This is going to be a fun couple of years…

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpbc.htm

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Sun Jan 25 2009 22:13:43 ET

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.

The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Developing...

It was a weird way to put things but she meant well I think. Less kids on government programs mean less of a burden to the state. A lot of poorer people can't afford birth control, as can't very young adults.And ir's a lot better than this idea.

"Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metarie wants to pay poor women $1,000 to get sterilized. Why? Because people receiving food and housing assistance "are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated residents." The New Orleans Times-Picayune has the story:

"What I'm really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare," he said.

He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats try to slip part of their own agenda through on a major spending bill. Maybe what's surprising is that there's only a few million spent in this way out of a trillion dollar bill. Mind you, it's likely there'll be more in there by the time the bill is finished.

What does surprise me is how badly Pelosi has argued for this bill. The point is for immediate stimulus of the economy, so trying to explain that this will prevent future drain on government coffers is all a little stretched and silly. She could have easily argued that that part of the bill would be putting people into jobs and stimulating the economy and that is also happened to be an important area that had been neglected by Bush. But she didn't, I suspect it's because she's quite bad at her job.

fething typical. Nothing hard left can slide in on it's own unless its lubed up by a big economic bill.

I think she just likes to murder babies.

Pelosi isn't a very canny politician. She doesn't have to work hard to win her seat from San Fran, and as leader either blamed things on the President or on other outside powers.

Now that she has control and no boogeyman, people will see her as what she is...not a particularly savvy politician and a poor leader for the House of Reps.

As for this news...whatever. Get used to it.

Holy **** George Stephanopoulos is still alive?

I think the only question is whether the Dems loose Congress in 2 years or 4 years. I'm guessing in 4 years, but that Obama is re-elected.

Obama seems willing to stand up to the Dem leaders in Congress, and that's nothing but a good thing.

Can't see how the speaker of the house using birth
control will help the economy,but you never know....

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I think just the mental picture of the speaker of the House = murder of my sanity?

Ahtman wrote:

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I don't need a condom to murder.

malfred wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I don't need a condom to murder.

Must...resist...commentary...

Frazzled wrote:

malfred wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

I don't need a condom to murder.

Must...resist...commentary...

C'mon Frazzled, you know you can't resist commenting my lack of a condom.

PanamaG wrote:fething typical. Nothing hard left can slide in on it's own unless its lubed up by a big economic bill.

I think she just likes to murder babies.

Is it better for them to grow up too ignorant to do anything but join the army so they can go off and get murdered in one of our illegal wars for the glorification of our corrupt corporate overlords?

Well...put that way...yeah, it is.

warpcrafter wrote:Is it better for them to grow up too ignorant to do anything but join the army so they can go off and get murdered in one of our illegal wars for the glorification of our corrupt corporate overlords?

I'd love to know what a "legal" war is. Is it one the government of the aggressor nation voted on, in accordance with it's fundamental founding document? Does it require international assent? If so, from which countries and why?

Discussing the legality of war is like debating the virtues of organized crime.

Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

PanamaG wrote:fething typical. Nothing hard left can slide in on it's own unless its lubed up by a big economic bill.

I think she just likes to murder babies.

Since when do condoms kill children?

warpcrafter wrote:
Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression

Wars have been built on lies, and deceit since pretty much the first time a common soldier could expect to go his entire life without actually meeting the person in charge. I'm not sure when that actually took place, but I guarantee you that it was pretty early in our collective, historical narrative. My guess would be either Ancient Egypt, or the first Persian Empire.

warpcrafter wrote:Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

Yeah, that sounds right.

In 2003, the United States was the first country to come up with a moral justification for war.

Nobody ever did this before.

Yup.

Speaking of Condoms:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1410#comic

Orkeosaurus wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

Yeah, that sounds right.

In 2003, the United States was the first country to come up with a moral justification for war.

Nobody ever did this before.

Yup.

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Condoms killing babies isn't funny, my brother died that way.

