Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Titan on November 01, 2010, 09:28:49 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control)
But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care.
"We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."
I disagree with that. Honestly, we are currently in the midst of a sexual revolution. No kids my age are willing to stay abstinent. The fact of the matter is, teens these days get exposed to sex so much via TV and the internet, there's very little thought of 'This is an evil thing, I should wait until I get married'. Sex is far more of a normal interaction then it was, say, 20 years ago. Why don't they just give in and make a safety net for something that's going to happen anyways?
On a side note, I love how the EVIL news media is stirring people up by purposely putting religion into this article to create controversy.
-
Sounds like the Catholic Church hasn't changed.
Thought you were referring to this, though. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/anger-over-depraved-contraceptive-pill-program-for-13-year-old-uk-girls/story-fn3dxity-1225946367876)
-
can't stop the love, man.
so you should just try to reduce consequences.
-
I'm all for it.
Prevention being better than cure etc.
Anything to stop more mini-mes popping up unexpectedly.
-
To be honest, free condoms sound like a better idea. Those at least help prevent disease transfer, too. I'm not sure which is a more cost-effective solution, though.
-
I really doubt that anyone would use Morning After pills as a primary contraceptive. The side effects (and primary effects) are unpleasant for many people.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control)
But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care.
"We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."
Makes sense to me.
Honestly, we are currently in the midst of a sexual revolution. No kids my age are willing to stay abstinent.
This is hyperbole at best. And at any rate, I'm deeply unhappy about having to subsidize the promiscuity of "kids your age" through my insurance premiums, which of course go up when this stuff is covered. Man/Woman up and keep it zipped until you're ready to handle the consequences without society paying for them for you.
-
Make love not war?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101031/ap_on_he_me/us_birth_control)
But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care.
"We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."
Makes sense to me.
Honestly, we are currently in the midst of a sexual revolution. No kids my age are willing to stay abstinent.
This is hyperbole at best. And at any rate, I'm deeply unhappy about having to subsidize the promiscuity of "kids your age" through my insurance premiums, which of course go up when this stuff is covered. Man/Woman up and keep it zipped until you're ready to handle the consequences without society paying for them for you.
this. and i am a "kid your age". going along with something because it's "going to happen anyway" is an extremely poor reasoning
-
This is hyperbole at best. And at any rate, I'm deeply unhappy about having to subsidize the promiscuity of "kids your age" through my insurance premiums, which of course go up when this stuff is covered. Man/Woman up and keep it zipped until you're ready to handle the consequences without society paying for them for you.
Teen pregnancy rates are actually pretty low right now. This promiscuity business is a myth.
The threat we see to that is the uptick in teen pregnancy that began around the time abstinence-only started gaining ground. :nervous: Or so I hear.
-
This is hyperbole at best. And at any rate, I'm deeply unhappy about having to subsidize the promiscuity of "kids your age" through my insurance premiums, which of course go up when this stuff is covered. Man/Woman up and keep it zipped until you're ready to handle the consequences without society paying for them for you.
Teen pregnancy rates are actually pretty low right now. This promiscuity business is a myth.
The threat we see to that is the uptick in teen pregnancy that began around the time abstinence-only started gaining ground. :nervous: Or so I hear.
indeed.
My take on it abstinence is even if it prevented 1 in 4 teen couples from love-making, then at least as many would probably end up doing it protection-free, which is worse than more kids trying it, and possibly messing up their lives with disease/preggers.
-
As soon as that morning pill neutralizes all possible venereal infections, fills my tax form and removes hang-over (and maybe cures cancer), sure, why not.
If it just prevents pregnancy, providing such an (un)solution for free would be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. If people were to start using just that (and knowing how people are usually fundamentally lazy, some would) it could discourage the use of condoms, which would lead to increase in STD infection rates.
Free condoms would be almost infinitely better solution. Besides, if you don't have a canteen in a jungle, you can use them instead. They can hold over a litre of water.
-
This is hyperbole at best. And at any rate, I'm deeply unhappy about having to subsidize the promiscuity of "kids your age" through my insurance premiums, which of course go up when this stuff is covered. Man/Woman up and keep it zipped until you're ready to handle the consequences without society paying for them for you.
Young people use condoms more than older sexually active people:
The Life Files (http://www.thelifefiles.com/2010/10/05/lets-talk/)
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0344521820070104)
It's not in most sub 25 year olds best interests to have / cause a pregnancy, whether or not it's prevented. And it's not in societies best interest to have a high rate of unwanted children.
