Breaking news: Congress increases "family planning" budget by $95.5 million to whopping $852 million

Thumbnail image for breaking.jpgYesterday the Democrat-controlled Congress posted its Fiscal Year 2009 funding plans online.

The Omnibus Appropriations Act includes this:

  • Title X Domestic Family Planning increase of $7.5 million to $307.5 million (2.5% increase from $299 million in FY08)

  • International Family Planning increase of $88 million to $545 million. (19% increase from $457 million in FY08)

  • A provision allowing Planned Parenthood and university clinics to buy contraceptives at a cut rate....

    The International Famly Planning increase includes $50 million allocated to the United Nations Population Fund, which President Bush blocked through the Kemp-Kasten provision due to UNFPA's involvement with coerced abortions and sterilizations in China.

    President Obama has already stated he plans to fund UNFPA despite Kemp-Kasten. ("Provided further, That none of the funds made available in this Act nor any unobligated balances from prior appropriations Acts may be made available to any organization or program which, as determined by the President of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.")

    Kemp-Kasten has always been applied at the President's discretion. But a new provision takes the decision about specifically UNFPA away from the president, in this case relieving Obama of bad PR while at the same time stopping future presidents from removing UNFPA funding who might deem UNFPA ineligible under Kemp-Kasten.


  • Comments:

    Alhamdulillah! Now university students can actually afford to have sex safely. If you aren't going to wait until marriage, then BE RESPONSIBLE! Even when you are married you should be responsible, of course.

    Posted by: Leah at February 24, 2009 9:38 AM


    And the Guttmacher Institute just so happened to put out a report saying Family Planned services prevented 800,000 abortions.

    There's no such thing as coincidences.

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at February 24, 2009 9:53 AM


    Lord have mercy.

    Even when you are married you should be responsible, of course.

    Responsible=no children, no families, no commitment, no life. What do we value anymore?

    What kind of world are we creating?

    Posted by: Pansy Moss at February 24, 2009 9:56 AM


    Pansy, that's your definition of responsible. Not mine. Don't put words in my mouth.

    Posted by: Leah at February 24, 2009 9:57 AM


    Leah,

    Not trying to put words in your mouth, but you are correct, I don't agree that this is what "responsible" means.

    This, IMO, is truly diabolic. Children aren't the enemy.

    Posted by: Pansy Moss at February 24, 2009 10:06 AM


    Seriously though Leah, what do you mean by "even when you're married you should be responsible?"

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:06 AM


    I think that responsibility in marriage would include not cheating on your spouse, being checked for STD's if you have had sex prior to marriage with another person, and if you do not want children to use appropriate protection. It is not about not having children, it is about being safe.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 10:13 AM


    Jodes says "if you do not want children to use appropriate protection. It is not about not having children, it is about being safe."

    These are contradictory statements.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:15 AM


    I agree with jodes. I also mean not having children until you are ready. Just because you're ready to handle a spouse doesn't mean you're ready for children. I want to have lots of children but I also have to go abroad for a semester to complete my degree. It would be unfair to my husband to leave him alone (he also works and goes to school) with a baby for four months. I also wouldn't WANT to leave my baby for four months... I don't even want to leave my husband for that long.

    Posted by: Leah at February 24, 2009 10:16 AM


    I don't think it is contradictory. Some people don't want children. They should use protection then. Some do want children. They should not use condoms or BC, but maybe they could use a natural method to help.

    To be responsible does not mean you are against children.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 10:17 AM


    I think this is an issue so entrenched in our society that it will be difficult to explain in a way that really makes sense to someone on the "other side."

    You're working with the assumption that it is irresponsible to do nothing to control fertility. This assumption raises from the further assumption that it is "wrong" to have more than an acceptable number of children.

    This views children as something that should be avoided in most cases, aside from the time when having a child is appropriate. When children are measured as a failure rate, it sets up an antagonistic relationship between such children and their parents.

    This spills out into society as a whole, who begin to consider children a selfish burden and not a blessing and the building blocks of our society.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:27 AM


    YAAAAAAAAAAAAYY!!!

    Posted by: reality at February 24, 2009 10:31 AM


    I agree with the above responsiblility statements. Just because you are married doesn't mean you have to get pregnant right away. That marriage certificate isn't an automatic 'your ready to have kids now'.

    Posted by: Krystal at February 24, 2009 10:31 AM


    I don't know, Lauren. My husband and I were excited about starting a family after we got married in July. Before I could get pregnant he was laid off, in January. I've been working part time since we got married, the plan being I would quit and stay home once the baby was born.

    We have decided to put off getting pregnant until my husband finds a stable job and we can afford health insurance and I can stay home. I think we are being responsible. I think the irresponsible thing would be for us to throw caution to the wind and expect handouts for any babies we would have right now!

    Posted by: Cami at February 24, 2009 10:34 AM


    I don't think it is contradictory. Some people don't want children. They should use protection then. Some do want children. They should not use condoms or BC, but maybe they could use a natural method to help.

    And most people only want 2 or 3 children, not 20. So obviously, they should use birth control to space their births as they wish, and to stop having kids when they're done. Simple.

    Posted by: reality at February 24, 2009 10:36 AM


    Cami,
    What would you do if you were pregnant with an unexpected blessing?

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:37 AM


    Reality,
    How do you know what most people want? I know people that want as many children as God gives them. Shocking, I know.
    I thought I was done and then wow! Pregnant at 40! :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:40 AM


    Carla,

    Of course we would welcome a baby, even if times were hard. I think we'd all be happier if we could wait a few months until our lives are bit more stable, though! Thankfully, we are young and healthy and neither my husband nor I feel the need to rush and start having babies right this minute.