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

The first gulf war

sexiest_hero wrote:The first gulf war

Saddam gave moral justification, claiming he was taking recompense for oil stolen from Iraqi fields. I’m going off of memory but I think the Kuwaitis really were stealing the oil, not that that justifies the invasion and subsequent atrocities.

IMO birth control wont help with the economy at all.

The gov just need to stop giving welfare / aids so easily.

So the people will know to be responsible for their own actions before briging another life into this world.

LunaHound wrote:

The gov just need to stop giving welfare / aids so easily.

The government gives us AIDS? And I work for public SCHOOLS?

Somebody get me a condom.

No can do.

That would kill children.

Orkeosaurus wrote:No can do.

That would kill children.

As the great one George Carlin once say: "F K the children!"

sebster wrote:

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

The Mongols. They didn't pick up the 'heaven' rhetoric until well after Temujin died.

sebster wrote:
Saddam gave moral justification, claiming he was taking recompense for oil stolen from Iraqi fields. I’m going off of memory but I think the Kuwaitis really were stealing the oil, not that that justifies the invasion and subsequent atrocities.

He was also running off the narrative of pan-Arab unity, as an opposing force to both the Soviet Union and the United States, that was left over from Nasser's regional dominance in Egypt.

dogma wrote:The Mongols. They didn't pick up the 'heaven' rhetoric until well after Temujin died.

Ooh, good answer.

He was also running off the narrative of pan-Arab unity, as an opposing force to both the Soviet Union and the United States, that was left over from Nasser's regional dominance in Egypt.

Interesting. Have you got a decent reference for the history of the region? It's something I don't know enough about.

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

[sarcasm]Godwin's Law means all the right-wing nutjobs win.[/sarcasm]

Damn.

ungulateman wrote:

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Everything conquered in the name of Islam?

Everything conquered in the name of the God-Emperors of China and Japan?

Everything conquered in the name of "civilizing" other races?

Everything conquered in the name of Communism?

Every war started for "vengeance" or "justice?"

Happens all the time. I'd say war is given justifications by it's engineers more often than not.

Some of them are even valid.

Also, Hitler. Lebensraum was all at once a literal land grab and morally justified by the Nazis, by means of their manifest destiny.

In fact, I’m struggling to think of an instance where an aggressor nation said ‘we’re doing this because we can and we don’t care if we have a morally defendable reason or not.’

[sarcasm]Godwin's Law means all the right-wing nutjobs win.[/sarcasm]

Damn.

For a second there I thought you'd post that all the right-wing Nazis win. Then the
Internets would explode in a paradox loop.

sebster wrote:
Ooh, good answer.

Thanks. I owe my knowledge to Jack Weatherford, and his book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Good book, and a good man. He was my anthro teacher.

sebster wrote:
Interesting. Have you got a decent reference for the history of the region? It's something I don't know enough about.

For a modern history I would recommend A History of the Modern Middle East by William L. Cleveland.

If you're interested in something more akin to cultural history, then The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years by Bernard Lewis is your book. It basically covers the period from Jesus' birth until now.

Another good read is Islam and the West, also by Lewis. Its basically a middle-finger to Edward Said's Orientalism. Something which I wholeheartedly endorse.

Actually, anything by Lewis is worth a look. His knowledge base, and level of access, is just unbelievably profound.

dogma wrote:Another good read is Islam and the West, also by Lewis. Its basically a middle-finger to Edward Said's Orientalism. Something which I wholeheartedly endorse.

This is both funny and true.

Ahtman wrote:

PanamaG wrote:I think she just likes to murder babies.

Condoms = murder?

Or suicide.

warpcrafter wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Granted, but for 99% of human history, people didn't bother even pretending that their wars were anything but a selfish land grab, then along comes the good ole USA and all of a sudden the powers that be feel like they have to make up some sort of moral justification for their aggression.

Yeah, that sounds right.

In 2003, the United States was the first country to come up with a moral justification for war.

Nobody ever did this before.

Yup.

Okay, so maybe I forgot about the crusades, but are their any more examples?

