An Interesting Study
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,058
That's just disturbing. I can't remember the statistic, but I know females are more prone to getting an STD due to our biological differences.
But, I never would have thought it was that high.
But, I never would have thought it was that high.
The Fundamentalist bastards who took over the White House deserve to burn in the deepest pits of the Christian hell for all eternity. And yes, I'm absolutely serious about this. If they were put on trial and sentenced for their crimes I'd be happy to pull the rope or swing the axe myself.
The Bushies have completely eliminated comprehensive sex education in any public school. It's not permitted. You can't talk about the effectiveness of birth control measures. You can't even legally discuss the fact that condoms severely reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease. "Ignorance is strength" indeed.
The worst part, though is the disgraceful murderous hatred that motivated them to condemn thousands of women to agonizing, degrading protracted death as their diseased reproductive organs kill them. Those unspeakable sadistic bastards sat on Gardasil for half a dozen years. Gardasil provides excellent protection against HPV. It underwent the most rigorous safety and effectiveness testing. The manufacturers jumped through all the FDA hoops. But the Smirking Chimp and his chorus of Cotton Mathers sat on it for years and wouldn't let it get final approval.
HPV is responsible for a little over 70% of cervical cancer. At a conservative estimate that means that about 8000 diagnoses and 2500 fatalities a year could be prevented by making the vaccine widely available. Six years? That's over 40000 victims and 15000 women condemned to one of the most horrible deaths I've ever personally seen.
Why? According to the Administration's own spokesdrones they didn't want to see Gardasil legalized because it would "give permission" to unmarried women to have sex. They repeated this execrable screed quite a few times. Condoms do not effectively prevent the spread of HPV. Gardasil would allow women to have sex without worrying about that particular infection. If women aren't terrified that their own wombs will kill them, why, they might have sex that wasn't authorized by the Church.
So the unspeakable creatures in the White House witheld a lifesaving drug in the hopes that women would be frightened into chastity.
Shooting's too good for those smug oleaginous villains. Every single one of them deserves the same horrible lingering death they condemned thousands of women to.
The Bushies have completely eliminated comprehensive sex education in any public school. It's not permitted. You can't talk about the effectiveness of birth control measures. You can't even legally discuss the fact that condoms severely reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease. "Ignorance is strength" indeed.
The worst part, though is the disgraceful murderous hatred that motivated them to condemn thousands of women to agonizing, degrading protracted death as their diseased reproductive organs kill them. Those unspeakable sadistic bastards sat on Gardasil for half a dozen years. Gardasil provides excellent protection against HPV. It underwent the most rigorous safety and effectiveness testing. The manufacturers jumped through all the FDA hoops. But the Smirking Chimp and his chorus of Cotton Mathers sat on it for years and wouldn't let it get final approval.
HPV is responsible for a little over 70% of cervical cancer. At a conservative estimate that means that about 8000 diagnoses and 2500 fatalities a year could be prevented by making the vaccine widely available. Six years? That's over 40000 victims and 15000 women condemned to one of the most horrible deaths I've ever personally seen.
Why? According to the Administration's own spokesdrones they didn't want to see Gardasil legalized because it would "give permission" to unmarried women to have sex. They repeated this execrable screed quite a few times. Condoms do not effectively prevent the spread of HPV. Gardasil would allow women to have sex without worrying about that particular infection. If women aren't terrified that their own wombs will kill them, why, they might have sex that wasn't authorized by the Church.
So the unspeakable creatures in the White House witheld a lifesaving drug in the hopes that women would be frightened into chastity.
Shooting's too good for those smug oleaginous villains. Every single one of them deserves the same horrible lingering death they condemned thousands of women to.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Earlier in 2007 there was a "study" saying that teen sex was at a signifigant low and condom use at an all time high, pregnancy was down etc. now its this "study". I think there was some creative numbercrunching to reach over 25%. The constant barrage of contradicting studies has me skeptical of the entire lot.
navyvetcv60
Orange Belt
This is really sad, and is more evidence at how our society is in major decline. This is a byproduct of single parent house holds, there is so many moms raising children with no father.
With regards to an earlier assertion of "lack of sex ed. in public schools, the Government run schools are full of "How to live a deviant life style and be safe doing it, ever heard of the cucumber races? This is where they take your children and show them how to put a condom on a cucumber.
I really don't know where to start? If you love your children and want them to suceed and live a moral life GET THEM OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT RUN SCHOOLS.
The public schools is absolutly the biggest failure of our Government!
With regards to an earlier assertion of "lack of sex ed. in public schools, the Government run schools are full of "How to live a deviant life style and be safe doing it, ever heard of the cucumber races? This is where they take your children and show them how to put a condom on a cucumber.
I really don't know where to start? If you love your children and want them to suceed and live a moral life GET THEM OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT RUN SCHOOLS.
The public schools is absolutly the biggest failure of our Government!
CoryKS
Senior Master
Yes, by all means, blame the Bush Administration for not taking money from people who don't agree with the focus of current sex ed curricula; not giving that money to an institution that many people believe is not the correct venue for that education; and basically for not protecting kids from the effects of behavior that so many of us don't want them engaging in. Shame on them.
