Free birth control reduces abortion rate

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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.

have you noticed that folks who work hard are luckier?

[Northwoods]

There are costs. I work my ass off. Yesterday and today both were 12 hour days.

What do you mean working hard?  That's just half time :D.

[Chuck Dye]

Malthus was an economist, not a population biologist, but I suspect he was right in both arenas.  We will face a major crunch whether water, food, or energy, (or medical care) and so long as we the people refuse to allow the losers to truly lose, we will need to find a way to support the losers.  Analyze costs, risks, and benefits, and contraception appears a bargain.  Include the fantasies of "morality" and religion and you are on your own, and back to preventing the losers from truly losing.

Social Darwinism, anyone?

[Perd Hapley]

Social Darwinism, anyone?

Yeah, no inhuman barbarism for me, thanks. I'll stick with those "fantasies."

Oh, and just FYI, morality and religion are such broad terms that it's beyond stupid to associate them with the idea that "losers" have to be coddled. I guess it sounds cool in your noggin, though.

[Chuck Dye]

I guess it sounds cool in your noggin, though.

You should avoid the professional poker circuit, your mind reading skills aren't up to it.

[Strings]

On the surface, this looks like a good idea: folks having access to free contraceptives means folks using such to avoid pregnancy. However, this forgets the fact that those on welfare are financially encouraged to pop out kids.

I know a LOT of people on this board have heard stories of the inner-city girl deciding to drop out of high school and pop out their first kid, so as to get on benefits right away. So long as that financial incentive is there, you can issue contraceptives to these folks, and it won't get used

[geronimotwo]

i doubt that "benefits" are the first thing on a teenage girls mind when they "decide" to get pregnant.  i also think it is ignorant of people to think that providing birth control greatly encourages these interactions.  i was raised in a home/church that taught abstinence, but hormones are hormones and there were a number of young marriages with short termed pregnancies.  supplying contraceptives will not eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancy, but along with early education it will help to reduce the issue.  std's are a different ball game, but may also be addressed with a similar format.

and fitz,  congrats on getting lucky!   many people couldn't plan it that well.   my wife went through fertility treatments and was told she couldn't have kids before getting together with me. we ended up with two beautiful daughters.  (i've always said, "don't send a boy to do a man's job"!  )

[roo_ster]

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

If you subsidize something, you will get more of it.

And each successive subsidized something you get more of is usually of lesser value than the one before it.

That is pretty much how it works for scientific research and I'd bet the data shows subsidized bastardy is similar.

There are some cases where the trade-off is desirable, but unwed motherhood is certainly not one.

[roo_ster]

have you noticed that folks who work hard are luckier?

Couches are notoriously luck-free zones.  OTOH, I have found lots of luck in hot steel buildings and after COB.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the inner-city girl deciding to drop out of high school and pop out their first kid, so as to get on benefits right away. So long as that financial incentive is there, you can issue contraceptives to these folks, and it won't get used


not just inner city


we had a "club " of girls locally. hell these girls agreed to be interviewed for an article
its was their lifes ambition to get knocked up and get a check

[Ron]

Malthus was an economist, not a population biologist, but I suspect he was right in both arenas.  We will face a major crunch whether water, food, or energy, (or medical care) and so long as we the people refuse to allow the losers to truly lose, we will need to find a way to support the losers.  Analyze costs, risks, and benefits, and contraception appears a bargain.  Include the fantasies of "morality" and religion and you are on your own, and back to preventing the losers from truly losing.

Social Darwinism, anyone?

Behold the post modern materialist taking his philosophy to its logical conclusion,  in all his glory!

Not only does he want to disengage the government from taking care of the "least of these"  but he wants to destroy the foundational motivation of individuals who actually have empathy for the "dregs of society".

Good for you for being consistent!

I'm tired of the atheist crowd importing Judeo/Christian ethics and morality ie ideas of GOOD and BAD without having any philosophical basis other than social construct.

Of course if everyone had your philosophy (if I'm correct in my assessment) society would collapse IMHO. 

 

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm tired of the atheist crowd importing Judeo/Christian ethics and morality ie ideas of GOOD and BAD without having any philosophical basis other than social construct.
 

Back 150 years ago, you had your moral utopia of WASPy protestant domination from Sea to Shining Sea.  And no taxes compelling mandatory "charity."

Now today, we have amoral legislation that mandates theft from people regardless of the dogma by which they live their life.  Amoral by ALL COMPASSES, regardless of its source, with the sole exception of the Maoist/Leninist compass.  And that one is permitted to dictate behavior by force of guns-by-proxy, to those of us with vehement moral convictions against compulsory "giving."

I stand by Malthus' comments, though I have never been exposed to this economist before... I came to the same conclusion on my own.  Losers are subsidized and allowed to breed.  They breed at a higher rate than winners.  We get ruled by losers until we fall as a society, through the weight of our own stupidity.  Or, as Niven/Pournelle put it in Lucifer's Hammer... A society can adopts the ethics it can afford.  If you can't afford a welfare state, then you don't put it up.  If you can't afford a bunch of proles living on the tax roles, you don't give them access to it.  If your criminal justice system can't afford jails and idle prisoners, you institute slavery as punishment.  And so on. 

Malthus observed with his PhD the same thing I observe with my lowly BA... our ledger is imbalanced, by a combination of good intentions and misappropriated guilt.  It cannot stand forever, and will be rolled back by either voluntary or involuntary means.

[Ron]

I'm not a supporter of the welfare state.

I do support individuals loving their neighbor, charitable work and family/social circle/local community based support for those who need support.

I reject nihilistic, materialistic, postmodern philosophies that corrode respect for life, even the lives of the modern American "losers".

There has never been a Utopia of Christian rule in any respect.

Christs Kingdom is not of this world.

Anyone who is trying to force the issue is sadly mistaken.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

its charity if i give it freely   not so much when its taken from me to redistribute

[Ron]

its charity if i give it freely   not so much when its taken from me to redistribute

absolutely

[brimic]

Malthus was an economist,

So was Keynes...

Just because one is an economist doesn't mean their unicorn fantasies are real.

[Strings]

Ron, I think you might be over-reacting to what AZ is saying.

I don't think Christ EVER suggested that money be forcibly taken from those of have, and given to those who don't (and who refuse to work for anything). That is NOT, by any stretch, "Christian charity".

But that is what we're talking about: theft at government gunpoint, to "help those less fortunate". Funny thing: it seems they're "less fortunate" because of their own choices...