Free birth control reduces abortion rate

[MillCreek]

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

If you want to dramatically decrease abortions, offer free birth control.  Especially in St. Louis.

[Perd Hapley]

“When you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesn’t matter what side one is on politically, that’s a good thing.”

Unless you're on the don't-make-me-pay-for-your-stuff side.

[RevDisk]

Just being pragmatic, but if you don't want abortion or welfare for children, why not pay for contraception? Ignoring ideology and strictly economically speaking. Contraception is cheaper than abortion. Abortion is cheaper than a theoretical 18 years of various welfare. Morally, it very much varies by individual.

I get that all three have ideological implications, but I'd argue the it's the least worst choice. Some folks tend to forget that a very large percent of folks DO want socialism. Heck, a very large percent of folks probably want some form of monarchy. Or theocracy. Sometimes the least worst decision is a heck of a lot better than the other very probable alternatives. Make a small concession of a couple million today, or pay tens of billions later. It's not perfect, and doesn't solve everything. But it likely mitigates a lot.

[MillCreek]

From a future cost standpoint, it would seem that free contraception pencils out a lot better than abortions or the societal cost of more children (ignoring the ethical or moral issues).  I would think that especially if you are on the 'don't make me pay for your stuff' side, paying a tiny amount in taxes to provide free contraceptives is better than paying larger amounts in taxes to build more schools and infrastructure to accommodate more kids.  But this issue is not even primarily about costs, that has been subsumed by the debate over religious and moral issues. 

[Jamisjockey]

From a future cost standpoint, it would seem that free contraception pencils out a lot better than abortions or the societal cost of more children (ignoring the ethical or moral issues).  I would think that especially if you are on the 'don't make me pay for your stuff' side, paying a tiny amount in taxes to provide free contraceptives is better than paying larger amounts in taxes to build more schools and infrastructure to accommodate more kids.  But this issue is not even primarily about costs, that has been subsumed by the debate over religious and moral issues. 

I should have to pay for the consequences of someone elses copulation. Nor for the prevention thereof.
Period.
Whether I'm morally for or against abortion or the use of concraceptives.
Period.

[Ron]

I shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of someone elses copulation. Nor for the prevention thereof.
Period.
Whether I'm morally for or against abortion or the use of contraceptives.
Period.

I think you meant this

[RevDisk]

I shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of someone elses copulation. Nor for the prevention thereof.
Period.
Whether I'm morally for or against abortion or the use of concraceptives.
Period.

If you had a gun pointed at you by IRS agents (which you do), which of the three would you subsidize?

[Perd Hapley]

I would think that especially if you are on the 'don't make me pay for your stuff' side, paying a tiny amount in taxes to provide free contraceptives is better than paying larger amounts in taxes to build more schools and infrastructure to accommodate more kids. 

   Who do you think is opposed to abortion or contraceptives, but at the same time opposed to there being more children?

But this issue is not even primarily about costs, that has been subsumed by the debate over religious and moral issues. 

One would hope so.

[MillCreek]

 Who do you think is opposed to abortion or contraceptives, but at the same time opposed to there being more children?
One would hope so.

Who do you think is opposed to abortion or contraceptives, but at the same time opposed to there being more children?

If it is solely a societal cost issue for you, then paying more to build schools and infrastructure for more children would really stick in your craw.  I am not saying your craw, but those who are opposed to society paying anything for children, such as the rugged individualists who think that sending their kids to private school means that society pays nothing for their children.

One would hope so.

And of course, such moral or religious beliefs are not universally shared, as much as the adherents of them would hope.

[Jamisjockey]

If you had a gun pointed at you by IRS agents (which you do), which of the three would you subsidize?

As soon as the use of force is applied by government, you lose all choice.  If I could magically pick and know that there is no way that the government could change where the money goes, then I would choose schooling.  

[brimic]

I don't have a hobby of producing unwed mothers but I do like shooting guns.
I want free ammunition dammit!
To deny me this entitlement is racist.

[RevDisk]

As soon as the use of force is applied by government, you lose all choice.  If I could magically pick and know that there is no way that the government could change where the money goes, then I would choose schooling.  

True, I did not think of that particular option. Sex Ed or abstinence classes[1], I'm guessing? 

And the first line is not entirely true. You are under force of government to pay taxes. At gunpoint. However, you have SOME input into government as well. Not huge amounts, but some. Why do you think we the freedoms we still possess when it comes to firearms? You're still paying a 10% tax on every single gun and cartridge (again, at gunpoint) but you possess some level of freedom in the matter. Just not an absolute one.


[1] Admittedly, from my own anecdotal experience, abstinence classes are actually worse than no classes. So I usually discount them mentally. Not everyone does.

[AZRedhawk44]

From a future cost standpoint, it would seem that free contraception pencils out a lot better than abortions or the societal cost of more children (ignoring the ethical or moral issues).  I would think that especially if you are on the 'don't make me pay for your stuff' side, paying a tiny amount in taxes to provide free contraceptives is better than paying larger amounts in taxes to build more schools and infrastructure to accommodate more kids.  But this issue is not even primarily about costs, that has been subsumed by the debate over religious and moral issues. 

Just being pragmatic, but if you don't want abortion or welfare for children, why not pay for contraception? Ignoring ideology and strictly economically speaking. Contraception is cheaper than abortion. Abortion is cheaper than a theoretical 18 years of various welfare. Morally, it very much varies by individual.

You're operating under the assumed fallacy of:  EITHER abortion OR contraception.

The truth of the matter is they want both.  Tax-subsidized contraception is just the easier of the two to get right now, and they are catering to the Tea Party / Libertarian angle that might get some resonance on this issue.

