New source for STD's in the US

Ben Kenobi · April 2, 2003, 00:18

http://mason.gmu.edu/~jklick/std.pdf

The abstract:

The risk of an unwanted pregnancy represents one of the major costs of sexual activity. When abortion was legalized in a number of states during the late 1960s and early 1970s (and nationally with the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade), this cost was reduced as women gained the option of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. We predict that abortion legalization generated incentives leading to an increase in sexual activity, accompanied by an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. Using CDC data on the incidence of gonorrhea and syphilis by state, we test the hypothesis that judicial and legislative decisions to legalize abortion lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. We find that gonorrhea and syphilis incidences are significantly and positively correlated with abortion legalization. Further, we find a divergence in STD rates among early legalizing states and late legalizing states starting in 1970 and a subsequent convergence after the Roe v. Wade decision, indicating that the estimated correlation between STD rates and abortion legalization is a causal relationship. According to our estimates, abortion legalization might account for as much as one fourth of the average disease incidence, suggesting that sexual behavior is very responsive to changes in incentives.

Alexander's Horse · April 2, 2003, 00:21

Whereas excessive bible reading makes you weird. Your choice.

Ben Kenobi · April 2, 2003, 00:24

AH:

If you can't say something nice...
This is news to me, so I thought I would share.

Alexander's Horse · April 2, 2003, 00:30

People get more STD's if they have more sex is news to you?

Ben Kenobi · April 2, 2003, 00:37

Tell that to Planned Parenthood...
They don't seem to understand that connection.

Tuberski · April 2, 2003, 00:38

Sex isn't a new source of STD's.

ACK!

Alexander's Horse · April 2, 2003, 00:42

Nor is toilet seats - watch out obiwan. Crabs can polevault.

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 01:10

This is news?

Next you'll be telling me that the pill led to an increase in STDs...

KrazyHorse · April 2, 2003, 01:11

Maybe we should just force clitorectomies on all women and be done with it...

Cyclotron · April 2, 2003, 01:16

Obviously, what obiwan means is that we need to have more abortions to reduce the amount of people who can get STDs. It makes perfect sense.

DarthVeda · April 2, 2003, 01:22

43,000,000 dead and counting in the U.S. alone....

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

Cyclotron · April 2, 2003, 01:55

Well, somebody has an axe to grind.

Alexander's Horse · April 2, 2003, 02:09

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Obviously, what obiwan means is that we need to have more abortions to reduce the amount of people who can get STDs. It makes perfect sense.

You could be onto something there

VJ · April 2, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

43,000,000 dead and counting in the U.S. alone....

43M less sharing the Lebensraum with you. How many people die to famine, daily? Shouldn't we start worrying about the already born, before getting more children?

Sarxis · April 2, 2003, 05:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Sex isn't a new source of STD's.

ACK!

It may be for some.

TheStinger · April 2, 2003, 06:01

Young people should go before committess of church going folk to explain there reasons for wanting to have sex. If they are valid they will get a badge which expalins to potential partners they are clean and doing it for God.

August Borms · April 2, 2003, 06:36

But why does god plague us with these horrible diseases?

red_jon · April 2, 2003, 06:56

Yes. And The Aids be the disease of Darkies and The Gays. Better execute 'em to stop the spread of disease.

Women will also have less sex if we keep them in the kitchen as well. And the men need to be doing manly activities - why not force boys to join youth organisations?

Of course we need to stop other countries spreading these frightful diseases - let's invade Poland...

People get STDs on the main throught having unprotected sex. Therefore, it is highly unlikely you will get an STD if you are abstinant or having safe sex. So why should you be enforcing your will on others? It's their own risk they're taking.

TheStinger · April 2, 2003, 07:00

Righteous wrath will be brought down on all you fornicators and evil doers.Unless God told you to kill and rape of course.

Skanky Burns · April 2, 2003, 07:12

Quote:

Originally posted by red_jon
Yes. And The Aids be the disease of Darkies and The Gays. Better execute 'em to stop the spread of disease.

Women will also have less sex if we keep them in the kitchen as well. And the men need to be doing manly activities - why not force boys to join youth organisations?

Of course we need to stop other countries spreading these frightful diseases - let's invade Poland...

Pure gold, RJ.

molly bloom · April 2, 2003, 08:17

In the same period sales of white goods increased.

The hidden facts about dishwashers and spin dryers- you will get chlamydia and gonorrhoea if you use them.

Urban Ranger · April 2, 2003, 13:31

Wasn't there also a population increase? More people to have sex, more STD's. Stands to reason, no?

St Leo · April 2, 2003, 23:27

This is why schools need real sex-ed classes and not the "Be Abstinent" crap. Kids need to know how to get and use condoms/pills/etc.