Old Testament.
Jihads that actually caused the crusades
Jihads after the crusade.
WWI from, er, every side.
WWII from, er, every side.
AlQaeda
Oh wait you get the picture.

And of course, the most vicious of all: Coke vs. Pepsi

dogma wrote:


Thanks. I owe my knowledge to Jack Weatherford, and his book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Good book, and a good man. He was my anthro teacher.

I may be reading that now. If so its an excellent book.

Edit: too many quotation marks.

EDIT - answered with edit above.

sexiest_hero wrote:It was a weird way to put things but she meant well I think. Less kids on government programs mean less of a burden to the state. A lot of poorer people can't afford birth control, as can't very young adults.And ir's a lot better than this idea.

"Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metarie wants to pay poor women $1,000 to get sterilized. Why? Because people receiving food and housing assistance "are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated residents." The New Orleans Times-Picayune has the story:

"What I'm really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare," he said.

He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

Whaa? Here in Britain, I can nip down the local Family Planning Clinic and get me as many free dunkies and Jubber Rays as I need, essentially meaning poverty is no excuse for having unplanned sprogs!

Sprongs? I prefer the term rugrats, or hooligans myself

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:...get me as many free dunkies and Jubber Rays as I need, essentially meaning poverty is no excuse for having unplanned sprogs!

Without the context of the thread and the first half of your sentence, I'd have no idea what this part meant. Seriously, it's like Romulan or something to me.

Maybe I'm just having a hard time blatwikking your potnuz, yongsurk.

you've havin' a giraffe aint ya ?

it's like last week when we were in the rub. This geezer bowls in-- all sovereigns, flat cap and burberry. Series 5 beamer and 2 fat f^&*s backing him up-- with his rude girls, and he's giving it all this and that, trying to come across as if they're all darlins' on charlie when it's clear to all who aint no dogoodygoody, that they're in fact billyed up at best, p'raps with a few spliffs on them as well.

So they sidle up to this quiet bloke-- stood on his jack jones-- and start makin' out that he's all radio rental. Fair play to the guy, he didn't wait for a mo. Turns and gives the guy a full on proper glasgow kiss and then glassed him right in his mush. Guy knocked straight off his plates, and drops like sack of spuds, pissing claret all down his boat race. Guvenor leans down and picks him up by his king lears and as him apologise for staining his whistle. Then drags him along and throws him out on his khyber.
Honestly it was well weapon.

Honestly, it's simple common sense.

gorgon wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:...get me as many free dunkies and Jubber Rays as I need, essentially meaning poverty is no excuse for having unplanned sprogs!

Without the context of the thread and the first half of your sentence, I'd have no idea what this part meant. Seriously, it's like Romulan or something to me.

Maybe I'm just having a hard time blatwikking your potnuz, yongsurk.

Dunkies are Jizzybags....Sponglefilters....French Letters....Babyblockers....Party Hats...Party Poppers That Pop In The Night...Sheath...Johnnies....Raincoats....Dirtygloves...

And a Sprog is the same as a Saucepan Lid my old China.

You know what, I'm going to dig through my Bitzbox soon for a suitable prize for our Foreign Friends should they manage to successfully translate a special thread I will write. Entries will be accepted via PM only to prevent process of elimination. Think I have all the parts to the Albion Giants. Suitably British prize really for such an endeavour.

So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

reds8n wrote: you've havin' a giraffe aint ya ?

it's like last week when we were in the rub. This geezer bowls in-- all sovereigns, flat cap and burberry. Series 5 beamer and 2 fat f^&*s backing him up-- with his rude girls, and he's giving it all this and that, trying to come across as if they're all darlins' on charlie when it's clear to all who aint no dogoodygoody, that they're in fact billyed up at best, p'raps with a few spliffs on them as well.

So they sidle up to this quiet bloke-- stood on his jack jones-- and start makin' out that he's all radio rental. Fair play to the guy, he didn't wait for a mo. Turns and gives the guy a full on proper glasgow kiss and then glassed him right in his mush. Guy knocked straight off his plates, and drops like sack of spuds, pissing claret all down his boat race. Guvenor leans down and picks him up by his king lears and as him apologise for staining his whistle. Then drags him along and throws him out on his khyber.
Honestly it was well weapon.