People have been having sex longer than any of us have been alive.
Abortion rates are fairly consistent among sexually active and fertile age groups, starting to drop off in the 30-34 age bracket, which is also when fertility statistically begins to drop off.
Abortion Facts (http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/age.asp)
Advanced Fertility (http://www.advancedfertility.com/age.htm)
I can find no real statistics for the morning pill, but I suspect usage follows a similar pattern. I cannot prove this assumption however.
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Free condoms would be almost infinitely better solution.
Agreed
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Free condoms would be almost infinitely better solution.
Agreed
And condom's aren't (and shouldn't be) "One Size Fits All". Those who are endowed and those who aren't may have quite a few issues.
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
Lol, like we are not going to have sex if we don't have easy access to contraceptives? We can subsidize the contraceptives or we can subsidize the unwanted babies of unprepared young couples.
-
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
This predicates on sex being irresponsible. Considering it is a biological drive of similar scale to eating or sleeping, that is at best false and more likely a deliberate distortion of reality.
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
Lol, like we are not going to have sex if we don't have easy access to contraceptives? We can subsidize the contraceptives or we can subsidize the unwanted babies of unprepared young couples.
How hard exactly is your access to contraceptives? Is it really unaffordable or unavailable for whatever reason?
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
This predicates on sex being irresponsible. Considering it is a biological drive of similar scale to eating or sleeping, that is at best false and more likely a deliberate distortion of reality.
And you subsidize food and sleeping for them?
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
Lol, like we are not going to have sex if we don't have easy access to contraceptives? We can subsidize the contraceptives or we can subsidize the unwanted babies of unprepared young couples.
How hard exactly is your access to contraceptives? Is it really unaffordable or unavailable for whatever reason?
Getting an IUD is near impossible without insurance coverage. Condoms are bloody expensive.
-
And you subsidize food and sleeping for them?
Are you saying that there do not exist government and private charitable programs, widely lauded by all, which attempt to provide food and shelter to teenagers and children? Because if so, I think you're living in some kind of different reality from the rest of us and no dialogue is possible.
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
Lol, like we are not going to have sex if we don't have easy access to contraceptives? We can subsidize the contraceptives or we can subsidize the unwanted babies of unprepared young couples.
How hard exactly is your access to contraceptives? Is it really unaffordable or unavailable for whatever reason?
Getting an IUD is near impossible without insurance coverage. Condoms are bloody expensive.
My birth control is $18/mo with insurance. I used to use cheaper stuff, but the side effects ****ed me up.
Besides being expensive, everyone I knew when we were younger teenagers thought you had to be 18 to buy condoms (teachers aren't allowed to tell us anything except that condoms are massive failures and you might as well inject yourself with AIDS). Of course, after figuring out that wasn't right, then there's the issue of condoms always being kept in plain sight of the register. Possibly to prevent theft, but it's definitely intimidating to a 15 year old to be staring at a wall of condoms trying to figure out which ones to buy, assuming people are watching.
They should have little vending machines in high school bathrooms for condoms, like they do for tampons and pads. Easy access, affordable, no intimidation factor..
-
No kids my age are willing to stay abstinent.
I disagree.
And that's just about the only thing I can weigh in on in this topic with any knowledge whatsoever, so I'll just see myself out.
-
But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness.
But those pills also prevents stuff like PMS from happening.
-
Are you saying that there do not exist government and private charitable programs, widely lauded by all, which attempt to provide food and shelter to teenagers and children? Because if so, I think you're living in some kind of different reality from the rest of us and no dialogue is possible.
Well those don't sponsor everybody, only the hungry and homeless. Sorry I didn't specify which teenagers I was thinking about.
P.S. $18/month should be less than you spend for food per week.
Also- wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom) gives condoms Pregnancy rates (first year, latex):
Perfect use 2%
Typical use 10–18%
-
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
Lol, like we are not going to have sex if we don't have easy access to contraceptives? We can subsidize the contraceptives or we can subsidize the unwanted babies of unprepared young couples.
Or, we could subsidize neither. So cruel of me, I know.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
This predicates on sex being irresponsible.