I get that all three have ideological implications, but I'd argue the it's the least worst choice. Some folks tend to forget that a very large percent of folks DO want socialism. Heck, a very large percent of folks probably want some form of monarchy. Or theocracy. Sometimes the least worst decision is a heck of a lot better than the other very probable alternatives. Make a small concession of a couple million today, or pay tens of billions later. It's not perfect, and doesn't solve everything. But it likely mitigates a lot.

This, in red, in spades.

Just a nibble.  Then a bit more.  Come on, let's "compromise."  You don't want to pay for abhorshins?  Well, how about paying for pills and shots and rubbers?  See, that's not so bad!  Oh, wait... Fanquisha got pregnant because she missed her appointment for her shot.  Would you just pay for her abhorshin?  Come on... let's "compromise."  

And so on.

[brimic]

Subsidizing bad behavior only encourages the behavior.


The whole 'paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for welfare or abortions' argument completely ignores the fact that in either case, money is being stolen from one person and being given to another.

I equate this to 'needle exchange' programs- where lefty dogooders think that by making a vice easier, it will prevent negative consequences but instead leads to unintended consequences.

Implants and IUds might lower costs associated with abortions or welfare, but I'd really like to see are the statistics in the levels of STDs amongst the participants and the costs in treating these.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/health_med_fit/rates-of-stds-among-teens-reach-epidemic-levels/article_96d0ee57-e3dc-59d7-a5ec-e5cbc5b71ffc.html

[MillCreek]

So birth control leads to higher rates of STDs?  I am going to have to see a citation for that.  Preferably one that establishes a direct causal link.

[brimic]

So birth control leads to higher rates of STDs?  I am going to have to see a citation for that.  Preferably one that establishes a direct causal link.

I didn't say that.
Let me clarify.
I would be interested in seeing the disease impact of implementing  'non barrier' birth control programs in already promiscuous populations.

[Perd Hapley]

If it is solely a societal cost issue for you, then paying more to build schools and infrastructure for more children would really stick in your craw.  I am not saying your craw, but those who are opposed to society paying anything for children, such as the rugged individualists who think that sending their kids to private school means that society pays nothing for their children.

And of course, such moral or religious beliefs are not universally shared, as much as the adherents of them would hope.

We don't all agree on anything political, moral or religious. But that's hardly the point. The point is that subordinating moral principles to economics and pragmatics is not something that anyone here actually wants, least of all the libertarians and conservatives.

I think with that first paragraph you're talking about voters that are merely hypothetical. Who are these libertarians who don't want to pay for schools, but they want to pay for elective health care costs? Or if they're ok with public schools, but it's the greater costs associated with having more students, isn't that completely offset by the gains they expect from public schooling in the first place? (An educated work-force, boosting the economy through higher productivity, more consumption, or whatever the argument is for the benefits of public schooling.) I've just never heard of anyone who thinks that public schooling is a good idea, just as long as we keep the population down to a manageable level. Maybe they are out there, though.

[lupinus]

I don't really care what is the cheapest way to subsidize irresponsible behavior. We shouldn't be doing so. Period.

The most effective form of birth control is also 100% free. For guys, keep your dick in your pants. For ladies, keep them out of yours. Simple, no cost, no pills to forget, no barriers to fail, and with one exception in history 100% effective.

If you choose an alternate method, pay for it your damn self. If your alternate method fails, pick up the tab yourself. If you can't and it means welfare, that's no justification for a perhaps cheaper but much bigger form of welfare.

[longeyes]

Abort Government.  Now.

[lysander6]

Abort Government.  Now.

+1, now that is cutting the Gordian knot.

[brimic]

Here's a side that no one has brought up yet.

Too many are making the assumption that the children produced that ultimately end up on welfare are unwanted.
To some segments of the population, having children out of wedlock is a way of life and the only way of lie they have ever known.
How many of these women continue to have relationships with their baby daddy- sexual and emotional, but marriage isn't going to happen due to financial disincentive?

Its ideas of good intentioned liberals who have absolutely destroyed families in the inner cities, why should we pay for another one of their 'good intentions?'

[Fitz]

Unexpected children (i don't like to use the term unwanted in this case, but it might have been accurate before I met my daughter), do not have to lead to welfare or any other such thing.

Having an unexpected child lead to welfare or more dependence on the state happens to irresponsible people.

The folks who are responsible who have an unexpected or unwanted child do what I did... they do whatever it takes to ensure that the child grows up with what he/she needs without burdening others.

I was making very low wage as a help desk jockey at a school system, playing rock and roll in my spare time, when Amanda got pregnant.

When she got pregnant, rather than stay in that position and accept welfare and other gov subsidies, I volunteered for another term of active duty, used my spare time to advance my education, and moved myself up in the world.

Throughout the past few years i have CONTINUED to position myself well for advancement and have worked my ass off in that effort, in order to ensure that I make enough to afford private schooling for Brooklyn. I now make 92k a year.

There are costs. I work my ass off. Yesterday and today both were 12 hour days. I travel a lot and miss my family terribly when I go.


Not sure if this is relevant for the debate, but my point is that an unwanted or unexpected child only becomes a liability to others when the parents of said child allow it to be so.

[brimic]

Not sure if this is relevant for the debate, but my point is that an unwanted or unexpected child only becomes a liability to others when the parents of said child allow it to be so.

Hehe.
I think I was maybe 12 or 13 when I did the math and figured out that the time period btween my parent's wedding and my birth was A LOT shorter than 9 months...

[Fitz]

We got married in january and our child was born in june.. :-P

I will also say this: we were very lucky.

Many folks who marry because of a pregnancy are not. I just so happened to knock up the groupie who turned out to be a wonderful woman who I adore.

[slingshot]

If you want to decrease the pregnancy rate, cap welfare and the food stamp allotment for families off at one child.