3 ms·

Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative trad

Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative tradeoffs. Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm

rubiquity 11y ago
Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.
- noelwelsh 11y ago
  Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.

rubiquity 11y ago

Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.

noelwelsh 11y ago
Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.