Honestly, it's simple common sense.

Oy.

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

If they really are just going at it with such abandon that the government feels it needs to provide contraceptives to stem population growht then I don't know if there is any helping them.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Which is cheaper, birth control pills or foster care/wellfare?

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Yeah, pretty much. Does anybody really think people will stop having sex? Ever? no matter how bad an idea it is? The government pays for the results of people having sex in education, child health care, etc. You're going to pay now or pay later, but if it's cheaper now I say do it.

Yes, it would be wonderful if people that can't afford to raise kids would abstain, but every shred of evidence shows that they don't. Just like economic regulations that completely ignore market forces are doomed to failure, so are social programs that completely ignore human nature.

Has there been any statistical analysis of birth rate by socio-economic class?

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Which is cheaper, birth control pills or foster care/wellfare?

No welfare equals non-issue.

I think it's cheaper to give them birth control as oppssed to a 16 year old dropping out of school to have a kid she's not ready for and can't afford. You can say she made her bed and has to sleep in it, until that bed grows up poor in a single parent family and shoots your family member in an armed robbery later in life. Call it the Uncle Ben syndrome.

Frazzled wrote:

No welfare equals non-issue.

There will always be welfare for children, there's simply no way society will allow children to starve, run around naked, or die of easily treated disease. Even dickensian london spent at least some money on orphanages and workhouses.

EDIT: belay that, I'm just being cranky. Malf stole another one of my socks. Curse you Malf!

Railguns wrote:If they really are just going at it with such abandon that the government feels it needs to provide contraceptives to stem population growht then I don't know if there is any helping them.

Spoken like someone who couldn't get any during their teenage years. An 18 year old with the prospect of getting laid will probably get laid. They don't have to be engaging in intercourse every day all the time. All it takes is that one time because "I LUV U GRL/BOI". Pretending young people don't have sex is ridiculous. It's also not as simple as people rutting around all the time with no control or no one needing birth control at all. Your presenting a false choice dilemma.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Railguns wrote:So, how does goverment provided birth control help anything? I don't recall ever hearing anyone ever complain about condoms being too expensive, and as for availability you can't find any convenience store these days that don't carry them. What is the point?

I don't think anybody really thinks "birth control is too expensive," but people tend to use things that are freely available and free of charge. Birth Control pills can be pricey if you're not on insurance, and if you or your partner are allergic to latex the non-latex condoms get pricey if you're having a lot of sex. There is certianly the common sense approach that seems to say that people that really want to have sex might do so if they can't come up with a few bucks for condoms.

Translation. You the average working stiff has to pay so other people can .

Yeah, pretty much. Does anybody really think people will stop having sex? Ever? no matter how bad an idea it is? The government pays for the results of people having sex in education, child health care, etc. You're going to pay now or pay later, but if it's cheaper now I say do it.

Yes, it would be wonderful if people that can't afford to raise kids would abstain, but every shred of evidence shows that they don't. Just like economic regulations that completely ignore market forces are doomed to failure, so are social programs that completely ignore human nature.

I think that birth control is an economic answer, but it is being touted as murder due to association of planned parenthood with abortion.

Less mouths to feed, especially due to people who arent even citizens of this country giving birth here and the citizens paying for the hospital saty.

I think as a citizen, I would rather pay for birth control for the whole population than granting citizenship to people because they had a baby in this country.

This whole thing is blown out of proportion. Silly silly issue. I saw this all last night being debated. Right wingers slinging the whole deal as a moral distress that the libs are trying to make taxpayers pay for abortions.

As said earlier in the thread by Ahtman:
Condoms = Murder?

I'm just spitballing here, but $50 a month can buy plenty of birthcontrol. That's the pill or nuva ring for the ladies, and plenty of condoms for the fellas. That shakes out to $600 a year per person. This is being conservative in my estimate, but let's assume each person gets it for 30 years. That shakes out to $18,000 for each person in the country to prevent unwanted little ones.