Cue the "Teens have sex - deal with it" arguments. Well, STDs happen - deal with it.
Cue the "Teens have sex - deal with it" arguments. Well, STDs happen - deal with it.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Yeah, they do. Wouldn't it be nice to reduce the incidence?
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
as does Polio - deal with it.
newGuy12
Master of Arts
01-20-09
313 days
22 hours
37 minutes
05 seconds
That is, provided there still IS a US, as we know it, then.
Well, dang it. The day has come. We must disagree.
Teens DO have sex and STDs DO happen and we must deal with them both. Gosh ... what in the world could we do about such an awful situation? Hm. I wonder.
Well there are these incredible barrier methods that if we just can't seem to thwart teen sex that they could and should use. Problem is they're too darned embarrassed to buy them publicly, too darned embarrassed to ask for some from their parents and too darned busy to go to the free clinic. WhatEVer CAN we DO?
Hm. Well here's an idea ... we could make barrier contraception available freely to them on a confidential basis. Perhaps we can get those kids who just refuse to listen to their parents, teachers and politicians (I know - there's only a dozen of these kids in the world) to at least protect themselves and each other.
What's that? All the money filtered into social programs, medicare, welfare, state medical assistance programs and the ramifications of continued, exponentially growing social diseases are WORTH face-egging, sick and unwanted babies, increasing need for governmenet-funded programs to pay for kids with herpes, AIDS, genital warts, chlamydia, gonorrhea and all the other diseases? The pain, suffering and cost everyone goes through because of all this ... it's all ... WORTH IT?? You mean ... THE COST OF BARRIER CONTRACEPTION, HAVING UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF CHURCH AND THE DINING ROOM TABLE, AND EXPOSING CHILDREN TO MEDICAL FACTS ABOUT THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE HEALTH IS MORE THAN THE COST OF PERMANENT DISFIGUREMENT, TERMINAL ILLESSES, STERILIZATION AND SOCIAL OSTRACISM?????
OH!
Okay.
Well then.
I guess I'll just shut up.
:shrug:
CoryKS
Senior Master
Interesting comparison. What sort of behavior tends to result in polio? Is it behavior that a portion of the community frowns upon? Is it behavior that the victims are being told they can go ahead and engage in, as long as they are "careful"?
The difference is that with STDs: 1) I didn't want you to do that; 2) You did it anyway; 3) You want me to pay to protect you from the effects; 4) I don't think so.
Nicely stated... and please, as one of those teachers who's not listened to, continue to make such statements to all and sundry!
Empty Hands
Senior Master
5) Punish the whores!
CoryKS
Senior Master
It's happened before, and my ears are still ringing from it.
What could WE do? No, what could THEY do?
It's a matter of economics... what are ya feeling most, boy? Embarrassed or horny?
Freely - to them. Paid for by others. Including those who want no part of it and were not asked.
Now why would we want to protect those kids?
But... you've argued above that the cost of permanent disfigurement, terminal illnesses, sterilization, and social ostracism, along with the other things you've mentioned, are not worth the cost of the embarrassment of purchasing the means of prevention, even to those who will bear the cost. And because they refuse to bear that cost, you want others to bear it for them.
CoryKS
Senior Master
Are you really this ignorant? Not "Punish the whores." It's "Take the responsibility for your own actions." Do you really not see the difference?
Just to underline what SS said...
People have always had sex. They've even done it when *gasp* the Authorities didn't want them to.
What's significant here is that the Bush Administration isn't just willing to let people die. They're eager. And they've stated that the reason they did it was to make sure that women who don't behave the way they want will have to live in fear of a really horrible death. That's not just a "deal with it". That's mass murder. It's not even a matter of insanity. It's a sadistic determination to ensure that there's only one choice - comply or die.
It's even worse. Using the power of the purse and the Law they've mandated ignorance. You can't even learn the facts and make an informed choice. You have to take blind stabs in the dark because the Official Party Line is that you can not be trusted to know the truth. Ignorance is moral strength. Mental slavery is your only freedom. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.
There's no polite way to say this, Cory. Your flippant "Bugger you Jack, I'm alright" attitude displays a truly appalling ignorance of the reality or a pathological lack of even the barest human compassion. I try to be fair, so I'll assume the former.
If you have the stones I recommend that you become the caregiver of someone dying of cervical cancer or AIDS. I've done it. It's a terrible thing to witness, worse to go through, and inhuman to wish on another person just because they don't have the same Invisible Friend that you do. You'll come out of it by one of four doors. You'll bolt. You'll dissociate. You'll hurt and probably take up an unhealthy crutch. Or you'll realize that life is too damned short for cruelty and needless suffering and grow a little bit of compassion and love for your fellow human being.
People have always had sex. They've even done it when *gasp* the Authorities didn't want them to.
What's significant here is that the Bush Administration isn't just willing to let people die. They're eager. And they've stated that the reason they did it was to make sure that women who don't behave the way they want will have to live in fear of a really horrible death. That's not just a "deal with it". That's mass murder. It's not even a matter of insanity. It's a sadistic determination to ensure that there's only one choice - comply or die.
