might tear at the fabric of society. Taking into account the fact that I'm not real big on the concept, perhaps you can give us more examples where a person's...ahem...choice to do something might harm society and where we, as the protectors of society, rather than allow it to be negatively affected should just write a blank check to keep the peace.
 
2012-10-05 05:44:21 PM

austerity101: Except you're *not* out, because we don't have a choice but to provide for these kids, both morally and legally. Are you seriously suggesting that you, or anyone, should get to say, "Screw that, I'm not contributing to this fund to help kids. If their parents aren't gonna help, they can just starve"?

That's not a society.


Let's not forget, it's only the helpless that "just starve". Those of able body steal. Or kill.
And people can say "well, they shouldn't." And you're right, but they're going to. Just like they're going to keep humpin' on each other. Humans only exist as a species because we, like all creatures on earth, are extremely motivated to copulate. Trying to get people to stop having sex by telling them to control themselves is going to work about as well as trying to limit the snakehead population by dropping abstinence education pamphlets into Florida's waterways. We are animals with animal instincts, just like them.

But, once again, this isn't about identifying a problem and finding a convenient, low-cost solution. It's about moral superiority.
 
2012-10-05 05:50:42 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Monkeyhouse Zendo: What is the advantage of limiting "free" birth control options to surgery over covering the full range of birth control options?

You get what you want at a minimum cost to those that are paying for it.


The fact that you're talking about sterilization rather than contraception aside, surgery is less expensive than ten years of the pill?
 
2012-10-05 06:06:05 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: So it's "Fark you pay me."


This is the scenario I envision is playing out in your head:

An angry, poor black woman with terrible manners, probably somewhat overweight and extremely sassy, knocking on your door and saying (in your brain's stereotypical blaccent) "Hey, Mista Anson, I wanna get buck wild this weekend. Pay for mah berf control." When you refuse, she gets extremely indignant, and goes off and has as much sex as she can, gets pregnant, and has a baby.

But she glares at you the entire time. Just staring you down. Barely blinking, never breaking eye contact, not during sex, not during morning sickness, not even during childbirth. Just glaring at you silently. She doesn't even look at the baby once it's delivered. She just holds it out to you, as if you say "What now, mista Anson? What now?"

When you phrase it as if the recipient of birth control is demanding your money, that's the picture that I imagine plays out if your furious little head.

The truth of it is that people who are actually trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the negative consequences thereof have suggested (with some good evidence) that the best way to get those with the least means to more reliably use birth control is to make it available at no cost to them.
 
2012-10-05 06:12:17 PM

flux: The truth of it is that people who are actually trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the negative consequences thereof have suggested (with some good evidence) that the best way to get those with the least means to more reliably use birth control is to make it available at no cost to them.


Yes but then DIA can't demand that they be sterilized rather than simply have access to contraception until the time and situation is right. The recipients of his largess haven't sacrificed their ability to bear children at the altar of his generosity as a demonstration of their submission and subservience.
 
2012-10-05 06:14:14 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: The fact that you're talking about sterilization rather than contraception aside, surgery is less expensive than ten years of the pill?


Well, with the pill you run the risk of it not being taken, or other factors including negative medical side effects. While I don't have the cost of the surgery (outpatient) probably runs ~ $800 for a vasectomy and ~$1250 for a tubal (10 years of the pill at an average cost of $35/month x 120 months is much higher) with a better success rate than hormonal contraceptives and a much lower chance of negative side effects.
 
2012-10-05 06:14:16 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: austerity101: Except you're *not* out, because we don't have a choice but to provide for these kids, both morally and legally.

So it's "Fark you pay me."

What other aspects of life should we apply this concept to? I mean seeing as "society" is the only responsible party here you say we should just fork over cash to anyone for anything they might do that might tear at the fabric of society. Taking into account the fact that I'm not real big on the concept, perhaps you can give us more examples where a person's...ahem...choice to do something might harm society and where we, as the protectors of society, rather than allow it to be negatively affected should just write a blank check to keep the peace.


