by smallpoxgirl » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 18:44:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', 'W')hen did it become right to use tax money to provide elective surgery?
When did it become the right use of my money to make me pay for the results of other people's reckless procreation? Is there some reason I should be taxed to feed and educate a kid that nobody wanted instead of paying a thousand times less to abort it while it's still a tadpole?
When you stop expecting me to pay for educating your spawn, then you can start griping about having to pay for abortions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen we become so in love with money, that we put the potential dollar savings by abortion to society above the value of a human life, that is sickening.
Seems to me that you are putting your reckless and irresponsible drive to procreate ahead of valuing any life- human or otherwise. You breeders have set humanity on a collision course with extinction.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
by smallpoxgirl » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 18:52:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'I')t seems like such a small matter of responsibility to have the presence of mind to put a rubber device over your John Thomas.
With typical usage, condoms are 85% effective as a birth control method. The average American woman is sexually active and fertile for about 20 years of her life. 15%*20 = 3 unintended pregnancies that the average woman will have in her lifetime using condoms for contraception.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl
- Expert
-
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
-
by smallpoxgirl » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 18:58:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'A')nd we shouldn't forget that for a lot of women the experience of an abortion is very painful, sometimes traumatic.
A woman is more likely to have an episode of a major psychological illness as a result of child birth than as a result of abortion. Physically, the pain is pretty minimal for most patients. The most common response I get is "Ohh. That's it? Really?"
Obviously it's a major life decision. Any time you make a major choice in life, you give up the opposite choice. Many people feel sadness after an abortion, because they are not going to be parenting that child. That doesn't mean they regret their choice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bas', ''')m more of the "Dutch" opinion; that it does not need justification at all, as long as it is before 3 months. (when the foetus becomes viable)
Actually viability (i.e. the point where the fetus could potentially live outside the mother with the best of NICU care) is at 24 weeks.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
by Bas » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 19:43:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'A')nd we shouldn't forget that for a lot of women the experience of an abortion is very painful, sometimes traumatic.
A woman is more likely to have an episode of a major psychological illness as a result of child birth than as a result of abortion. Physically, the pain is pretty minimal for most patients. The most common response I get is "Ohh. That's it? Really?"
Obviously it's a major life decision. Any time you make a major choice in life, you give up the opposite choice. Many people feel sadness after an abortion, because they are not going to be parenting that child. That doesn't mean they regret their choice.
I guess it can vary greatly from woman to woman of how an abortion impacts on their psyche. Also being a man, I feel ill equiped to really imagine how it is to have an abortion, so I'll take your word over my own on this.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bas', ''')m more of the "Dutch" opinion; that it does not need justification at all, as long as it is before 3 months. (when the foetus becomes viable)
Actually viability (i.e. the point where the fetus could potentially live outside the mother with the best of NICU care) is at 24 weeks.
by smallpoxgirl » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 20:37:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'E')dit: according to
webMD by week 12 the foetus is fully formed and the chances for a miscarriage drop sharply, after week 13 the nervous system starts to function.
I definitely wouldn't say it's fully formed. A 3 month old infant is not "fully formed". A 12 week old fetus is distinguishably human and most of it's organ systems have begun to form. It's nervous system may have started to function in a very rudimentary form (i.e. two neurons synapsing), but it certainly isn't capable of consciousness. Most of the nervous system doesn't come online until the first year of post-natal life. Most of the nervous system doesn't even function in a newborn. About all they're able to do is clutch, suck, poop, and scream. The reason for that is that the structures in the nervous system haven't developed.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl
- Expert
-
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
-
by Madpaddy » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 20:45:17
http://www.parenttime.com/pregnancyarti ... ption.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')esearchers found that couples who had sex every day had a 25% chance of conceiving, while couples who had sex every other day had a 22% chance.
So if you have sex every day for 20 years (unlikely I'ld say even for my raging hormones), you could possibly conceive 25% of the time or 5 times in 20 years. If you wear condoms that would reduce the likelihood of conception to less than 1 time in 20 years.
