It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by asmeone2
I can agree with that.. as for solutions, I'm short on those.
I think that's less a PR/media problem and more an education issue.
Exactly. What I'm afraid of here is that doctors may refuse to prescribe BC for their patients if they know they have more than 1 partner, like many pharmacists already do if someone asks for Plan B.
What backwards thinking!
"You're having more sex than I think you should be... therefore I'm going to limit your ability to prevent yourself from getting pregnant!"
Yeah I could actually see that taking place, sadly.
Of course patients could always be dishonest but in my view it says something about this fine society we reside within, if a woman has to lie to get birth control or avoid judgment.
What do you want to bet there are religious influences afoot, interjecting a little church morality where it doesn't belong...
It's not the fact that they are bringing up side effects that I call into question, it's the way that they insinuate that married, at least monogamous woman, are the only ones for whom this prescription is the right fit.
Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by asmeone2
A lot of it has to do with the contraction of a STD or an infection that can cause PID.
IUDs aren't the safest form of birth control. And, when I say safe, I mean in a physical sense. IUDs and infections aren't a good combo, and IUDs can also perforate a woman's uterus.
If you are at high risk for a STD or an infection that can cause PID, then an IUD isn't right for you. And, women who are in a stable relationship with one man who is monogamous are at much less risk for an STD or a PID causing infection.
Like I said before, female contraception isn't as easy as a condom is for a man. We have to weigh the risks to our health and choose the birth control that is right for us and our situation.
Originally posted by Unmask The Deception
I agree this could be a conspiracy to promote the pro-marriage agenda, but it wouldn't be the most likely reason to push monogamy in my opinion. My wife has this contraceptive. They "say" they won't give it to you unless you are monogamous because if any STDs are present it can cause serious health problems including death. This may very well be the true case also. I am not a doctor, and if even I was, I could have been payed to push this message. We may never know. I was skeptical at first, but the doctor explained it fairly thoroughly to my wife, who then told me, and it seems the STD = Death part could be somewhat legitimate.
[edit on 28-9-2008 by Unmask The Deception]
Unfortunately the most recent generations of the human race aren't particularly street smart, so to avoid a huge rise in sexually transmitted infections, things need to be spelt out.
That's all it's saying "if you want to have sex with loads of different people, best use condoms".
Originally posted by clearlight808
first post here......
I have to agree with a hostile me that this is just the company covering their butts.
Its their way of saying :"Do NOT confuse this with a condom"
as some people might actually be naive enough to confuse birth "protection" for STD "protection.
Thas said, i think theres is a definite agenda going on against sex outside of marriage by the christian right "kooks".
For instance , while there is a vaccine against HPV, i hear a lot of evangelicals that are against it , even for their own daughters. Thats essentially saying :"If she has sex outside of marriage, she gets what she gets (HPV/CANCER?STD PREGNANCY ETC..."
They WANT there to be consequences to sex , be it death or pregnancy.
Just my two cents. Hope i stepped on no toes as this is my first post on this forum.
[edit on 28-9-2008 by clearlight808]
Originally posted by jmilla
I would lean toward population control.
slowly but surely expose us to things like this; phrases, ideas, etc., that promote having 0 or 1 child.
seems like it would make sense to me. (not that i support it)
either way I'd say more anti-big family than pro-marriage