4 ms·

I wonder if there was also an increase in STDs. The article makes no mention.

breitling 11y ago
I was thinking the same thing. They have less of an incentive to use protection with this device implanted. Let's wait and see until the STD numbers surface. Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.
- agentdrtran 11y ago
  Taking care of an STD will be cheaper for the individual and the state, without question.
  - kabouseng 11y ago
    a Baby might grow up, become a professional and be a net win by paying taxes. I don't think that's a possible outcome with STD's.
    - explorigin 11y ago
      Or the baby might grow up and be a drug-addict or a deadbeat and leech benefits from the state. Statistically this one is more likely.
  - danesparza 11y ago
    I'm not entirely sure about that. The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication. If these programs target teens and poor people, this demographic would also struggle to pay for those things as well -- and they would need to use them for a more protracted period than 10-18 years. Also: Birth control might give a false sense of security leading to more casual sex and a surging rate of STDs. That last theory makes STDs noticeably absent from the article.
    - VLM 11y ago
      "The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication." Without a "think of the children" argument, is that necessarily bad, if poor judgment has consequences? Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes? My hiking hobby exposes me to some medical risk of lyme disease, skin cancer, ankle and knee damage, but its not like I'm about to stop. Now that you're done yawning about my dangerous lifestyle choices, likewise if casual sex is medically dangerous then ... why exactly should anyone care?
      - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
        > Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes? That's absurd. Having unprotected sex would not constitute "poor judgement" if there were no possible negative outcomes.
    - fineman 11y ago
      Of course it will be cheaper. Because the alternative to an STD in this argument is an STD and a baby. (Who may or may not be born with the STD.)
  - nsgi 11y ago
    Depends on the STD. Don't forget the baby will (probably) also grow up to be a productive member of society.
- AnotherZaphod 11y ago
  Given they are getting pregnant, suggests many of them are already having unprotected sex.
- genericuser 11y ago
  Wouldn't it be taking care of an STD or having a baby AND taking care of an STD in many cases?
  - explorigin 11y ago
    That depends. If a girl gets pregnant, some have less sex after that...hence potentially reducing the STD rate.
    - genericuser 11y ago
      Some also have more sex after that...
      - explorigin 11y ago
        Which is statistically more likely? As someone with children...it's the less sex.
        genericuser 11y ago
        If you are female, thank you for your sample size of 1 as evidence of it being statistically more likely. If you are male thank you for your sample size equal to the number of women you have had children with of it being statistically more likely, with the the evidence being presumably that those women had less sex because you had less sex with them. And as you do not specify, must I assume that all women you are using in your samples were of the target demographic 'teenagers'. If not it is hardly representative of a demographic which is usually just discovering sex, probably being fairly secretive about it, and may represent different data than an older demographic. This makes it a very hard section of the population to represent with good data.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  If the STD causes problems conceiving and requires tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in IVF treatments to conceive later in life. The UK is having this problem, but mostly from women putting off pregnancies until their 30's or 40's.
  - explorigin 11y ago
    Ironically this is only a problem in the UK because of universal health care. Here, it's only a problem for individuals. One could make a case how the medical industry would be pushing early IUDs in order cause problems in order to build up the IVF industry. It sounds a little tinfoil hat-ish but truly less ethical things have happened in western medical industry.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
klenwell 11y ago
Why would you expect an increase in STDs? Are you assuming that free IUDs and implants are encouraging more teenagers to have more sex? Is it leading to sexual behavior that displaces other safer forms of sex (that were leading to teenage pregnancies)? The preoccupation with STDs in this thread seems a bit weird and irrational.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  It seems safe to assume that some fraction of sexually active teenagers were using condoms as their only form of birth control before the program was instituted. It seems likely that some fraction of those will use condoms less when other forms of birth control become widely available. Among this group, this will still likely lower pregnancy rates, since condoms have a lower efficacy than other forms of birth control, but it could potentially raise STD rates. My intuition is that the increase will be negligible, but others' intuition is different. It would be good to have some numbers on this so that we aren't guessing.
KirinDave 11y ago
If you think long and hard about the kind of specific cases IUDs address over other forms of birth control, I think a grim and sad outline of reality may emerge for you.

