New Obamacare Thread

[PhuturePriest]

Study Shows that Access to Cheap and Easy Contraception Increases Sexual Activity on College Campuses
By Michael J. New

In 2011 the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center published a study (1) looking at how the cost of oral contraceptives impacted the sexual activity of college women. In 2005, the passage of the federal Deficit Reduction Act led to a sharp increase in the price of birth control pills at college health centers. The increase was dramatic as the cost of oral contraceptives went from between 5 to 10 dollars a month to between 30 and 50 dollars a month. The fact that the increase in the price of oral contraceptives was both unexpected and dramatic – made this an excellent natural experiment to analyze how the cost of contraceptives impacts contraceptive use specifically and sexual activity more broadly.

Survey data on contraceptive use and sexual activity was obtained from the National College Health Assessment (NCHA) and the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The results indicated that increases in the cost of oral contraceptives reduced use of the birth control pill. Not surprisingly, this decrease in pill usage was even more dramatic among college women who lacked health insurance and among college women who had large credit card balances. The study also found that after the price of oral contraceptives increased – there were statistically significant decreases in both the frequency of sexual intercourse and the number of sex partners.

The fact the easy access to contraceptives increases the amount of sexual activity explains why programs to distribute or subsidize contraceptives often fail to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate. Even Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen co-authored a study (2) in 1996 which showed that easy access to oral contraception increased the amount of sexual activity – and might have resulted in increases in both the unintended pregnancy rate and the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Furthermore, even though contraceptive use has been increasing consistently over time – the unintended pregnancy rate has held relatively constant. Mainstream media pundits who complain pro-lifers need to become more contraception friendly should take a closer look at this and other studies.
 

 

----
Source: http://www.catholicvote.org/study-shows-that-access-to-cheap-and-easy-contraception-increases-sexual-activity-on-college-campuses/
1: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr11-737.pdf
2: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof
 
 

 

It's almost as if if one is given the opportunity to have all the sex they want without consequences, they will take it.

[NotreDame]

I would say the same to you FP. You have been presenting a lot of view points but nothing to back them up. If you are requiring Isidore to provide a documented study, why cant you?

 

No, what he is saying is that he is tired. He has posted a lot of external links and sometimes these things are simply easier done on Skype.

No one else on this thread in the recent pages has even made a slight attempt at backing up their words with sources. Its easy to just run off your mouth, but please provide evidence for it. 

If I see evidence, I look at it with an objective mind as much as possible. 

 

Watermelon head posted no relevant external links except one to wikipedia in which he snagged one single-sourced data point. 

 

... And Watermelon's constant requests to skype are indeed creepy.

 

The last source that was linked from the opposition (not even related to the current topic) was by ND on page 3.

 

I would request FP to provide some evidence that the pill is the direct cause of an increase in promiscuity vs technology. He has cited nothing, just expressed his opinion. 

 

Actually, I posted some data from multiple countries just a few posts previous to this.   And I love how you refer to people as "the opposition." 

 

On the whole, crosscut, I'm left with the impression that you don't really read anyone's responses before you decide to argue with them.

[CrossCuT]

I have cited the culture. If you look at the culture, it gets more promiscuous and sexual.

 

Sources pls

[PhuturePriest]

Sources pls

 

Look at the last study that was just posted. College students are more promiscuous when birth control is on the scene.

[CrossCuT]

Watermelon head posted no relevant external links except one to wikipedia in which he snagged one single-sourced data point. 

 

... And Watermelon's constant requests to skype are indeed creepy.

 

 

Actually, I posted some data from multiple countries just a few posts previous to this.   And I love how you refer to people as "the opposition." 

 

On the whole, crosscut, I'm left with the impression that you don't really read anyone's responses before you decide to argue with them.

 

Ok fine. If you guys refuse to participate in an argument like adults, then whatever.

Resorting to name calling is pitiful along with the fact that for whatever reason you guys dont need to post sources???? There has been nothing posted by you guys in the last 7 pages. 

 

Do I really have to sit here and tell you how to argue effectively? When you make a claim, you back it up. Didnt you learn that in writing 101? Or some sort of debate class? Or have you ever written papers?

 

Please be an example of the Christian spirit and stop being rude. I would appreciate it. I have never called people names or tired to discredit them by calling out rude things.

Is there anyone on here who can have a conversation with me about it? Anyone?

 

 

And FP, even if you cite the "culture", you need to cite that the culture is waht you think it is. There is plenty of interpretation about what the culture is and there are tons of subcultures. Citing the "culture" is still pretty subjective. Sources are still required.

[PhuturePriest]

Ok fine. If you guys refuse to participate in an argument like adults, then whatever.

Resorting to name calling is pitiful along with the fact that for whatever reason you guys dont need to post sources???? There has been nothing posted by you guys in the last 7 pages. 

 

Do I really have to sit here and tell you how to argue effectively? When you make a claim, you back it up. Didnt you learn that in writing 101? Or some sort of debate class? Or have you ever written papers?

 

Please be an example of the Christian spirit and stop being rude. I would appreciate it. I have never called people names or tired to discredit them by calling out rude things.

Is there anyone on here who can have a conversation with me about it? Anyone?

 

 

And FP, even if you cite the "culture", you need to cite that the culture is waht you think it is. There is plenty of interpretation about what the culture is and there are tons of subcultures. Citing the "culture" is still pretty subjective. Sources are still required.

 

I seem to recall three sources posted on this page. Look at the posts.

