I'm pretty liberal, but can someone explain why I'm supposed want free birth control to be a thing?

BS wrote:

questioning liberal wrote:

I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?

I have no idea why it would be a human rights crusade but the economic argument would be free access to birth control means fewer unwanted births which means lower societal/economic costs from said unwanted births. I can also see some positive effects on the healthcare side depending on the type of birth control being made available.

So in short, the cost of making available free birth control would be outweighed but the savings later. Access to abortion services makes similar economic arguments.

True, but consider that all Western countries have fertility rates which are far below the replacement level.

Now combine this with the fact that the political establishment wants continued population growth, to drive the economy.

The inevitable result is mass immigration from the Third World, where the fertility rate is high.

Is this desirable? You be the judge of that.

prettycon wrote:

questioning liberal wrote:

I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?

I'm pretty conservative, but I think of free birth control as one of the few excellent investments that the federal government could make.

OP is not 'liberal' in any way except liberally dumb- or a bad troll.

People get laid more- maybe evev OP someday!- kids are better planned, wanted; less workplace stress from sexual frustration, pregnancy etc...

There's zero argument against it except by neo-Puritan creeps and 'free market' frauds who want to subsidize the wealthy even more.

BS wrote:

questioning liberal wrote:

I tend to be pretty liberal, but I don't understand the whole birth control thing. Why has free birth control become some kind of human rights crusade?

I have no idea why it would be a human rights crusade but the economic argument would be free access to birth control means fewer unwanted births which means lower societal/economic costs from said unwanted births. I can also see some positive effects on the healthcare side depending on the type of birth control being made available.

So in short, the cost of making available free birth control would be outweighed but the savings later. Access to abortion services makes similar economic arguments.

The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no real financial or long term longitudinal data that backs any of that argument up. Its speculation. But thats not why it was enacted, it was to pacify the far left.

"long term longitudinal data"

Did you just make that phrase up?

It is very simple. Women should have access to family planning regardless of their socioeconomic background. The right to decide when to have a family and how many children will be in your family is a fundamental right that belongs to all women and not just those who can afford to buy birth control.

In the context of Obamacare, it was a matter of gender equity in health insurance. Men could get pills for soft wee wees and prostate exams covered by insurance, but women could not get birth control covered.

questioning liberal wrote:

L L wrote:

Well maybe if you ever get a chance to have sex you'll understand the benefit.

The whole idea only benefits anyone who ever had any sex without the intent to procreate.

I have had sex. I used a condom. It wasn't difficult.

No you didnt

In other words, it is more important to you to feel superior to others and make judgements about their behavior than it is to actually be effective.

Got it.

free birth control makes sense for private insurers to offer. much cheaper than pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, or adding a dependant to the plan

Because teenage pregnancy is cruel on mothers and children. Get out much?

People are in love with the idea of "safe" recreational sex. It is a false concept. If you look at disease rates (epidemic at this point, current rate is close to 50% of sexually active individuals will get an STD by the age of 25) and illegitimacy rates, they have sky rocketed since the advent of "safe" sex during the sexual revolution in the 1960s. We have about 15,000 deaths from AIDS, about 12,000 from various forms of Hepatitis, approximately 5,000 from cervical cancer, 700 from anal cancer and more from syphilis, PID, etc. each year in the US, We've gone from worrying about gonorrhea and syphilis during WWII to about 20 different STDs today. As a society we need to re-evaluate our stance on recreational sex and the roll of censorship in all forms of media.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

BS wrote:

I have no idea why it would be a human rights crusade but the economic argument would be free access to birth control means fewer unwanted births which means lower societal/economic costs from said unwanted births. I can also see some positive effects on the healthcare side depending on the type of birth control being made available.

So in short, the cost of making available free birth control would be outweighed but the savings later. Access to abortion services makes similar economic arguments.

The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no real financial or long term longitudinal data that backs any of that argument up. Its speculation. But thats not why it was enacted, it was to pacify the far left.

This seems pretty long term -

Seems to be other several other papers that come to similar conclusions.

Though the paper does not seem to discern between an increase in "access" and "free access" however, its pretty the two are likely positively correlated.

However, I will agree the correlation/causation link will always be messy since there are some many competing elements.

F the Left wrote:

The philosophy of the left is as follows: if you need it, it's your neighbor's duty to pay for it.

That pretty much sums it it but i woudl change "need" to "and/or want"

I've never understood why birth control isn't free. The drugs are generic. A month's supply costs about $2 to produce. The government could give birth control to every woman of child bearing age for about $900 million a year. Government aid to single women with children is tens of billions every year. Taking birth control could be mandatory for any financial assistance from the government.

Women need access to free birth control in all forms. Vasectomies should be free as well. Imagine all the abortions prevented if free birth control was available.

People are going to have sex. Having free birth control available makes more sense than having millions of tax payer dollars WASTED on intercollegiate athletes. What does playing football, basketball, track, any other sport have to do with education?

It's hilarious that any programs outside of the top d1 football/basketball claim to be revenue generating. No they don't generate any revenue.

above_average_joe wrote:

justthefacts wrote:

Why is it so important to think that everything needs to be free to be a good thing?

I think most people would agree seeing a game live and for free would make their lives a bit better. Instead people pay upwards of $400 a game and have no problem with that. Yet making sure you don't get pregnant while not being able to afford it requires "special benefits from the government"?

this is a silly comparison. there is no positive externality of subsidizing football games.

My taxes paid for the stadium the pro football team owns. I should get free tickets.

End College Athletics NOW!!! wrote:

It's hilarious that any programs outside of the top d1 football/basketball claim to be revenue generating. No they don't generate any revenue.

Do you know the difference between revenue and profit? If you sell a single ticket, you're generating revenue, even if you are massively unprofitable.

BS wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

The problem with that line of thinking is that there is no real financial or long term longitudinal data that backs any of that argument up. Its speculation. But thats not why it was enacted, it was to pacify the far left.

This seems pretty long term -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203450/

Seems to be other several other papers that come to similar conclusions.

Though the paper does not seem to discern between an increase in "access" and "free access" however, its pretty the two are likely positively correlated.

However, I will agree the correlation/causation link will always be messy since there are some many competing elements.

Access isn't the issue, its whether it should be free or not. I think that it should not. There's no data that I'm aware of that supports the contention that if its free, birth rates will drop as more women will avail themselves of it. One might conclude that it does without data, as it seems intuitive however until state governments quit creating financial and social welfare incentives to have more kids, there likely will be nothing that changes.

fisky wrote:

I've never understood why birth control isn't free. The drugs are generic. A month's supply costs about $2 to produce. The government could give birth control to every woman of child bearing age for about $900 million a year. Government aid to single women with children is tens of billions every year. Taking birth control could be mandatory for any financial assistance from the government.

Agreed, but this is putting a lot of faith in people to responsibly take their pills. And then of course you'll get the "I don't know how I got pregnant! I was on the pill!" people who will still want financial assistance for their child.

To the OP, the mantra of liberalism is "more free stuff stuff!"

Duh.