Hmmm that seems wrong to me. Someone who has not been drinking correct my maths. Anyway Bas $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he Irish opinion
, you have a point. It is very much indoctrinated into people who had a Catholic school upbringing like mine to believe that abortion is wrong. I have no problem with people who make the choice to have an abortion but I do believe that prevention is better than cure and the pill, condoms, morning after pill etc. used properly should prevent 99.9% of pregnancies. Also, I do know girls who had the same upbringing as me who had abortions and they had alot of guilt. This guilt is the fault of the system in the first place.
Years ago the stygma of being pregnant in Catholic Ireland would force girls to have abortions - oh the irony of that.
Bottom line, I know the population of the planet need to be seriously cut for anybody to survive and it seems that if it was not for the large number of abortions we would be in an unbelievably worse position than we already are.
by Bas » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 21:02:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'E')dit: according to
webMD by week 12 the foetus is fully formed and the chances for a miscarriage drop sharply, after week 13 the nervous system starts to function.
I definitely wouldn't say it's fully formed. A 3 month old infant is not "fully formed". A 12 week old fetus is distinguishably human and most of it's organ systems have begun to form. It's nervous system may have started to function in a very rudimentary form (i.e. two neurons synapsing), but it certainly isn't capable of consciousness. Most of the nervous system doesn't come online until the first year of post-natal life. Most of the nervous system doesn't even function in a newborn. About all they're able to do is clutch, suck, poop, and scream.
I guess what they meant is that all the tissues have formed from stemcells after 12 weeks. WebMD does mention that by week 14 when you poke the belly, a phoetus tries to get away from that area.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he reason for that is that the structures in the nervous system haven't developed.
yes, you're very right, the nervous system is busy calibrating the sensory organs.
Still, I would be against abortions after 3 months. And, on a personal note (just being curious); have you ever been pregnant, SPG?
by Bas » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 21:07:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', ' ')Anyway Bas $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he Irish opinion
, you have a point. It is very much indoctrinated into people who had a Catholic school upbringing like mine to believe that abortion is wrong. I have no problem with people who make the choice to have an abortion but I do believe that prevention is better than cure and the pill, condoms, morning after pill etc. used properly should prevent 99.9% of pregnancies. Also, I do know girls who had the same upbringing as me who had abortions and they had alot of guilt. This guilt is the fault of the system in the first place.
Years ago the stygma of being pregnant in Catholic Ireland would force girls to have abortions - oh the irony of that.
Bottom line, I know the population of the planet need to be seriously cut for anybody to survive and it seems that if it was not for the large number of abortions we would be in an unbelievably worse position than we already are.
Ah yes, I had a conversation about abortion with an Irish girl not too long ago which sort of confirmed what I had heard about the (catholic) Irish being so much against abortion; she was quite fiery about it and in judging Sinead O connor for having (allegedly) had 5 abortions or something (I could only find 1 when I later searched for that on the internet)
by smallpoxgirl » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 21:36:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'I') have no problem with people who make the choice to have an abortion but I do believe that prevention is better than cure and the pill, condoms, morning after pill etc. used properly should prevent 99.9% of pregnancies.
Sorry, but none of those methods gets anywhere close to 99.9%. Oral contraceptive pills are 93% effective. Condoms are 85% effective. That means that 7% of pill users and 15% of condom users get pregnant every year. The morning after pill has a 15% failure rate with each usage.
IUD's, progesterone implants, and permanent sterilization are the only methods that get anywhere close to 99.9% effectiveness.
I don't disagree with you that contraception is a better approach. I spend lots of time every day trying to talk patients into using more effective contraceptive methods. I don't have any sort of moral issue with abortion, but I certainly think contraception is easier on patients.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o if you have sex every day for 20 years (unlikely I'ld say even for my raging hormones), you could possibly conceive 25% of the time or 5 times in 20 years. If you wear condoms that would reduce the likelihood of conception to less than 1 time in 20 years.
No. This is not correct. With no contraception, on average 85% of couples not using contraception will become pregnant within one year. The rate varies with the age of the partners, but 85% is average. In 20 years, with no contraception, you would have something like 13 kids.
Condoms have a 15% failure rate. 20*0.15=3 unintended pregnancies.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'o')n a personal note (just being curious); have you ever been pregnant, SPG?