I was thinking the same thing. They have less of an incentive to use protection with this device implanted. Let's wait and see until the STD numbers surface. Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.

agentdrtran 11y ago
Taking care of an STD will be cheaper for the individual and the state, without question.
- kabouseng 11y ago
  a Baby might grow up, become a professional and be a net win by paying taxes. I don't think that's a possible outcome with STD's.
  - explorigin 11y ago
    Or the baby might grow up and be a drug-addict or a deadbeat and leech benefits from the state. Statistically this one is more likely.
- danesparza 11y ago
  I'm not entirely sure about that. The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication. If these programs target teens and poor people, this demographic would also struggle to pay for those things as well -- and they would need to use them for a more protracted period than 10-18 years. Also: Birth control might give a false sense of security leading to more casual sex and a surging rate of STDs. That last theory makes STDs noticeably absent from the article.
  - VLM 11y ago
    "The long term effects of certain STD's will require hospitalization, doctor's visits, and medication." Without a "think of the children" argument, is that necessarily bad, if poor judgment has consequences? Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes? My hiking hobby exposes me to some medical risk of lyme disease, skin cancer, ankle and knee damage, but its not like I'm about to stop. Now that you're done yawning about my dangerous lifestyle choices, likewise if casual sex is medically dangerous then ... why exactly should anyone care?
    - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
      > Shouldn't poor judgement have negative lifestyle outcomes? That's absurd. Having unprotected sex would not constitute "poor judgement" if there were no possible negative outcomes.
  - fineman 11y ago
    Of course it will be cheaper. Because the alternative to an STD in this argument is an STD and a baby. (Who may or may not be born with the STD.)
- nsgi 11y ago
  Depends on the STD. Don't forget the baby will (probably) also grow up to be a productive member of society.
AnotherZaphod 11y ago
Given they are getting pregnant, suggests many of them are already having unprotected sex.
genericuser 11y ago
Wouldn't it be taking care of an STD or having a baby AND taking care of an STD in many cases?
- explorigin 11y ago
  That depends. If a girl gets pregnant, some have less sex after that...hence potentially reducing the STD rate.
  - genericuser 11y ago
    Some also have more sex after that...
    - explorigin 11y ago
      Which is statistically more likely? As someone with children...it's the less sex.
      - genericuser 11y ago
        If you are female, thank you for your sample size of 1 as evidence of it being statistically more likely. If you are male thank you for your sample size equal to the number of women you have had children with of it being statistically more likely, with the the evidence being presumably that those women had less sex because you had less sex with them. And as you do not specify, must I assume that all women you are using in your samples were of the target demographic 'teenagers'. If not it is hardly representative of a demographic which is usually just discovering sex, probably being fairly secretive about it, and may represent different data than an older demographic. This makes it a very hard section of the population to represent with good data.
merpnderp 11y ago
If the STD causes problems conceiving and requires tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in IVF treatments to conceive later in life. The UK is having this problem, but mostly from women putting off pregnancies until their 30's or 40's.
- explorigin 11y ago
  Ironically this is only a problem in the UK because of universal health care. Here, it's only a problem for individuals. One could make a case how the medical industry would be pushing early IUDs in order cause problems in order to build up the IVF industry. It sounds a little tinfoil hat-ish but truly less ethical things have happened in western medical industry.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

klenwell 11y ago

Why would you expect an increase in STDs? Are you assuming that free IUDs and implants are encouraging more teenagers to have more sex? Is it leading to sexual behavior that displaces other safer forms of sex (that were leading to teenage pregnancies)? The preoccupation with STDs in this thread seems a bit weird and irrational.

aidenn0 11y ago
It seems safe to assume that some fraction of sexually active teenagers were using condoms as their only form of birth control before the program was instituted. It seems likely that some fraction of those will use condoms less when other forms of birth control become widely available. Among this group, this will still likely lower pregnancy rates, since condoms have a lower efficacy than other forms of birth control, but it could potentially raise STD rates. My intuition is that the increase will be negligible, but others' intuition is different. It would be good to have some numbers on this so that we aren't guessing.

KirinDave 11y ago

If you think long and hard about the kind of specific cases IUDs address over other forms of birth control, I think a grim and sad outline of reality may emerge for you.