$10 a month in progesterone is the equivalent of a "blank check?" Hyperbole much?
 
2012-10-05 06:16:05 PM

flux: The truth of it is that people who are actually trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the negative consequences thereof have suggested (with some good evidence) that the best way to get those with the least means to more reliably use birth control is to make it available at no cost to them.


Which is exactly what I'm advocating.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Yes but then DIA can't demand that they be sterilized rather than simply have access to contraception until the time and situation is right. The recipients of his largess haven't sacrificed their ability to bear children at the altar of his generosity as a demonstration of their submission and subservience.


I'm not demanding anything. I'm offering a choice.
 
2012-10-05 06:18:04 PM

Chthonic Echoes: $10 a month in progesterone is the equivalent of a "blank check?" Hyperbole much?


You would demand that only one type of contraceptive be made available...Hmmm...
 
2012-10-05 06:24:40 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I'm not demanding anything. I'm offering a choice.


No, you're demanding an arbitrary and unappealing limitation because you don't like the idea of spending a dime to save a dollar if you don't get to have your ego stroked in the process.
 
2012-10-05 06:30:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: flux: The truth of it is that people who are actually trying to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the negative consequences thereof have suggested (with some good evidence) that the best way to get those with the least means to more reliably use birth control is to make it available at no cost to them.

Which is exactly what I'm advocating.


And I've also gotta qualify here: I totally support the temporary sterilization option, for men and women. I can understand arguments against it from an ethical standpoint, I guess, but from a purely practical standpoint, I'm all for it, as long as it's an option that wears off on its own; reversible methods... not so much. That presents a problem.

But what's that shot-in-the-butt form of birth control? The one that lasts about a month? Hell, make it a cash incentive for anyone already receiving any kind of Gov. assistance -- come get your shot in the butt, we give you ten bucks. I imagine it would pay for itself pretty quick.
 
2012-10-05 06:34:11 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Chthonic Echoes: $10 a month in progesterone is the equivalent of a "blank check?" Hyperbole much?

You would demand that only one type of contraceptive be made available...Hmmm...


Who's demanding anything? The $35 a month you mentioned upthread isn't a blank check either, nor is the $1200 quote for five years of IUD courtesy of TFA. Even surgical sterilization isn't a blank check, if you insist that be offered in the range of options provided by a government program. Who am I to deny you?
 
2012-10-05 06:34:21 PM

flux: But what's that shot-in-the-butt form of birth control? The one that lasts about a month? Hell, make it a cash incentive for anyone already receiving any kind of Gov. assistance -- come get your shot in the butt, we give you ten bucks. I imagine it would pay for itself pretty quick.


The only downsidebof that plan is you'd be accused of practicing eugenics, stomping out the lower class, racism, classism, and thousand other things. And maybe you would be. It still makes sense, all that ugliness aside.
 
2012-10-05 07:28:12 PM
I see we're Potatoin' in Fark tonight.
 
2012-10-05 07:51:39 PM

CreamFilling: Compare cervcal cancer incidence and death rates now to the 1940's. Or now in the US to a third work country. You've picked one article out of a mountain of literature and highlighted a segment of it. And even the part you've picked doesn't fully support your point. It suggests that for low risk women, which is a small subset of the population at large, Pap smears are still important but should be used and evaluated judiciously.


Low-risk women a small subset? How do you figure that? They're talking about tens of millions of women of childbearing age. If there was as much risk as you imply in birth control pills that low-risk women were the small subset who could take the pill without side effects, I don't know as the Pill would have even been legal in the first place.

But it's been used safely for five decades now, with no more side effects than all sorts of other OTC medications. We have abundant evidence from other countries that women are as capable of making their own birth-control method choices as I am of picking out which toothpaste to buy. The FDA's been kicking around letting birth control pills go OTC for 19 years. At this point the holdup is not medical or scientific, it's political - the usual religious whargarblers, and the medical industry which fears the loss of a regular payday that comes without a whole lot of heavy lifting.
 
