Hooh, boy, I love the 'see what science shows" and point out something like nutrition information, or the infamous 'science said that a new Ice age was coming". I don’t know why the NIH website showed conflicting information, but I suspect that is more about bureaucratic stupidity than the nature of science. Science unlike the ‘revealed truth’ of the religious right is based on something quite difference, science begins, goes forth and ends with a question. The caveat on all science is that based on what we know, this is what we have found is going on, and why. The thing about science that is different than revealed truth is science generally goes from a hypothesis to theory and proves it. When things change, it usually is building on prior things, and when ‘revolutions’ have happened, it is when two competing hypotheses go head to head, and one ends up with the evidence to prove it (such as the big bang vs continuous creation or plate tectonics versus stasis). Relativity didn’t replace newtonian physics or Maxwell’s work, it continued it in a different context. The problem with nutrition and things like for example what causes heart disease is that unlike for example scientific experiments, those things depend on studies that may or may not show causality. The nice part about science is once evidence points to something being different, it can change, you don’t have the idiotic frameworks that revealed truth has to do to reconcile their belief with reality, like “the fossil record is God testing us” or claiming “dinosaurs existed in the garden of eden, they were vegetarians” or “carbon dating is inaccurate” (well, yeah, over a period of hundreds of millions of years, 10,000 years doesn’t matter much).
Part of the problem with issues like, for example teen pregnancy, is that instead of looking at the root causes, ideology gets in the way. So we have “the problem is that liberals have told people they aren’t responsible,” or from the other end “the problem is all because of structural inequality” or ‘the answer is spending more money’ or ‘the answer is letting them fail’. Instead of trying something and it fails, instead of learning from it, you get ‘see, you tried, and it failed,so therefore no such program can work" or you get "the program failed because it wasn’t big enough’ or 'it was killed before it could work", and both ends are missing what should have been done, which is to analyze why it failed and then take that knowledge and try something that might work. A failure in science is not considered a waste, it is a path that didn’t work, but you often learn more from a failure than from a success. A failure in a social program, on the other hand, becomes either a poster child for why the government stinks, or a poster child for how the government didn’t really want to solve the problem.
Just another reason why you can’t just blindly compare economic outcomes between groups. Not everyone is starting from the same place (eg education, etc).
" Part of the problem with issues like, for example teen pregnancy, is that instead of looking at the root causes, ideology gets in the way. So we have “the problem is that liberals have told people they aren’t responsible,” or from the other end “the problem is all because of structural inequality” or ‘the answer is spending more money’ or ‘the answer is letting them fail’. Instead of trying something and it fails, instead of learning from it, you get ‘see, you tried, and it failed,so therefore no such program can work" or you get "the program failed because it wasn’t big enough’ or 'it was killed before it could work", and both ends are missing what should have been done, which is to analyze why it failed and then take that knowledge and try something that might work. A failure in science is not considered a waste, it is a path that didn’t work, but you often learn more from a failure than from a success"
Really, I am confused, @musicprnt. I have no idea who you are. Sometimes you are the brilliant, logical person, who says things like the above quote, and sometimes you sound so virulently hateful (though also brilliant), that it seems like a completely different person is posting. I don’t mean to be offensive, but I am curious. Which person are you? Or are you both?
I don’t know that just because you don’t want to pay for it, means that you are against it, however shortsighted that might be. And apparently there are types of birth control that people consider abortifacients, so I can understand a moral argument against that.
In the states where Planned Parenthoods are all over the place—being poor should be no reason for not having birth control. They charge almost nothing for birth control, it is given to you on a sliding scale. In states that don’t have them available, it’s another story.
GMTplus7, that’s a cute answer. The problem with that answer is birth control that teenage girls use works to lower abortions, births, etc.
I am all for condoms. Can you share research that shows condoms work better?
Busdriver11, if poor people can’t afford something, and other people don’t want to pay for it, so poor people don’t get that something, it is hard to argue, those who prevented are in favor.
You can’t argue, well it is just a money issue. It is cheaper to provide birth control so it is not about the money.
Personally, I’m a big advocate of condoms. Not only do they have a good track record of preventing pregnancy - IF used correctly - but they will also protect against many STDs and they are fairly affordable. However, the benefit of IUDs and long-term implants is they work at preventing pregnancy without having to do much thinking after they are implanted - even if the people engaged in the sexual act “forget” due to getting carried away by lust, alcohol, or whatever. But, IUDs and long-term implants are more expensive due to the fact they are, obviously, not picked up at OTC at your local pharmacy or 7-11. Given their success in preventing pregnancy in the target teenaged group, I think it is taxpayer money well spent given the savings to society over time. We can joke about condoms and teenaged boys’ fantasies/preparedness but condoms don’t always get used and IUDs and implants take the “oops” out of the equation. I also like the fact that getting an IUD or implant puts the teenaged female in charge of her own contraception and body without relying on the guy. Hopefully, a condom will be used to protect against STDs, too.
I am convinced many people would be highly disappointed if they could no longer beat the out-of-wedlock pregnancy drum. That’s why they are against any government program shown to be highly cost effective in drastically reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies within “certain groups”,and they are against helping to support the products of such pregnancies, and they are against abortion. Because what they really want is the head rush that comes from the conviction that they are “those people’s” social and moral superiors. It’s “all about the money” you see, except when it’s “all about the sanctity of human life”, which is only precious for as long as it resides within a woman’s body, after which, it’s all about the money. 8-|
" Because what they really want is the head rush that comes from the conviction that they are “those people’s” social and moral superiors"
Cemeteries are full of dead people who thought they were social and moral superiors. Better than others. They ended up in the same place as those they considered inferior.
I really could care less if people want have children out of wedlock, AS LONG AS THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Angelina/Brad had their children out of wedlock, but they weren’t asking me to pay to raise their kids. So congrats to them.
Is there truly a crisis in birth control availability for poor people? There might be religious controversy about IUDs, but there are condoms, the pill, depo provera, diaphagm, rhythm method, spermicides. Pick one.
“I really could care less if people want have children out of wedlock, AS LONG AS THEY CAN AFFORD IT. Angelina/Brad had their children out of wedlock, but they weren’t asking me to pay to raise their kids. So congrats to them.”
How is that working out for us?
Teens who have sex are not thinking about if they can afford to raise a child or not.
Teens will have sex despite abstinence only sex ed.
There is one almost sure fire way to prevent teen pregnancies.
Personally, I think if the abortion issue goes away that is one less issue a certain political party can use to keep their base happy. They don’t want teens to stop getting pregnant, they don’t want the rate to go down. If it wasn’t they would support publicly funded birth control programs.