What does even one year of public education cost the various levels of government?

Polonius wrote:What does even one year of public education cost the various levels of government?

Good question. I hope someone from the netherlands, sweden etc can answer.
When I take my kids to visit their grandparents in Reykjavik, I am always astounded by the level of sexual education, and the lack of unplanned births. Yet teenagers over there like to "feth" like bunnies as it were.

Ahtman, to put it better, I don't understand how government providing borth control is any better than anyone else providing birth control. Would it be any more difficult to go down to the ol goverment condom depot than it is to the corner store? Are they just going to start mailing them out to people? And how do they decide who gets them if they do? I don't see this having any real impact, birth control these days is more than common and not expensive or in any way hard to come by. The only way it would be easier is if it were free(well, at the point of picking it up, someone still pays for it). But even with the widely available and affordable forms of birth control, people are still having children they cannot support that become drains on goverment spending(Pelosi said this? Surely this is the end times!). That is the problem, and I don't see subsidized contraceptives solving it any more than what is available now.

Railguns wrote:Ahtman, to put it better, I don't understand how government providing borth control is any better than anyone else providing birth control. Would it be any more difficult to go down to the ol goverment condom depot than it is to the corner store? Are they just going to start mailing them out to people? And how do they decide who gets them if they do? I don't see this having any real impact, birth control these days is more than common and not expensive or in any way hard to come by. The only way it would be easier is if it were free(well, at the point of picking it up, someone still pays for it). But even with the widely available and affordable forms of birth control, people are still having children they cannot support that become drains on goverment spending(Pelosi said this? Surely this is the end times!). That is the problem, and I don't see subsidized contraceptives solving it any more than what is available now.

Government subsidies for female contraceptive pills would help a lot, as it's easier to get women to take a pill than convince guys to wear a condom.

Better, perhaps like that. I don't know the going rate myself but then if people become dependant on subsidized birth control pills then you may very well have a sustained spike in cases of std proliferation and illnesses associated with unmonitored birth control usage. Moreso the medicinal issues really, as if people are getting pregnant at such an alarming rate then STD transmission probably can't get any worse.

Railguns wrote:Ahtman, to put it better, I don't understand how government providing borth control is any better than anyone else providing birth control. Would it be any more difficult to go down to the ol goverment condom depot than it is to the corner store? Are they just going to start mailing them out to people? And how do they decide who gets them if they do? I don't see this having any real impact, birth control these days is more than common and not expensive or in any way hard to come by.

That depends on where you live. Some places, like St. Louis, make it incredibly difficult for anyone under 18 to gain access to birth control without parental consent.

Railguns wrote:
The only way it would be easier is if it were free(well, at the point of picking it up, someone still pays for it). But even with the widely available and affordable forms of birth control, people are still having children they cannot support that become drains on goverment spending(Pelosi said this? Surely this is the end times!). That is the problem, and I don't see subsidized contraceptives solving it any more than what is available now.

We could also teach real sex education in public schools instead of the garbage that is usually spouted off. Sure, the genital warts freak-out slide show has its purpose, but it really doesn't convey any useful information to a 16 year old boy/girl who is smitten and possessed of an invulnerability complex.

What do you suggest teaching then? Are there really endemic numbers of kids out there that believe for some reason un-protected sex won't cause pregnancies? I'm sure it isn't comfortable but do parents not teach their kids anything anymore either? I know teenagers can be stupid, but are they really stupid enough to believe that millions of years of evolution would stop so they could have consequenceless sex without contraceptives?

I've seen students at my school, a pregnancy and kids in distress education center, get pregnant because their friends were. They are even more foolish than we can imagine.

Railguns wrote:Ahtman, to put it better, I don't understand how government providing borth control is any better than anyone else providing birth control. Would it be any more difficult to go down to the ol goverment condom depot than it is to the corner store? Are they just going to start mailing them out to people? And how do they decide who gets them if they do? I don't see this having any real impact, birth control these days is more than common and not expensive or in any way hard to come by. The only way it would be easier is if it were free(well, at the point of picking it up, someone still pays for it). But even with the widely available and affordable forms of birth control, people are still having children they cannot support that become drains on goverment spending(Pelosi said this? Surely this is the end times!). That is the problem, and I don't see subsidized contraceptives solving it any more than what is available now.