[PhuturePriest]

Ok fine. If you guys refuse to participate in an argument like adults, then whatever.

Resorting to name calling is pitiful along with the fact that for whatever reason you guys dont need to post sources???? There has been nothing posted by you guys in the last 7 pages. 

 

Do I really have to sit here and tell you how to argue effectively? When you make a claim, you back it up. Didnt you learn that in writing 101? Or some sort of debate class? Or have you ever written papers?

 

Please be an example of the Christian spirit and stop being rude. I would appreciate it. I have never called people names or tired to discredit them by calling out rude things.

Is there anyone on here who can have a conversation with me about it? Anyone?

 

 

And FP, even if you cite the "culture", you need to cite that the culture is waht you think it is. There is plenty of interpretation about what the culture is and there are tons of subcultures. Citing the "culture" is still pretty subjective. Sources are still required.

 

http://chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/safe-sex/isnt-using-birth-control-

http://chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/safe-sex/whats-wrong-with-shipping

http://chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/abortion/before-abortion-was-legal

http://chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/abortion/do-birth-control-pills-ca

 

Four links, each with at least 4 studies each.

[KnightofChrist]

This study, sourced in a previous post (http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof) also showed that with the increase liberalization and availability  of contraception there was an increase in sexual activity and out of wedlock births.

 

If the increased abortions and use of contraceptives caused the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the increase would have to have been very large relative to the number of those births and to the number of unmarried women. And as table 1 shows, that was indeed the case. The use of birth control pills at first intercourse by unmarried women jumped from 6 percent to 15 percent in just a few years, a change that suggests that a much larger fraction of all sexually active unmarried women began using the pill. The number of abortions to unmarried women grew from roughly 100,000 a year in the late 1960s (compared with some 322,000 out-of-wedlock births) to more than 1.2 million (compared with 715,000 out-of-wedlock births) in the early 1980s. Thus the data do support the theory.

 

 

[CrossCuT]

I havent read the links yet, but fabulous! THis is what Im talking about! THis is what should happen everytime! Thanks guys

[NotreDame]

Ok fine. If you guys refuse to participate in an argument like adults, then whatever.

Resorting to name calling is pitiful along with the fact that for whatever reason you guys dont need to post sources???? There has been nothing posted by you guys in the last 7 pages. 

 

Do I really have to sit here and tell you how to argue effectively? When you make a claim, you back it up. Didnt you learn that in writing 101? Or some sort of debate class? Or have you ever written papers?

 

Please be an example of the Christian spirit and stop being rude. I would appreciate it. I have never called people names or tired to discredit them by calling out rude things.

Is there anyone on here who can have a conversation with me about it? Anyone?

 

Take deep breath and re-read this for comprehension:

 

Actually, I posted some data from multiple countries just a few posts previous to this.   And I love how you refer to people as "the opposition." 

 

On the whole, crosscut, I'm left with the impression that you don't really read anyone's responses before you decide to argue with them.

[CrossCuT]

Take deep breath and re-read this for comprehension:

You dont read. 

I mention your post, said you were the lasts person to even post a link back on page 3.

[NotreDame]

You dont read. 

I mention your post, said you were the lasts person to even post a link back on page 3.

 

As I said, it's you that doesn't read, because (as I've said once or twice already this AM) I posted links and statistics just a couple posts before yours on page 7. 
 

[KnightofChrist]

Look man, I hear you. I'm upset too.

I cannot easily buy that. It cannot upset you too much, because you continue to advocate for and defend a group that officially and strongly denies personhood to a group of people and advocates those persons mass-murder. If it were any other group, organization, or party which denied the personhood to a group of people and advocated those persons mass-murder, such a group would be labeled as a hate group. Do you deny this? Can you give a straight answer to that question? Other than the Democrat Party, I can think of no other group where there is not a social stigma for defending, advocating for, and being a member of a group that officially advocates the non-personhood of certain persons, and mass-murder for those persons. Can you?

But let's not paint people who are not evil, as evil. Nobody rejoices in having an abortion, and nobody rejoices when someone they know has an abortion.

I explained in my earlier posts the primary reasons why woman choose to have abortions. It is not out of some evil plot to destroy lives or to murder the unborn. It is a logical choice for their own well being. However morally misguided their logic might seem to you, the fact remains the providing opportunities for a new mother to feel confident in her ability to provide for and care for her child is the only way to reduce the number of abortions in the world.

As you have seen over the last 50 years, shouting "you're evil and you're murdering people" simply doesn't work.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I stated. I have not been speaking about mothers who abort their children. Nor I did say a mother or someone that knows them rejoices in a abortion. I've argued against the hate group known as the Democrat party, rightly accused it of officially advocating the mass murder of persons it does not see as persons. The individuals that rule that party do rejoice in abortion, and have stated many times how good abortion is, one such leader even calling it a sacrament. There have also been other leaders of the Democrat Party or it's affiliates who have admitted that even if the baby is a person it doesn't matter, and that it shouldn't effect the laws allowing abortion.

[CrossCuT]

As I said, it's you that doesn't read, because (as I've said once or twice already this AM) I posted links and statistics just a couple posts before yours on page 7. 
 

 

No you dont read! YOU TIMES INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS. FP and KoC, I will be reading each article you posted and responding to each individually, this may take some time though! :)

[NotreDame]

No you dont read! YOU TIMES INFINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The shamelessness in how you are so often wrong yet completely incredulous is really quite remarkable.