View Poll Results: Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

Voters
117. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    45 38.46%
  • No

    72 61.54%
Page 10 of 50 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 491

Thread: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    I'll show you guys something to drive the population argument home intuitively.



    This is a population map of the USA. Do you think the east coast is "overpopulated?" No, it is fine.

    Now we have the WHOLE REST of the country where barely anyone lives. We could put a lot more people out west and believe me, there's room and plenty of food.

  2. #92
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Convince me that it's a problem.
    Go to the community college and take Introduction to Environmental Science (Ev101). I can't be expected to outline a chapter for such a lack of knowledge.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Go west young man. There's plenty of room. This is one of America's unique advantages in the next century.

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Go to the community college and take Introduction to Environmental Science (Ev101). I can't be expected to outline a chapter for such a lack of knowledge.

  4. #94
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Now we have the WHOLE REST of the country where barely anyone lives. We could put a lot more people out west and believe me, there's room and plenty of food.
    Because the map has a light shading on those places, right?

    Can we see national parks or deserts on this map? No. That's messed up and misleading. Low pop density counties look the same as preserved land and deserts.

    Next, let's consider that the major aquifer for the mid-west is 50% depleted over the last ~100 years. And you wanna put more people there and grow more food? How long will that aquifer last.

  5. #95
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Go west young man. There's plenty of room. This is one of America's unique advantages in the next century.
    Compared to Europe? Yes. But we don't need to end up like them and solve the same problems in the same flawed ways. Better we avoid severe over-population.

  6. #96
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I'll show you guys something to drive the population argument home intuitively.



    This is a population map of the USA. Do you think the east coast is "overpopulated?" No, it is fine.
    ??? That's quite an arbitrary assertion. The standard I use for whether I feel that a place is overpopulated goes like this: Would the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem sustain this number of people? If not, then the area is overpopulated.

    Now we have the WHOLE REST of the country where barely anyone lives. We could put a lot more people out west and believe me, there's room and plenty of food.
    Ignoring for a moment how this could actually happen (i.e. how we would maintain a peaceful transition onto other people's land), there are large areas of land that are sparsely populated because they're uninhabitable. Other large pieces of land in the "breadbasket" are mono-crop agriculture, i.e. crops planted year after year which have depleted soils and only grow there because of petrochemical fertilizers and water pumped from non-replenishing fossil aquifers (as ecofarm notes above).

    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 10-15-12 at 01:33 PM.

  7. #97
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,176

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Fertility was higher because I used the 1950's as an example. This was the baby boom era, when all the men came back from the war and "got busy."

    Look at the 20's or 30's then. Fertility rates were the same as today's, and average life expectancy for women was still beyond reproductive years.

    Condoms weren't widely available at that time either.
    Yeah, starvation and disease tends to put a cramp in your reproductive organs.

    And actually, you're wrong about condoms. Condoms have been widely available since the 1800's. As a matter of fact, the 1920's was when the latex condom first came out. They were more effective and longer-lasting than previous varieties.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Are you suggesting that fewer people live out west because of all the national parks?

    Actually, the reason the east coast is more heavily populated is because people came from Europe, landed in the heavily shaded areas, and most people didn't travel too far afterward.


    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Because the map has a light shading on those places, right?

    Can we see national parks or deserts on this map? No. That's messed up and misleading. Low pop density counties look the same as preserved land and deserts.

  9. #99
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    So, we have established before contraceptives were widespread, women weren't dying before their reproductive days were up. Family planning was still possible.
    Mmm - birth control was illegal in this country - most people considered it to be vulgar or offensive to even research and discuss. Opening the door for discussion and research happened in steps. The first major step was during WWI where contraception and venereal diseases couldn't be ignored anymore.

    Life Expectancy by Age, 18502004 — Infoplease.com

    So - over that time frame - we can look at life expectancy and see it increase as we go deeper into the 20th century:

    In the 1850's it was 40.5 years at birth for a white female (afterall - back then they didn't give a **** about minorities)
    1890's: 44.46
    1900-1902: 51.08 (white) - 35.04 (other = minorites) / 16.04 year difference between whites and minorites.
    1909-1911: 53.62 (white) - 37.67 (other = minorites) / 15.95
    1919-1921: 58.53 (white) - 46.92 (other = minorites) / 11.61
    1929-1931: 62.67 (white) - 49.51 (other = minorites) / 13.61
    1939-1941: 67.29 (white) - 55.51 (other = minorites) / 11.78
    1949-1951: 72.03 (white) - 62.70 (other = minorites) / 9.33 Since this is getting to be a smaller gap I'd say it's have dual-benefits for everyone.

    See the trend - up and up as quality of healthcare - which includes better prenatal care, inoculations and prevention increased?

    It went from 79.4 (white) to 80.8 (white) between 1990 and 2004 (1.1 increase)
    It went from 65 (minorities) to 69.8 (minorities) between 1990 and 2004. (4.8 increase)

    So - for the average white female the statistics provide an increase of 29.72 years between 1900 and 2004.
    For the average minority female that's a 41.46 years increase between 1900 and 2004

    Note - the biggest time span for life expectancy increase for women (whites and minorities) was between the 1900's (before WWI) and the 1950's (after WWII) - an increase of 23.11 years for whites and 31.46 years for minorities.

    This means that of the 29.72 years that whites have gained between 1900-2004; 23.11 years out of 29.72 were gained between 1900 and the 1950's - the remaining 6.61 years have been gained in the last 45 years.

    For minorities that means puts that 1900-1950's gain at 31.4 years . . . leaving the remaining 10 years to be gained in the 45 years since then.

    I'd say that having the first 50 years of the 20th century net the majority of life-expectancy gains is pretty damned significant and hard to write off as anything other than better healthcare for women overall since both races of all economic levels benefited. . . and that includes better pregnancy prevention and prenatal care = both provided by private insurance and the federal or state government if needed.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #100
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Are you suggesting that fewer people live out west because of all the national parks?
    I'm saying:

    1. A lot of that "low density land" is desert and preservations.
    2. Low density areas are made to appear pristine.
    3. The map is meant for examining population density, that's obvious; however, extrapolating lightly shaded areas of a pop density map into "we have lots of room" is too simple.

    Actually, the reason the east coast is more heavily populated is because people came from Europe, landed in the heavily shaded areas, and most people didn't travel too far afterward.
    I'm well versed in population dynamics and the demographic transition. I doubt someone of your expertise on this subject could surmise the major factors of such satisfactorily, and I don't feel like going down that road at the moment.

Page 10 of 50 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •