It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra
Really? Show me, if you have more up to date numbers why not use those?
originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: reldra
Of course there is, Just as much as there is an "anti-abortion" crowd.
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I would suggest that the women not rely on a condom, or many of those other least effective methods on that list. I would suggest that if they aren't using a method that is listed higher on that chart, it's better to just not have the sex.
So, a 1.5%-ish difference between a male condom and hormonal contraceptive relegates that to "least effective" in your mind, and you would rather not have sex at all?
That's statistical ridiculousness at its finest, and some real illogical bending of facts to try and make things align with your point. Furthermore, we all know that having sex isn't going to stop without hormonal contraception, so pretending like the male condom is a terrible alternative is irrational at best.
but by removing the funding for family planning, or just funding those lower levels, like the condoms, well, you are removing all those more effective ones as options for many poor women.
See above.
by the way, I had one of my kids using a combination of spermicide and condoms, the other I was trying to just predict when I would be ovulating. I would have preferred to have been on the pill, but there were health reasons why that wasn't the best option. So, my firstborn was by choice, the second two was because of crappy birth control methods. and, I was married, didn't have to worry about std's since neither my hubby or me were fooling around on the side!
Then something tells me that you were either (a) exceptionally unlucky, or (b) the odds of the condom not working were increase by user error. It happens--that's not a sucker punch at you or your hubby.
But statistically speaking, you are in the uber-minority of accidents, and of course the ovulation-prediction method is the least effective of any, save for maybe just reckless disregard for the ovulation cycle altogether. My wife tried that for a while, and we had a few scares that weren't worth the risk (although she never became pregnant).
But please understand that my concern about STDs is meant for those people who aren't like you and me--in a committed relationship where both people are proven to be free of STD (or STIs, as they seem to be called now).
So, I understand that accidents happen with condoms--otherwise it'd be 100% effective--but that is such a statistical anomaly that trying to use it to argue against the efficacy and use of condoms is irresponsible.
To summarize, there is practically zero chance of an accidental pregnancy. Yes, it happens, but the odds are basically nil if someone is using protection. Those that claim otherwise are ignorant of statistics. Even if you accept that a small number of pregnancies are accidental, they in now way would add up to the millions of abortions performed yearly nor the unwanted pregnancies.
Accidental pregnancy really means you willfully didn't use protection.
Again, those numbers are wrong. CDC- small PDF
Condoms are mainly good for the prevention of STDs.
So, it is up to one or the other partner to get condoms, for the purpose of not spreading disease/ Then it is up to the woman to find another form of birth control she is comfortable with. The implant and the copper IUD are the most effective. There is a good range of choices in acceptable percent of failure rates, but each one carries side effects and a woman usually has to figure out which one works for her and the 'pill' becomes more dangerous as a woman ages. It is really becoming tiresome seeing males state how 'simple' all of this is. It is NOT.
originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra
So where do you have your newer info you alluded to, or where did you get your knowledge that the "numbers haven't changed"
originally posted by: DJW001
No, just admit that some women cannot be held solely responsible for their plight, and that the judgement free birth control that Planned Parenthood provides can be an important step in regaining control of their lives.
originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: kaylaluv
So weird that you relate care with death
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: reldra
originally posted by: Edumakated
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey
I would suggest that the women not rely on a condom, or many of those other least effective methods on that list. I would suggest that if they aren't using a method that is listed higher on that chart, it's better to just not have the sex.
So, a 1.5%-ish difference between a male condom and hormonal contraceptive relegates that to "least effective" in your mind, and you would rather not have sex at all?
That's statistical ridiculousness at its finest, and some real illogical bending of facts to try and make things align with your point. Furthermore, we all know that having sex isn't going to stop without hormonal contraception, so pretending like the male condom is a terrible alternative is irrational at best.
but by removing the funding for family planning, or just funding those lower levels, like the condoms, well, you are removing all those more effective ones as options for many poor women.
See above.
by the way, I had one of my kids using a combination of spermicide and condoms, the other I was trying to just predict when I would be ovulating. I would have preferred to have been on the pill, but there were health reasons why that wasn't the best option. So, my firstborn was by choice, the second two was because of crappy birth control methods. and, I was married, didn't have to worry about std's since neither my hubby or me were fooling around on the side!
Then something tells me that you were either (a) exceptionally unlucky, or (b) the odds of the condom not working were increase by user error. It happens--that's not a sucker punch at you or your hubby.
But statistically speaking, you are in the uber-minority of accidents, and of course the ovulation-prediction method is the least effective of any, save for maybe just reckless disregard for the ovulation cycle altogether. My wife tried that for a while, and we had a few scares that weren't worth the risk (although she never became pregnant).
But please understand that my concern about STDs is meant for those people who aren't like you and me--in a committed relationship where both people are proven to be free of STD (or STIs, as they seem to be called now).
So, I understand that accidents happen with condoms--otherwise it'd be 100% effective--but that is such a statistical anomaly that trying to use it to argue against the efficacy and use of condoms is irresponsible.
To summarize, there is practically zero chance of an accidental pregnancy. Yes, it happens, but the odds are basically nil if someone is using protection. Those that claim otherwise are ignorant of statistics. Even if you accept that a small number of pregnancies are accidental, they in now way would add up to the millions of abortions performed yearly nor the unwanted pregnancies.
Accidental pregnancy really means you willfully didn't use protection.
Again, those numbers are wrong. CDC- small PDF
Condoms are mainly good for the prevention of STDs.
So, it is up to one or the other partner to get condoms, for the purpose of not spreading disease/ Then it is up to the woman to find another form of birth control she is comfortable with. The implant and the copper IUD are the most effective. There is a good range of choices in acceptable percent of failure rates, but each one carries side effects and a woman usually has to figure out which one works for her and the 'pill' becomes more dangerous as a woman ages. It is really becoming tiresome seeing males state how 'simple' all of this is. It is NOT.
This is a question of simple math. In your PDF, it states that 18 out of 100 women experienced a pregnancy for condom usage. What is left out is was the condom used 100% of the time? Was is it used properly? Was it used with other forms of birth control?
Even if we take an 82% effective rate at face value, there is still practically little chance of getting pregnant with condom usage. This doesn't even take into account condoms with spermicide, if the guys still pulls out, if the woman is on the pill or any other additional scenario that would make it PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant.
For example, what is the failure rate if the guy is using a condom at 82% effective rate AND the girl is on the pill or whatever method you choose. IT IS LITERALLY ZERO!
What is really happening is that:
Guy only puts on condom only after he is ready to bust after he has been digging it out. This doesn't prevent pregnancy because there is precum.
The condom is put on incorrectly.
The condom is old and degraded as it has been in his wallet for 3 years
The condom was torn or punctured.
Again, there is practically no statistical possibility of chick getting pregnant with correct and consistent condom usage. does it happen? Yes. Nothing is impossible. But people also win the lotto.
So again, even if we accept that some number of pregnancies are in fact due to birth control failure, they in no mathematically possible way could ever add up to the millions of abortions and out of wedlock births that occur.
originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: reldra
www.salon.com...
Just took googling "pro abortion people"