Sex isn't inherently irresponsible, but it certainly can be done irresponsibly. Sex without being prepared to deal with the consequences yourself is, IMHO, irresponsible. I have nothing against birth control, but IMHO it's something that shouldn't be subsidized. I understand that it's probably "cheaper" to pay for birth control than to pay for supporting unwanted pregnancies, but I'm grumpy that I have to subsidize either.
Considering it is a biological drive of similar scale to eating or sleeping, that is at best false and more likely a deliberate distortion of reality.
I definitely disagree with this. It's certainly a strong biological imperative, but not one necessary for survival. That's a pretty crucial distinction.
-
Also- wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom) gives condoms Pregnancy rates (first year, latex):
Perfect use 2%
Typical use 10–18%[/color]
This is why you need an IUD, which is expensive as hell but is also the #1 closest-to-foolproof method used by birth control specialists. That says something.
-
Are you saying that there do not exist government and private charitable programs, widely lauded by all, which attempt to provide food and shelter to teenagers and children? Because if so, I think you're living in some kind of different reality from the rest of us and no dialogue is possible.
Well those don't sponsor everybody, only the hungry and homeless. Sorry I didn't specify which teenagers I was thinking about.
P.S. $18/month should be less than you spend for food per week.
It is, but only barely. Luckily, I don't pay for either as long as I eat dining hall food, and I don't have to pay the insurance premiums either.
My point is, stop blaming "The Kids" for your insurance premiums.
Fair enough. I'm just extremely unsympathetic to "teenagers can't help themselves so we need to subsidize their irresponsibility" argument.
Besides, I've got plenty of other things that raise my premiums to be grumpy about. :p
Lol, like we are not going to have sex if we don't have easy access to contraceptives? We can subsidize the contraceptives or we can subsidize the unwanted babies of unprepared young couples.
Or, we could subsidize neither. So cruel of me, I know.
So, what, let the babies born to kids rot?
-
I definitely disagree with this. It's certainly a strong biological imperative, but not one necessary for survival. That's a pretty crucial distinction.
Your argument makes no sense. It's necessary for the survival of the species. If you die without reproducing, the species could die. Reproduction is probably higher on the list of biological imperatives than personal survival, witness the number of species that risk their lives merely to get close to the opposite sex.
-
I definitely disagree with this. It's certainly a strong biological imperative, but not one necessary for survival. That's a pretty crucial distinction.
Your argument makes no sense. It's necessary for the survival of the species. If you die without reproducing, the species could die. Reproduction is probably higher on the list of biological imperatives than personal survival, witness the number of species that risk their lives merely to get close to the opposite sex.
So why subsidize birth control then?
-
Why do you people want so many babies? We have enough babies. We especially don't need to have them produced by people who don't even want them.
-
I definitely disagree with this. It's certainly a strong biological imperative, but not one necessary for survival. That's a pretty crucial distinction.
Your argument makes no sense. It's necessary for the survival of the species. If you die without reproducing, the species could die. Reproduction is probably higher on the list of biological imperatives than personal survival, witness the number of species that risk their lives merely to get close to the opposite sex.
So why subsidize birth control then?
His argument is that the drive for sex is incredibly powerful, but it needs to be decoupled from (now socially harmful) young reproduction.
Personally I think sex is really important for building a secure, stable relationship. Not the only thing, but until it gets worked out between the two of you, usually by practice, it's going to be a nervous unknown hanging over the whole affair. And leaving it for the wedding night is a recipe for disaster, especially for the poor bride.
-
Or, we could subsidize neither. So cruel of me, I know.
So, what, let the babies born to kids rot?
Oops, I thought I'd deleted that. :o The next paragraph down (responding to NGMT-R) was actually supposed to be a response to you, got them sort of mixed up.
To respond anyway: no, of course not. I'm OK with social services to help young mothers/mothers-to-be. I'm even OK with government sponsored ones (as local as reasonably possible), if no private charitable organizations are around to do it. But I strongly dislike the idea of having that cost added to the insurance burden for a number of reasons. A lot of that has to do with my belief that our current healthcare "insurance" system is completely fubared, and I'd rather not make it even more of a morass than it already is.
I definitely disagree with this. It's certainly a strong biological imperative, but not one necessary for survival. That's a pretty crucial distinction.
Your argument makes no sense. It's necessary for the survival of the species. If you die without reproducing, the species could die. Reproduction is probably higher on the list of biological imperatives than personal survival, witness the number of species that risk their lives merely to get close to the opposite sex.
