4 ms·

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.

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.