No.
by Laughs_Last » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 22:38:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'I') have no problem with people who make the choice to have an abortion but I do believe that prevention is better than cure and the pill, condoms, morning after pill etc. used properly should prevent 99.9% of pregnancies.
Sorry, but none of those methods gets anywhere close to 99.9%. Oral contraceptive pills are 93% effective. Condoms are 85% effective. That means that 7% of pill users and 15% of condom users get pregnant every year. The morning after pill has a 15% failure rate with each usage.
IUD's, progesterone implants, and permanent sterilization are the only methods that get anywhere close to 99.9% effectiveness.
I don't disagree with you that contraception is a better approach. I spend lots of time every day trying to talk patients into using more effective contraceptive methods. I don't have any sort of moral issue with abortion, but I certainly think contraception is easier on patients.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o if you have sex every day for 20 years (unlikely I'ld say even for my raging hormones), you could possibly conceive 25% of the time or 5 times in 20 years. If you wear condoms that would reduce the likelihood of conception to less than 1 time in 20 years.
No. This is not correct. With no contraception, on average 85% of couples not using contraception will become pregnant within one year. The rate varies with the age of the partners, but 85% is average. In 20 years, with no contraception, you would have something like 13 kids.
Condoms have a 15% failure rate. 20*0.15=3 unintended pregnancies.
99.9% is 'perfect use', which assumes that people _actually use_ the birth control. The 93% figure includes women who forgot to take their pills and then have sex anyway. The 85% includes women who declared an intent to use condoms, but then chose to have unprotected sex. The prophylactics aren't failing, people are.
by lyrl » Thu 23 Aug 2007, 23:10:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'I') have no problem with people who make the choice to have an abortion but I do believe that prevention is better than cure and the pill, condoms, morning after pill etc. used properly should prevent 99.9% of pregnancies.
Sorry, but none of those methods gets anywhere close to 99.9%. Oral contraceptive pills are 93% effective. Condoms are 85% effective. That means that 7% of pill users and 15% of condom users get pregnant every year. The morning after pill has a 15% failure rate with each usage.
IUD's, progesterone implants, and permanent sterilization are the only methods that get anywhere close to 99.9% effectiveness.
I don't disagree with you that contraception is a better approach. I spend lots of time every day trying to talk patients into using more effective contraceptive methods. I don't have any sort of moral issue with abortion, but I certainly think contraception is easier on patients.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o if you have sex every day for 20 years (unlikely I'ld say even for my raging hormones), you could possibly conceive 25% of the time or 5 times in 20 years. If you wear condoms that would reduce the likelihood of conception to less than 1 time in 20 years.
No. This is not correct. With no contraception, on average 85% of couples not using contraception will become pregnant within one year. The rate varies with the age of the partners, but 85% is average. In 20 years, with no contraception, you would have something like 13 kids.
Condoms have a 15% failure rate. 20*0.15=3 unintended pregnancies.
In addition to the difference between perfect and typical use explained by Laughs Last, realize those typical use figures Madpaddy quoted are for the
first year. As couples become experienced with a method, the typical use number approaches the perfect use number.
Morning after pill - the 15% "failure" rate quoted is for the Yuzpe regimen, which has now been succeeded by the levonorgestrel-only regimen. Also, the failure rate of the morning after pill is more complicated than "pregnancies per use". From the Plan B labeling:
Plan B reduces the risk of pregnancy following a single act of unprotected sex from about 8% down to 1%. This represents an 89% reduction in risk of pregnancy for this single act of unprotected sex.
Typical use numbers are not a good judge of what is the "best" method for an individual. A woman who cannot remember to take a pill every day, but has the discipline to use a barrier at every act of intercourse may experience a lower risk of pregnancy with the barrier vs. the pill. Also, pressuring women into using side-effect laden hormonal contraception without providing support for alternative methods may lead them to discontinue the hormones due to side effects, while leaving them unprepared to use a barrier.
Finally, the "13 kids in 20 years" number is an accurate average for women who are fully breastfeeding. A group of women who bottlefeed or supplement with formula will have a higher fertility rate. Breastfeeding is believed to be (as of 1996, which is when the book I got this from was published) reducing the world's fertility rate by 30-45%.
