Birth control, abortion and unwanted pregnancies.

[Rotobeast]

(08-15-2016, 11:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is kind of related, but not really. Just some interesting commentary on our attitudes towards this sort of thing. Condoms are one of the most commonly stolen items from stores like Walmart. This happens because people are too embarrassed to take them through a check out line. We stigmatize this stuff so much in society that this is how it goes. This can deter teenagers from getting condoms as easily, even though there really are no restrictions on purchasing them (though some think there is for some reason).

The funny side of this is that because they are so frequently stolen, they will sometimes have the magnetic tag in the box and so the guy who was too embarrassed to go through the line with them will now have everyone at the front end looking his way because he set off the alarms. Also, something to keep in mind if you do buy condoms at a department store, make sure they swipe the box over their demagnetizer. There may not be a tag in that box, but better safe than sorry.

A lot of my friends in high school were like that.
I never understood it.
I actually enjoyed the thought of going in to buy a box and would even get boxes for friends.
I'd go in, pick up the box and pick the prettiest girl cashier to check out through.
The usual conversation involved:
Girl -"Oh my...big night planned ?"....
Me- "No, but being a passionate romantic, I feel it best to be prepared"
Me - "Wouldn't you agree that romance should never be interrupted by ill-preparedness ?"
Girl - *blush* (possible sploosh)

*hang out with friends at end of store parking lot*
*girl ends shift, drives by*
*I smile and wave*
*Girl doubles back*
*Adventure Time !*

*Lather, rinse, repeat*


Ahhhh...The thrill of a teenage game plan.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*michaelsean*]

I'm fine with it, but I would require parental consent for minors except for condoms. This isn't candy you are giving these girls.

[xxlt]

(08-15-2016, 02:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm fine with it, but I would require parental consent for minors except for condoms.  This isn't candy you are giving these girls.

They do make candy flavored condoms. And, those should be made available too. For decades we gave kids candy cigarettes: big mistake. Giving kids candy flavored condoms: fulfilling the promise of our great nation to "form a more perfect union." 

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2016, 12:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Yes. Parents aren't consenting to premarital sex.

So you would have no issue with a school nurse prescribing birth-control pills or an IUD for your minor daughter without your consent?

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2016, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you would have no issue with a school nurse prescribing birth-control pills or an IUD for your minor daughter without your consent?

Since when do school nurses have the authority to prescribe anything?

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2016, 03:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since when do school nurses have the authority to prescribe anything?

Oh, I thought we were talking about making these things more available; not current policy. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you would have no issue with a school nurse prescribing birth-control pills or an IUD for your minor daughter without your consent?

LOL

Nurses can't prescribe either now. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I thought we were talking about making these things more available; not current policy. 

You should probably at least read the article first so you can have an informed opinion before launching another disingenuous argument devoid of a factual basis. 

[Benton]

(08-15-2016, 03:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you would have no issue with a school nurse prescribing birth-control pills or an IUD for your minor daughter without your consent?

Where the hell did I say any of that?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 04:09 PM)Benton Wrote: Where the hell did I say any of that?

Touché. 

Just so you know, you're flirting with "petty," sir. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-13-2016, 04:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Obviously there has been some discussion about these subject on these boards.

I saw this image today and wondered how people would feel about it.



Unfortunately the elected officials don't want to fund a program with proven results:

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/03/437268213/colorados-long-lasting-birth-control-program-for-teens-may-not-last-long



Thoughts?  Should a program that helps prevent pregnancies, and thereby abortions, be encouraged and funded by the government?  Especially when it SAVES money in the long run?

It is voluntary.
It has proven results.

Or does the argument that "I don't want my tax money going toward something against my religion" override the public good?

Because I love when there's a big debate on this board, I intentionally set out to see if anyone had attempted to "debunk" these numbers and, unsurprisingly enough, I was successful. I present to you a counter-argument:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-did-not-reduce-colorados-teen-pregnancy-rate-40-percent-callie-gable

TL;DR:

Quote:this all overstates the program’s success and influence and ignores the fact that much of these effects probably would have happened anyway.

Let's get it on!

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2016, 12:55 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: *Lather, rinse, repeat*

Uh, I don't think you know how to properly use a condom.

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2016, 04:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because I love when there's a big debate on this board, I intentionally set out to see if anyone had attempted to "debunk" these numbers and, unsurprisingly enough, I was successful. I present to you a counter-argument:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-did-not-reduce-colorados-teen-pregnancy-rate-40-percent-callie-gable

TL;DR:


Let's get it on!

And I always try to point out when a member cherry picks info that does not really give the true conclusion of the study.



"it seems likely that the CFPI must have had some positive effects on abortion and birth rates"




The program was a success even if not to the extent that the study claimed.  So I guess that means you support it, right Phil?

[Rotobeast]

(08-15-2016, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, I don't think you know how to properly use a condom.

Isn't that better than the old recycle method of turning it upside-down and shaking the f**k out of it ?




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

Benton Wrote:Where the hell did I say any of that?