It isn’t just handing out condoms. There are also education and information programs, helping people make informed choices.

Well, I assume so anyway, these kinds of programs normally include that stuff.

Railguns wrote:What do you suggest teaching then?

A short list:

sex is not immoral
sex is not wrong
sex is not dirty
sex is natural
sex has consequences
you can deal with those consequences
your body is your own, not your parents'
contraception is proof of responsibility

Railguns wrote:
Are there really endemic numbers of kids out there that believe for some reason un-protected sex won't cause pregnancies?

Yes. Largely because, despite popular illusions to the contrary, there are ways to strategically prevent pregnancy without contraception. They aren't as effective as actual contraception, but they do work more often than not. Something which is usually good enough for two kids that are nervous about telling the world they are having sex.

Railguns wrote:
I'm sure it isn't comfortable but do parents not teach their kids anything anymore either?

Parents tend to teach their kids to the standard by which they were taught, which was woefully inadequate in most cases.

Railguns wrote:
I know teenagers can be stupid, but are they really stupid enough to believe that millions of years of evolution would stop so they could have consequenceless sex without contraceptives?

Yes. As someone who was a teenager not too long ago, I can say that, most certainly, yes.

The Republican sex education plan (in my state anyway) goes as follows: ABSTINENCE ONLY! SEX IS DIRTY! YOU"LL DIE FROM STD'S IF YOU EVEN SEE GENITALS!

The pill is cheaper then paying for pregnancy leave in both government and private sectors. Children cost money and give no tangible economic return for years. She's correct.


That said, man did she chose a bad way to phrase that crap.

Well I suppose we'll see either way in a few years. Where I'm from, my parents needn't have told me anything and I actually skipped out of sex ed and I knew better. I don't see how people can possibly screw such a thing up, but thats just me.

Railguns wrote:Well I suppose we'll see either way in a few years. Where I'm from, my parents needn't have told me anything and I actually skipped out of sex ed and I knew better. I don't see how people can possibly screw such a thing up, but thats just me.

Not being able to understand different ideas doesn't make you smarter than other people, it actually means you aren't as smart as you think you are more often than not.

Oh I realize that these kids are from different backgrounds with different experiences; brought up ignorant of many important facts or taught things contrary to reality. That doesn't mean that it still isn't at least a bit disheartening to think that there are people out there actually making such huge mistakes with their lives that are entirely preventable. Even moreso the fact that there is probably a subset of the population in every town and city making the same mistakes people have been making for years and keeping up a cycle that prevents their lives from ever taking off.

Edit:(not to flame but if that was an ego stab, I see what you did there.)

dogma wrote:

Railguns wrote:What do you suggest teaching then?

A short list:

sex is not immoral
sex is not wrong
sex is not dirty
sex is natural
sex has consequences
you can deal with those consequences
your body is your own, not your parents'
contraception is proof of responsibility

Railguns wrote:
Are there really endemic numbers of kids out there that believe for some reason un-protected sex won't cause pregnancies?

Yes. Largely because, despite popular illusions to the contrary, there are ways to strategically prevent pregnancy without contraception. They aren't as effective as actual contraception, but they do work more often than not. Something which is usually good enough for two kids that are nervous about telling the world they are having sex.

Railguns wrote:
I'm sure it isn't comfortable but do parents not teach their kids anything anymore either?

Parents tend to teach their kids to the standard by which they were taught, which was woefully inadequate in most cases.

Railguns wrote:
I know teenagers can be stupid, but are they really stupid enough to believe that millions of years of evolution would stop so they could have consequenceless sex without contraceptives?

Yes. As someone who was a teenager not too long ago, I can say that, most certainly, yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I believe that children are our future.