It's even worse. Using the power of the purse and the Law they've mandated ignorance. You can't even learn the facts and make an informed choice. You have to take blind stabs in the dark because the Official Party Line is that you can not be trusted to know the truth. Ignorance is moral strength. Mental slavery is your only freedom. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.
There's no polite way to say this, Cory. Your flippant "Bugger you Jack, I'm alright" attitude displays a truly appalling ignorance of the reality or a pathological lack of even the barest human compassion. I try to be fair, so I'll assume the former.
If you have the stones I recommend that you become the caregiver of someone dying of cervical cancer or AIDS. I've done it. It's a terrible thing to witness, worse to go through, and inhuman to wish on another person just because they don't have the same Invisible Friend that you do. You'll come out of it by one of four doors. You'll bolt. You'll dissociate. You'll hurt and probably take up an unhealthy crutch. Or you'll realize that life is too damned short for cruelty and needless suffering and grow a little bit of compassion and love for your fellow human being.
Actually, Gardasil was approved by the FDA years ago. The big debate has been whether or not the vaccine should be made mandatory.
Then again, had Gardasil been fast-tracked for approval and potentially dangerous side-effects eventually made evident, then the regime in power, in this case 'Smirking Chimp' (hopefully using such a silly moniker for the President enhances my statements,) would have been a negligent partner in bed with big pharma execs at the expense of the health of innocent girls.
Then again, had Gardasil been fast-tracked for approval and potentially dangerous side-effects eventually made evident, then the regime in power, in this case 'Smirking Chimp' (hopefully using such a silly moniker for the President enhances my statements,
) would have been a negligent partner in bed with big pharma execs at the expense of the health of innocent girls.
CoryKS
Senior Master
And if there was a polite way to say it, Todd, I have no doubt, based on your posting history, that you would fail to employ it. I'll spare the rhetorical flourishes that you are so fond of and simply say that you have made a number of assumptions that are incorrect. That I don't come to the same conclusions that you do does not make me immoral - that is the viewpoint of the religious fundamentalist.
:lol2: :asian:It's happened before, and my ears are still ringing from it.
What could they do? Hate to sound like Mr. Clinton, but ... define 'could.' Could in theory? Could logically? Could spiritually? Could reasonably? Could within the confines of their hormonally-charged, fairly irrational teenage brain?
My money's on a near-fatal and equitable combination of both.
Wah. Boo hoo. Own a home? Don't have kids? Withdraw your payment of property taxes because they help pay for the libraries, parks, schools and other free educational programs other people's kids use. *Notes calendar for youngest child's 18th birthday.*
Because it makes sense, because our social assistance programs are strained enough, because the medical field is strained enough, because there are far too many sick unwanted babies, BECAUSE ONE IN FOUR TEENAGE GIRLS GET AN STD. Could be yours.
Huh?? I did not argue that. Perhaps you misread my sarcasm? My point was that the teenage brain will NOT be processing the long-term risks while doused with hormones and lacking the oxygenated blood supply.
I guess if you're worried about cost you need to look beyond the pocketbook, though I still think it's a great place to start:
Source
Let's assume that study is close to correct and use the numbers for the sake of argument.
A box of 20 Lifestyles condoms not on sale at our local store costs about $12.
Let's assume you use all 20 condoms in one week. That's $12 per week, $624 per year and $14976 for 24 years. That's in Oregon though, so no sales tax. Add an 8% sales tax to those numbers and it goes up to $12.96 per week, $673.92 per year and $16174.08 over 24 years.
$600,000 ... $16,200.
I haven't found the study abstract yet, but I'm fairly certain that $600k number is inclusive of medical care and medication only - I doubt that this number includes paperwork processing costs, government worker pensions, occasional hospitalizations, lack of employment nor comfort items required such as diapers, chucks pads, special balms for the skin, etcetera.
But to be fair, the $16k number doesn't cover gasoline, pedal power, alternative fuel costs nor the cost of the vehicle it took to get there - let's give the subject a cash-purchased Ford Explorer with a full tank and put the Walmart at 5 miles away. That'll bump his/her cost to a whole $56270. And if the subject purchases the Female Condom, the cost goes up quite a bit more - might even bring it up to $80k but let's give it extra cushion and bring it up to an even $100k.
$600k. $100k.
Numbers *could* measure the cost of infertility counseling and treatment, in vitro fertilization, adoption costs.
But numbers can't measure heartbreak, stress and strain, depression and anxiety secondary to this.
I don't think teaching abstinence only is the sole answer, I don't think teaching sex as a health topic and providing barrier contraception is the only answer.
I think we need to do BOTH.
There is JUST NO QUESTION that sex is a health issue and should be taught as such.
There is also NO QUESTION that it is a health issue which involves behaviors which means it has moral and spiritual implications and social repercussions.
Hence, it is INCUMBENT upon us to treat it - AND TEACH IT - as BOTH.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Considering that you don't want to protect children who "don't listen"? Considering that you make a moral distinction between diseases?
Yeah, pretty much.