Unless the definition of yes changed; then when you said yes when asked the question:

bfine32 Wrote:do we give kids access to these without parental consent?

(08-15-2016, 12:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Yes. Parents aren't consenting to premarital sex.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2016, 05:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I always try to point out when a member cherry picks info that does not really give the true conclusion of the study.



"it seems likely that the CFPI must have had some positive effects on abortion and birth rates"

Soooooooooo, what conversation did you have with yourself after cherry picking that quote from an article that states:

"This study does not examine comparable women who happened to get LARCs through the program and those who didn’t"


And


"So sure, the low-income teen birth rate did decrease relative to previous years, but without a control group, it’s impossible to know what percent of that decrease the contraception program is responsible for."

And

"There is likely some combination of factors driving the low teen birth rate in Colorado."


And there's more, but at this point, one might as well read the WHOLE article for him-or herself.


To answer your question, though, if the evidence truly suggests that a program like this significantly lowers abortion, I would not be against it. However, it seems there is reason to doubt that this program, while "most likely" having SOME effect, is not solely responsible and, at the very least, should warrant further study before making it official policy.

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2016, 06:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Soooooooooo, what conversation did you have with yourself after cherry picking that quote from an article that states:

"This study does not examine comparable women who happened to get LARCs through the program and those who didn’t"


And


"So sure, the low-income teen birth rate did decrease relative to previous years, but without a control group, it’s impossible to know what percent of that decrease the contraception program is responsible for."

And

"There is likely some combination of factors driving the low teen birth rate in Colorado."


And there's more, but at this point, one might as well read the WHOLE article for him-or herself.


To answer your question, though, if the evidence truly suggests that a program like this significantly lowers abortion, I would not be against it. However, it seems there is reason to doubt that this program, while "most likely" having SOME effect, is not solely responsible and, at the very least, should warrant further study before making it official policy.

The conclusion of the article is that the program has helped, but not as much as some people claim.

Do you deny that?

[Benton]

(08-15-2016, 06:58 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Soooooooooo, what conversation did you have with yourself after cherry picking that quote from an article that states:

"This study does not examine comparable women who happened to get LARCs through the program and those who didn’t"


And


"So sure, the low-income teen birth rate did decrease relative to previous years, but without a control group, it’s impossible to know what percent of that decrease the contraception program is responsible for."

And

"There is likely some combination of factors driving the low teen birth rate in Colorado."


And there's more, but at this point, one might as well read the WHOLE article for him-or herself.


To answer your question, though, if the evidence truly suggests that a program like this significantly lowers abortion, I would not be against it. However, it seems there is reason to doubt that this program, while "most likely" having SOME effect, is not solely responsible and, at the very least, should warrant further study before making it official policy.

To the bold, ok, lets take some square states (Colorado/NM or Wyoming/SD) and start doing some testing. If it looks like it might have helped in Colorado, then let's find out for sure.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2016, 08:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The conclusion of the article is that the program has helped, but not as much as some people claim.

Do you deny that?

Yes. The article i linked clearly states that the results of the program are NOT as conclusive as they have been made out to be. It MAY have helped is not the same thing has definitively stating that it HAS helped.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 04:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Because I love when there's a big debate on this board, I intentionally set out to see if anyone had attempted to "debunk" these numbers and, unsurprisingly enough, I was successful. I present to you a counter-argument:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-did-not-reduce-colorados-teen-pregnancy-rate-40-percent-callie-gable

TL;DR:


Let's get it on!

The article did point out some flaws in the study. But, I got the impression the person reviewing the study wasn't being objective in their critique. It's getting late so I don't want to get into all of it maybe tomorrow. 

But I will point out this one thing. . . 

Quote:There also remain plenty of unanswered questions about CFPI as health policy: This study doesn’t cover data on discontinuance rates, reinsertion rates, changes in STI transmission, or on many other factors that are important. For instance, it’s possible that since LARCs are effective for a number of years, birth rates could increase again in a few years when the devices expire, especially if women forget to replace them or delay replacement due to cost.

The study claims LARCs are effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies while the critique doubts that claim because of unanswered questions like "it's possible that since LARCs are effective for a number of years, birth rates could increase again in a few years when the devices expire."

Okay, that's not even a question. It is a statement. A statement which claims while the LARCs may actually do what they claim, how will we know they are effective if the unwanted pregnancy rates climb after they stop being effective?

So basically how will we know they are effective if they are effective when they are supposed to be effective, but then they stop being effective when they aren't supposed to be effective anymore?  And what if they aren't replaced because of cost which is one of the reasons the LARCs were given away for free to low income women. It's almost as if they gave them away for free initially so they wouldn't be cost prohibitive to low income women who don't have a lot of money to buy cost prohibitive LARCs to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies the critique inadvertently admitted are reduced by using LARCs, but inexplicably the author isn't sure they are effective because they are effective until they expire at which point they won't be effective anymore which is what expired ***** means, Callie Gable. 

WTF?

That's the stupidest critique I've ever read which explains why the mainstream media is over run with liberals with their useless degrees in liberal arts like journalism and the sciences.