[Titan]

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.

[Dilmah G]

Sounds like the Catholic Church hasn't changed.

Thought you were referring to this, though.

[MR_T3D]

can't stop the love, man.
so you should just try to reduce consequences.

[Colonol Dekker]

I'm all for it.
Prevention being better than cure etc.
Anything to stop more mini-mes popping up unexpectedly.

[Polpolion]

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.

[Mars]

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.

[Sushi]

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.

[Kosh]

Make love not war?

[Klaustrophobia]

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

[General Battuta]

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.  Or so I hear.

[MR_T3D]

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.  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.

[Herra Tohtori]

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.

[Mars]

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
Reuters

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
Advanced Fertility

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

[Bob-san]

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.

[Sushi]

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.

[iamzack]

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.

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[BengalTiger]

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.

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?

[General Battuta]

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.

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.