Your point is well taken, but I stand by my assertion that you can't directly equate it with food and sleep in terms of necessity for individuals.
And leaving it for the wedding night is a recipe for disaster, especially for the poor bride.
I'm going to simply state that I vehemently disagree with this and leave it at that. :)
-
And leaving it for the wedding night is a recipe for disaster, especially for the poor bride.
I'm going to simply state that I vehemently disagree with this and leave it at that. :)
Sex sucks until you have a lot of practice at it. I mean, I'm sure there may be naturals out there, but for most of us, it takes mutual learning and exploration. Goes double for women.
-
how good can a relationship be if that isn't understood and awkward sex has an effect on the relationship as a whole?
-
how good can a relationship be if that isn't understood and awkward sex has an effect on the relationship as a whole?
wut
Learning to have good sex is part of building a healthy relationship.
-
Bah, if you want to reduce teenage pregnancies you could step them down to very low figures with a two step program.
1. Parents decide which program they want to put their kids into at school, abstinence only or full and frank sex ed (with birth control handed out for free).
2. If your kid becomes pregnant anyway you end up having to pay child support same as you would if you were the parent.
The second you start making parents financially responsible you'd start seeing them actually talking to their kids about sex rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
-
Bah, if you want to reduce teenage pregnancies you could step them down to very low figures with a two step program.
1. Parents decide which program they want to put their kids into at school, abstinence only or full and frank sex ed (with birth control handed out for free).
2. If your kid becomes pregnant anyway you end up having to pay child support same as you would if you were the parent.
The second you start making parents financially responsible you'd start seeing them actually talking to their kids about sex rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
It's not really a representative sample, but for the pregnant girls I knew of in middle school and high school, that really wouldn't do a thing whatsoever.
-
Bah, just remove the "evil" surrounding early-stage abortion, give out (and educate about) effective birth control, and teach kids about STDs. The kids who **** up were likely going to **** up anyway. The kids who are somewhat responsible will not have to make the choice between the "embarrassment" of having and/or asking for contraceptives, and having unprotected sex. The responsible ones will keep being responsible, with the added bonus of free contraceptives.
This abstinence **** is getting way out of hand, and in my opinion, is almost purely religious rhetoric. Young people are going to have sex. Get used to it, and make it as safe and controllable as possible. It's crazy how people act like this "sex" thing is a new phenomenon.
Yes I said the word abortion. I love being flamebait.
-
The kids who are somewhat responsible will not have to make the choice between the "embarrassment" of having and/or asking for contraceptives, and having unprotected sex.
The other option is stealing condoms from your parents' bedroom. That's what I did. :3
-
I always loved the hilarious idea that if we bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen then nothing bad will happen.
It's a species imperative that isn't "compatible" with modern society in a nubmer of ways therefore we invented all sorts of ingenius methods of preventing pregnancy. Interestingly enough... only the smartest species on the planet engage in sex for non-reproductive purposes. That was always interesting to me as well.
-
It's a species imperative that isn't "compatible" with modern society in a nubmer of ways therefore we invented all sorts of ingenius methods of preventing pregnancy. Interestingly enough... only the smartest species on the planet engage in sex for non-reproductive purposes. That was always interesting to me as well.
I think it's the opposite. Sex is an act guided by instinct and pleasure principle by the vast majority of animal species (which is not exactly the same as goal being "having fun" but closer than cognitively recognizing that the consequence of this act is that the female will give birth to the offspring after t amount of time passes).
It's just fulfillment of very basic level needs for most of them, and needs to be triggered by correct stimuli such as visual or olfactory cues.
Some species do make the connection between the act of mating feeling good, but I doubt their cognitive abilities are sufficient to handle it as such. Dolphins, bonobos and humans on the other hand, do recognize sex as a means of having fun at the very least.
Whether dolphins, bonobos or some other species cognitively recognize sex as an act connected to reproduction remains unknown. Most likely bonobos (and other apes) are able to make the connection, but whether or not they do or if sex is just/mainly an act of social communication to them... well, until we establish better communications with these species, we can't really know.
And who knows what the hell dolphins think. They are able to kidnap females and gang rape them, so definitely they do make the connection of sex and it feeling good (at least for themselves). :blah:
So, actually I would say the only species confirmed to consciously engage in sex for reproduction is human. Species like apes, dolphins, other cetaceans and maybe elephants - possible, but unconfirmed.