We need hardly worry about the economic consequences when there is already rampant unemployment and the main effect of having children is to devalue women's salaries, thus making their labour cheaper.

There are people ignorant enough to think that you can't get pregnant the first time.

The way to deal with such a problem is proper sex education. Look at what works (the Scandinavian and Dutch systems) and compare it with what doesn't work (the British and US systems.) Then pick a system that works. Hardly rocket science.

Scandinavia and Holland have much better social welfare then the UK and US. Obviously good welfare, sex education and free contraceptives do not cause an explosion of teen pregancy -- if anything, they would seem to discourage it. (Correlation =/= causation, of course.)

One reason that teenage girls get pregnant is because they have no better life prospects. Armed with a crappy, low quality education they are condemned to stacking shelves in Walmart if they are lucky. Becoming a mother gives them some kind of self-esteem.

Railguns wrote:Well I suppose we'll see either way in a few years. Where I'm from, my parents needn't have told me anything and I actually skipped out of sex ed and I knew better. I don't see how people can possibly screw such a thing up, but thats just me.

The education, or the expectations about sex?

The education gets screwed up because the most overtly moralistic members of any given school district, or state, tend to be the most vocal with respect to what is being taught. There was much talk of shenanigans when I was in high school because our health teacher refused to use the D.A.R.E. program because it didn't teach kids how to handle things like alcohol poisoning, or drug overdoses. Something about 'endorsing unsafe behavior'. Never underestimate the ability of a bored housewife, or church group, to hold aspirations to 'The Good Society'.

The expectations get screwed up because we as a nation, are ungodly squeamish about sex. We don't talk about it, and we look down upon the people that do talk about it. This manifests itself in a number of ways culturally, but the most obvious one at this point is the gay marriage debate. Yes, a lot of people are uncomfortable with homosexuality, but the reason they are uncomfortable with it is that it forces them to take sexuality as something which isn't a given. It isn't something which can be assumed, or written out of the public square. It has to be addressed, and questioned.

Even the English language shows the extent to which we refuse to imagine sex. For example, the word 'sexual' denotes anything between the sexes. It took on its modern meaning, something more akin to sensual, only after the proliferation of media made it impossible to ignore the fact that there was something different that went on in the bedroom. At about the same time 'sex' became a means of referring both to the general classification of 'male' or 'female', and the actual act of sex. Something which also came to be know as 'sexual intercourse', an archaic concept which denoted only interaction between the sexes but increasingly applied to physical intimacy as the barriers between men and women eroded.

I personally truly believe that people should be (reversibly) sterilised at birth, and then given parenting classes in school. When they want a child they can submit an application, take a basic test for knowledge and ability, and upon approval have the process reversed.

Lordhat wrote:I personally truly believe that people should be (reversibly) sterilised at birth, and then given parenting classes in school. When they want a child they can submit an application, take a basic test for knowledge and ability, and upon approval have the process reversed.

Do you really want to give government the authority to tell you you can have a child? Or do you just assume you'll pass because you're middle class?

o man black and white has never looked more gray...

what is it with people these days. morals have been shot to to make way for what people like and want to do.... after all if it feals good, it MUST be good right??

Just because it feels good. Doesn't make it right.

Skunk Anansie was straight on the money with that one.

P.S. Actually properly on subject I was given a full sexual education at the age of 10 when I lived in Scotland, and again in England when I was 13. Hence no STI's no STD's and certainly no bloody kids eating into my wages!

Education is key. Hobble it, and the world is in a bad place.

So would we be better served with sex ed or contraceptives? Does this bill provide for just contraceptives? It seems the consensus here has moved to education being the main deterrent in unplanned pregnancies. If this is so, then does this bill simply deal with the symptoms rather than treat the source?

Railguns wrote:So would we be better served with sex ed or contraceptives?

Again you don't sacrifice one for the other; you use both to get the best results. People learn the realities of sexuality and the importance of being responsible for their reproductive habits. Most people would pay for their birth control if they could afford it and those who can't for various reasons have access. It is a balancing act obliviously but just tossing the idea out all together doesn't really work either.