2012-10-05 08:36:55 PM

Gulper Eel: CreamFilling: Compare cervcal cancer incidence and death rates now to the 1940's. Or now in the US to a third work country. You've picked one article out of a mountain of literature and highlighted a segment of it. And even the part you've picked doesn't fully support your point. It suggests that for low risk women, which is a small subset of the population at large, Pap smears are still important but should be used and evaluated judiciously.

Low-risk women a small subset? How do you figure that? They're talking about tens of millions of women of childbearing age. If there was as much risk as you imply in birth control pills that low-risk women were the small subset who could take the pill without side effects, I don't know as the Pill would have even been legal in the first place.

But it's been used safely for five decades now, with no more side effects than all sorts of other OTC medications. We have abundant evidence from other countries that women are as capable of making their own birth-control method choices as I am of picking out which toothpaste to buy. The FDA's been kicking around letting birth control pills go OTC for 19 years. At this point the holdup is not medical or scientific, it's political - the usual religious whargarblers, and the medical industry which fears the loss of a regular payday that comes without a whole lot of heavy lifting.


Where did you get the idea I was talking about risk of birth control pills? Low risk refers to risk of HPV and cervical cancer. I'd assume you'd realize that if you'd read any of the scientific articles instead of a blog post.
 
2012-10-05 09:41:08 PM
I don't know why I should pay taxes for police and jails. Criminals should just not commit crimes. How about that? Then my hard-earned money would have to go to fund police depts and courts and jails. It's so unfair!
 
2012-10-06 12:09:07 AM
s/free/societally subsidized/

Carry on...
 
2012-10-06 02:11:59 AM

Graffito: I don't know why I should pay taxes for police and jails. Criminals should just not commit crimes. How about that? Then my hard-earned money would have to go to fund police depts and courts and jails. It's so unfair!


I know! If only those crime sluts could keep their filthy stealing urges in check.
 
2012-10-06 04:42:51 AM

Gulper Eel: The FDA's been kicking around letting birth control pills go OTC for 19 years. At this point the holdup is not medical or scientific, it's political - the usual religious whargarblers, and the medical industry which fears the loss of a regular payday that comes without a whole lot of heavy lifting.


"The Pill" is not a generic, always safe, one-size-fits-all medication. There are multiple varieties and formulations for hormonal birth control pills, so that's part of the reason you need a doctor to check you out and prescribe the right one for you. Another reason birth control pills aren't a good option for OTC: the potential for massive lawsuits if the pill doesn't work or causes severe side effects (among them: a risk of heart attack, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, liver tumors, and gallstones).

Hormones are powerful things. Among the side effects for men taking women's birth control pills: growing your own pair of titties.
 
2012-10-06 05:27:20 AM

WordyGrrl: "The Pill" is not a generic, always safe, one-size-fits-all medication. There are multiple varieties and formulations for hormonal birth control pills, so that's part of the reason you need a doctor to check you out and prescribe the right one for you. Another reason birth control pills aren't a good option for OTC: the potential for massive lawsuits if the pill doesn't work or causes severe side effects (among them: a risk of heart attack, stroke, blood clots, high blood pressure, liver tumors, and gallstones).

Hormones are powerful things. Among the side effects for men taking women's birth control pills: growing your own pair of titties.


There are similar potential side effects for hundreds of OTC medications. Aspirin: nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal bleeding, kidney disease, Reye's syndrome, tinnitus, rash, liver toxicity and the always-popular black, bloody or tarry stools.

And you think we need the state stepping in because without almighty nanny running the show men might take birth control pills? srsly?
 
2012-10-06 01:45:02 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Hickory-smoked: DIA needs that clause to support his feelings of moral superiority.

What the ever loving fark are you babbling about?


