EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6589
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2108 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:02 LightSpectra wrote: Read the whole paragraph: "CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." In other words, if people have the same amount of sex, then birth control reduces abortions (according to this study). However that's only relevant when people have the same amount of sex with or without birth control. In half the countries they studied, abortions and contraception use increased simultaneously. we did read the whole paragraph. It's mostly talking about situations where the desired number of children decreased. abortions increased because people wanted fewer children, and the increased contraception use didn't loewr the unintended pregnancy rate by enough to cover the lower number of children desired. at any rate, your explanation of what that means does not seem to highly comport to what the actual text says. still looking through the study in detail, so not entirely sure yet. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14103 Posts
Not to mention its probably not even remotely the biggest factor in teens having sex. It does show a decrease in teenage pregnancies and would probably lower pregnancies by the poor. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18213 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:02 LightSpectra wrote: Read the whole paragraph: "CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." In other words, if people have the same amount of sex, then birth control reduces abortions (according to this study). However that's only relevant when people have the same amount of sex with or without birth control. In half the countries they studied, abortions and contraception use increased simultaneously. Your reading comprehension seems a bit limited. From the paragraph above: After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea. So yes, while people are having increasing amounts of sex, both the use of contraception and abortion rate rises. When the amount of sex people have tapers off, the negative correlation between contraception and abortion rates (and thus, unwanted pregnancies) asserts itself. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2108 Posts
However IF easy-access birth control leads to more people having sex, then it will lead to more unwanted pregnancies, since now people are having sex expecting no pregnancies (or STDs for that matter) since it's statistically "unlikely", but guaranteed to happen to a large number of people. In other words, easy-access birth control leads many people to believe they can now have "safe" sex, when in reality there's a statistically large chance that the sex will result in undesired consequences. 1-5% (whatever the number may be, depends on what study you're checking) doesn't sound like a lot, but 1% of ten million is still 100,000. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18213 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:05 LightSpectra wrote: I don't believe anybody said that, but ok. Regardless of what the amount is, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that easy access to birth control will usually result in more sex. It's not unreasonable. It's also completely unproven (I actually looked at the paper that your article linked with "data" supporting that claim, if you want we can go into it, but it boils down to them not using a methodology that could say much either way except that "it's possible"). It's not unreasonable to say lots of things that are unequivocally wrong. And the article you started off linking said lots of them happily  | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14103 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:16 LightSpectra wrote: Perhaps you're not seeing the point. If you have the same amount of sex or less on birth control, then of course unwanted pregnancies will decrease, since the birth control is preventing you from getting pregnant >0% of the time. However IF easy-access birth control leads to more people having sex, then it will lead to more unwanted pregnancies, since now people are having sex expecting no pregnancies (or STDs for that matter) since it's statistically "unlikely", but guaranteed to happen to a large number of people. I don't quite understand your reasoning for this. The increase in people having sex from easy access birth control related doesn't exist in a vacuum. logic would dictate that people who are already having sex would use birth control more if they had easy access to it. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2108 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:05 LightSpectra wrote: I don't believe anybody said that, but ok. Regardless of what the amount is, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that easy access to birth control will usually result in more sex. And even if that's true, why is that bad? Is there some law against more sex? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:02 LightSpectra wrote: Read the whole paragraph: "CONCLUSIONS: Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." In other words, if people have the same amount of sex, then birth control reduces abortions (according to this study). However that's only relevant when people have the same amount of sex with or without birth control. In half the countries they studied, abortions and contraception use increased simultaneously. You're misunderstanding the study. It says nothing about the "amount of sex" people have. It explains that when abortion rates rose while contraceptive use rose as well, it was because the use of contraceptives did not rise sufficiently fast to counterbalance the faster decline in fertility rates (i.e. the falling number of desired children). In other words, as people started wanting less and less children, the use of contraceptives increased at a slower rate than the increase in unwanted pregnancies, leading to an increase of abortion rates. Those rising rates of unwanted pregnancies were not the result of people having sex more often but of less pregnancies being desired. Since when fertility rates are stable the use of contraceptives leads to a decrease in abortion rates, it means that any increase that may be linked to some people having sex more often because of the existence of contraceptives is nevertheless more than offset by the efficiency of contraceptives in decreasing the rates of unwanted pregnancies resulting from having sex. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14103 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:21 LightSpectra wrote: I would venture to guess that the number of people who are having "unprotected" sex but not expecting pregnancy/STDs are a lot lower than the number of people who are only having sex because it is "protected". Or the amount of people who are using less reliable forms of birth control or are uneducated about birth control. I also don't know where this 1 out of 100 failure rate for the pill form of birth control comes from. It seems really odd and extremely high from my personal experience. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18213 Posts
On January 19 2017 03:24 Sermokala wrote: Or the amount of people who are using less reliable forms of birth control or are uneducated about birth control. I also don't know where this 1 out of 100 failure rate for the pill form of birth control comes from. It seems really odd and extremely high from my personal experience. Well, real failure rate is a lot higher: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf But note that that includes failure due to incorrect use. The reason the implant and the IUD are so high is because they cannot be used wrong (unless the doctor fucks it up). So if using the pill correctly, it has a similar failure rate (it does basically the same thing) E: what really boggles me is that with female sterilization there's still 0.5% chance of unwanted pregnancy. I thought female sterilization was far more effective than that. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28933/does-availability-of-birth-control-to-adolescents-lead-to-premarital-sexual-acti http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/06/free-birth-control-sex/6128697/ not looking through all the links in detail myself. plenty of others to choose from. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
The Little Sisters, as an order of Catholic nuns who run homes to care for the indigent elderly, have become the sympathetic face of the dispute. They strongly oppose an HHS rule that says they must either provide free contraception as part of their employees' health insurance plan or fill out a form (or write a letter) notifying the government to instead require their insurer to provide the coverage "independently." This website has a great explaination of the original questions prior to the supreme court decision. Here is a WAPO article that talks about the results of the SCOTUS rulling | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
this is such a stupid issue. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45270 Posts
What is it with Trump's nominees? Does he purposely go out of his way to find the least qualified people or something? Betsy Devos was evasive about absolutely everything, because she had no other answer to offer; she has no idea what the hell goes on in public education or higher education, she has no experience whatsoever, and she clearly hasn't even researched the Secretary of Education position. She, like Trump, was born into a rich family, and she's basically paid her way into a position that is of paramount importance for our country with absolutely no knowledge of how to carry out the job. The questions that Kaine, Franken, Warren, Sanders, Murphy, and everyone else asked were basic questions. They were not "gotcha"/ trick questions. They weren't loaded or paradoxical. They were foundational and fundamental to understanding the American education (and schooling and loan) system, and any educator- or hell, anyone who's spent a few hours doing research just for fun- would have more insight than Betsy Devos. As an American educator, I'm very, very worried about this woman. My favorite response was when she said that we should have guns in school in case of a grizzly bear attack. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45270 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
| ||
| ||