Cyclotron · April 2, 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
This is why schools need real sex-ed classes and not the "Be Abstinent" crap. Kids need to know how to get and use condoms/pills/etc.

That's the real lesson from this. Kids who decide to have sex need ways to make sure it is safe. Abstinence is good to teach, but we need to cover sex-ed on multiple levels including birth control, condoms etc. to combat teen pregnancy and STDs.

Six Thousand Year Old Man · April 2, 2003, 23:35

People have more sex, thus, more chances for STDs to spread.

People own more cars now, thus, there are more car crashes than 50 years ago.

When we ban abortions, we should ban cars, too.

Ben Kenobi · April 2, 2003, 23:49

Typical.

Started as spam and has not risen far above spam.

UR:

Quote:

More people to have sex, more STD's. Stands to reason, no?

The correlation is between the number of abortions and the STD transmission rate. This increase is over and above the rate of population growth. What is also interesting is that the rate varies according to the different dates of legalisation, in that areas that were slow to legalise abortion, actually have lower STD rates.

The general conclusion is that abortion encourages people to have unsafe sex, resulting in greater STD transmission. I had thought this to be the case before, but I had no data to back me up.

Since more unsafe sex results in more abortions as well, it can be said that legalised abortion supplies its own market.

Therefore, by criminilising abortion, you will reduce the number of abortions performed in the US, as well as reducing the rate of STD transmission.

That any clearer?

Six Thousand Year Old Man · April 3, 2003, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
The general conclusion is that abortion encourages people to have unsafe sex, resulting in greater STD transmission. I had thought this to be the case before, but I had no data to back me up.

Since more unsafe sex results in more abortions as well, it can be said that legalised abortion supplies its own market.

Therefore, by criminilising abortion, you will reduce the number of abortions performed in the US, as well as reducing the rate of STD transmission.

That any clearer?

People will always have unsafe sex, regardless of whether abortions are criminalized. And then, if a pregnancy results, they'll either go somewhere where abortion is legal, or try to get an illegal abortion.

As I've said in other places, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Rather than criminalizing abortion, why not make more of an effort to publicize methods of avoiding STD transmission (condoms, dental dams, etc)? Assuming that reducing STD transmission is your goal, of course.

Cyclotron · April 3, 2003, 00:16

Shouldn't there be better ways to deal with this issue than criminalizing abortion, which will just become unsafe and backroom if criminalized? If it's in the open, you can regulate it; if it isn't you have no control. If your issue is stopping STDs, there are better ways of doing so than ending legal abortion.

Of course, that's not your real motive, it's just a sideswipe at a practice you despise for other, more controversial reasons.

molly bloom · April 3, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Typical.

The correlation is between the number of abortions and the STD transmission rate. This increase is over and above the rate of population growth. What is also interesting is that the rate varies according to the different dates of legalisation, in that areas that were slow to legalise abortion, actually have lower STD rates.

The general conclusion is that abortion encourages people to have unsafe sex, resulting in greater STD transmission. I had thought this to be the case before, but I had no data to back me up.

That any clearer?

Only if you assume all the people having sex are heterosexuals. Or that all the sex involved is penetrative heterosexual sex, with the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Or that there are no large religious communities in those areas with liberal abortion laws where the curriculum in religious schools eschews sex education.

Not many gay men have abortions, IIRC, but STD rates go up and down in the gay community too.

You have yet to show that the right to have an abortion acts as the trigger for unsafe sex. You're simply assuming it does.

Ben Kenobi · April 3, 2003, 00:41

STYOM:

Quote:

People will always have unsafe sex, regardless of whether abortions are criminalized.

Some will, but according to this study, there should be fewer infections, and fewer people having unsafe sex if they do not have abortion as a backup.

Quote:

why not make more of an effort to publicize methods of avoiding STD transmission (condoms, dental dams, etc)? Assuming that reducing STD transmission is your goal, of course.

Condoms don't prevent all STD's. If this method worked, we would see a decline, but instead, the numbers continue to rise. All condoms do is encourage more people to engage in unsafe behavior.

Molly Bloom:

True, this leaves out homosexual transmission, but it does not leave out bisexuals.

Since part of the homosexual STD transmission can be attributed to bisexuals, this should also reduce the STD transmission rates for homosexuals, though not as much as for heterosexuals.

cyclotron7:

Quote:

Of course, that's not your real motive, it's just a sideswipe at a practice you despise for other, more controversial reasons.

It adds to the overall cost to society for providing abortions. If STD rates go up, then the medical system, particularly in places like Canada, the taxpayers have to pay more.

Just another argument, alongside the others.
And it's not me doing the study. Would it change your reaction if Planned Parenthood reported the study?