It's pretty obvious; I'm suggesting your particular insistence on tubal ligation is not based on cost-effectiveness. If it was, we could simply ask an OBGYN for the best option and there'd be nothing to argue about. Instead, you show every sign that the invasive surgery and difficulty in reversal are actually positive attributes, because people who rely on government assistance deserve some form of penalty involved, even at the cost of efficiency or adoption.

Am I misrepresenting your views? If not, why don't we simply agree that free contraception is a social and economic positive and leave it at that?
 
2012-10-06 06:49:47 PM
Late to thread, but let's just throw into the mix the moral outrage resulting in recommending our 12-yo slut daughters be vaccinated against HPV, which causes 99% of cervical cancers. Because it's sexually transmitted. Regardless of the fact that they can contract it from their husband who got it years ago from his prom date. And didn't know it because there aren't symptoms in men.

Ironically, the recent announcement that young boys also be vaccinated, met with much higher approval.

The Spector of effectively eliminating the incidence of cervical cancer should be exciting. But oh no! Our daughters deserve whatever they get from their immoral ways. Even the potential of death from a preventable disease.

Our boys? Oh yes! Let's protect them from the skanky harlots!

This debate isn't about birth control, abortion, or public health. It's all about punishing all the sluts in the world, who will sleep with everyone--but them. And they're butthurt.
 
2012-10-07 08:55:57 PM

ThatsJustWrong!: Ironically, the recent announcement that young boys also be vaccinated, met with much higher approval.


...source?
 
2012-10-07 09:30:38 PM

abb3w: ThatsJustWrong!: Ironically, the recent announcement that young boys also be vaccinated, met with much higher approval.

...source?


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/27/147508943/pediatricians-re c ommend-hpv-vaccination-for-boys

FTFA: In Rhode Island, where HPV vaccination of boys has been common, there's been no backlash, NPR's Dick Knox reported last year. "There's been a surprisingly muted reaction," Dr. Don Dizon, a Brown University oncologist, told him. "We tend to believe that girls are chaste and are going to 'save themselves for marriage.' But, you know, sexual activity is something that's almost expected of boys."
 
2012-10-07 09:54:49 PM

ThatsJustWrong!: FTFA: In Rhode Island, where HPV vaccination of boys has been common, there's been no backlash, NPR's Dick Knox reported last year. "There's been a surprisingly muted reaction,"


Thanks.

Still a hair skeptical, as I can't turn up RI-specific accounts on the reaction to having girls vaccinated, so it might in part be from regional differences. On the other hand, it may well be exactly as the doctor conjectures: it's presumed all boys are sluts for any girl who wants them, and so the HPV vax is just plain good sense.
 
2012-10-08 12:22:51 AM

abb3w: ThatsJustWrong!: FTFA: In Rhode Island, where HPV vaccination of boys has been common, there's been no backlash, NPR's Dick Knox reported last year. "There's been a surprisingly muted reaction,"

Thanks.

Still a hair skeptical, as I can't turn up RI-specific accounts on the reaction to having girls vaccinated, so it might in part be from regional differences. On the other hand, it may well be exactly as the doctor conjectures: it's presumed all boys are sluts for any girl who wants them, and so the HPV vax is just plain good sense.


My pleasure. This was only the first of many, a quick Googlie on HPV boys. Incidentally, this was written back in Feb. I read a story much more recently that spoke more specifically about gender bias for vaccination among religious conservatives. I will try to locate it. But in short, it's disturbing that such attitudes continue.
 
2012-10-08 01:48:39 AM

ThatsJustWrong!: I read a story much more recently that spoke more specifically about gender bias for vaccination among religious conservatives. I will try to locate it.


It wouldn't surprise me. However, I do prefer reading from primary sources when possible, as it seems to reduce the number of "I think I heard somewhere" vague references floating in my memory.
 
2012-10-08 01:49:31 AM

ThatsJustWrong!: My pleasure.


...and again, thanks.
 
Displayed 29 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report