Indeed. You need both.

IT's all fine and well telling the kids about safe sex and the pitfalls of not practicing it, but it's utterly pointless if you then don't make said contraceptives freely available.

Just tell everyone to have gay sex. Problem solved.

malfred wrote:Just tell everyone to have gay sex. Problem solved.

Speaking of which, here's your socks Frazzled.

Frazzled speechless!!!

I mean does the bill provide for both? It seems like all it provides for is subsidized contraceptives. We've obviously concluded that sex ed is also important. Does the bill provide for education at all?

Railguns wrote:I mean does the bill provide for both? It seems like all it provides for is subsidized contraceptives. We've obviously concluded that sex ed is also important. Does the bill provide for education at all?

Update but from Drudge so take with heavy salt:

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

I'd hit it with the Speaker.

Best 13 seconds of her life, I bet.

sebster wrote:

Lordhat wrote:I personally truly believe that people should be (reversibly) sterilised at birth, and then given parenting classes in school. When they want a child they can submit an application, take a basic test for knowledge and ability, and upon approval have the process reversed.

Do you really want to give government the authority to tell you you can have a child? Or do you just assume you'll pass because you're middle class?

Yes, I do. And BTW if I AM middle class, it's JUST barely.

At Frazzell

So people would have to go to a center for disease control for the proposed education? I'd rather they rehaul how it is done in schools first. Trying to encourage people to go to a Center for education doesn't sound like it would work very well.

Its Frazzled RG,

No the CDC doles out the money to various groups like government entities, for profit Planned Parenthood etc. Don't worry, little horny Johnny and Sarah don't have to like, put effort into it.

Frazzled wrote:Its Frazzled RG,

No the CDC doles out the money to various groups like government entities, for profit Planned Parenthood etc. Don't worry, little horny Johnny and Sarah don't have to like, put effort into it.

that's odd, the IRS, as well as Planned Parenthood, seems to think they're non-profit. I mean, I know making sweeping and unsubstantiated claims is sort of your thing, but unless you have some inside info, I think you're simply incorrect here.

i remember my sex ed class...

1st day... crazy lady screaming sex is bad and evil, if you do it then it will fall off... then the showing of the horor movies.

and the rest of the 2 weeks (or was it one week) was spent with this fairly calm woman tell us everything in the bible is a lie. we can have sex if we want to and its all ok as long as you use a rubber.

then again, our school had built a day care centre in it to help all the student mothers... and had a special P.E. class for pregnate students.... so something was feth up there.

Yeah I skipped mine. Didn't miss a thing, considering the horror stories I hear about them. Don't trust non-professional solutions in any health related matter(especially with such serious consequences) and you'll be fine.


I don't know... Scientology claims to be non-profit,

I still wonder what sort of abuses this bill can result in. Not that it has any connection here, but there is a big problem with people in South Africa taking their government provided aids medication and smoking it rather than using it.

When I was young there was no sex ed. There was just a biology class that covered reproduction and had diagrams of the male and female human organs.

Railguns wrote:I don't know... Scientology claims to be non-profit,

It also claims to be religion. Well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Whichever is more convenient at the time.

I had a friend who only dealt with non-profit orginizations (forming them, marketing, ect) and he would always say that non-profit doesn't me no money. Many non-profits are worth a lot and their employees draw major salaries.

but there is a big problem with people in South Africa taking their government provided aids medication and smoking it rather than using it.

How the hell do you smoke penicillin? And what have you been smoking that led to that post?

Its not penicillin chief. Anti-retrovirals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7768059.stm

Now that I read it again these seem to be bought and not subsidized, but it is amazing, the things people will do with their health and well-being on the line.

That's ridiculous.

They should be smoking Cake, or Joss Ackland's Spunky Backpack.

Yeah maybe it's is a bit off topic, but I honestly thought it was a joke at first; some sort of poor, tasteless joke. Though I suppose it isn't any more off topic than some ignorant assumption that my view must be a result of sexual inexperience(none of your business frankly) or insults towards my intelligence. So there you go.