    Posted by: Cami at February 24, 2009 10:41 AM


    Krystal, that's just another example of how our modern society has impacted the family. Marriage used to be a framework for raising children, now it is often a mutual satisfaction agreement for the parents. I think that modern societies advice to wait a few years before having children sets young married couples up for a harsh drop off when they do get around to having children.

    If everyone entered into marriage with the understanding that children were a welcome blessing, I think a lot of selfishness within the relationship would be reduced.

    Cami, I don't know if you're a Christian or not, but if so I think the heart of the issue becomes trusting God. Do you trust God to provide for your family and to be the author of life? It takes a lot of trust these days to let go of control in this area, especially when we are so innundated with messages that birth contorl is practically a requirement.

    I'm not trying to condemn you, because I honestly don't think that utilizing some form of birth control are sinful, but I do think that they hamper both a person's walk with God and the potential in a marriage.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:44 AM


    I am glad to hear that Cami. :) I have had 2(out of 4)that were born when my husband was laid off and I was a stay at home mom. Tough times but I love those boys!!

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:44 AM


    Carla,

    I know what most people want because we have studies to show it.

    And I'm well aware that there is a fringe minority who want to live like the Duggars. But most Americans do not want that.

    Posted by: reality at February 24, 2009 10:45 AM


    Cami, I'm not trying to be the harbinger of bad news or anything like that, but I do want to give you something to honestly think about.

    You say you don't feel the need to rush and have children, but that assumes that once you are ready it will be something that happens quickly.

    I'm quite young, but had secondary infertility. Just because we're "ready" doesn't mean that it will happen. I think "birth control" sometimes gives us the impression that we are in control of our fertility, when this is often not the case.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:48 AM


    Reality,
    I would love to see the studies.
    Some may want only 2 or 3children but is that always how life works? Seriously.You don't always get what you want in this life. I have been pregnant 7 times and have 4 children. I take what God blesses me with, come what may.

    I wonder if 4 is fringe? Hhmmmmmm......

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:49 AM


    Reality, perhaps most people want only 2 or 3 children because our society has demonized anyone who has more with such comments like "those people should be more responsible!"

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:50 AM


    Lauren,
    I often wonder too if people wait until they can "afford" to have children? I would still be waiting.

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:52 AM


    Carla, I know when we found out that we were having a girl after having a son so many people said "great now you have one of each and you're done!"

    Er...If that is what God has planned for us, then we're done otherwise we'll move beyond our pair. Saying so really gets us some looks!

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:53 AM


    Lauren,

    I'm sorry, but I disagree with the mindset that couples should eschew birth control because "God will provide." I don honestly feel that this is an irresponsible way of looking at things. God does not pay the medical bills for those on Medicaid. Taxpayers do. I trust God, of course. I trust that we will make it through this rough spot of unemployement and be able to provide for our children ourselves when we are ready. I'm not talking about waiting for years, either. My husband has an interview lined up this week!

    I feel that God has given my small family the resources and ability to provide a happy and fulfilling life, and I thank Him for this every day. I want to be able to enjoy my life and my children to the fullest without the burden of constantly worrying about how we are going to pay the bills and put food on the table.

    Posted by: Cami at February 24, 2009 10:54 AM


    Carla, feel free to Google it.

    Lauren, or perhaps they just want 2 or 3 kids because they have other interests and goals in life besides breastfeeding and diaper changing.

    Posted by: reality at February 24, 2009 10:55 AM


    Same here. I had a boy and a girl and got the same reaction. Like, well good, all righty. All squared away. Yes sireee. We wanted more.

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:55 AM


    Carla,

    I'm sure from reading my post that you assume that we are one of those couples waiting to be able to "afford" children. Trust me, we are far from being well-off! We just bought a house and both my husband and I have student loan debt. We barely have any savings. But we've got plenty of love to share!

    Posted by: Cami at February 24, 2009 10:58 AM


    Gee thanks Reality.

    I have tons of other interests and goals. Like kindergarten, homework, Pinewood Derby races, the spring play, loose teeth and potty training. :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:58 AM


    I also mean not having children until you are ready. Just because you're ready to handle a spouse doesn't mean you're ready for children.

    Having a spouse, hence having sex means you are ready for children.

    Posted by: Pansy Moss at February 24, 2009 10:58 AM


    Cami,
    No, I didn't mean you in particular. I have just heard that so many times. :) My husband and I are trying very hard to get out of debt and have found Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace to be amazing!! We shop at Aldi, buy clothes at the thrift store and one night at a hotel with a pool is vacation enough for now. We do not NEED a new house, van, or big screen. Lotta love going on here too!!!

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 11:02 AM


    Cami, I'm not talking about going on medicaid or getting foodstamps, I'm saying that God will provide. What that looks like is different for everyone, but it needent look like going on government aid.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 11:06 AM


    Pansy, I don't think that because you are married means you are ready for children. People can be very immature when they get married, and wouldn't or couldn't handle the responsibility of a child. I think this is shown even more by those quick marriages which end up in annulment or divorse after a few short months or a couple of years.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 11:09 AM


    Jodes, this is a result of our culture encouraging adolesence to stretch until 30. It isn't something that should be supported, and instead of holding these people up as examples of why birth control is good, we should hold them up as examples of why society is taking a nosedive.

    Instead of encouraging them to further stretch their adolesence, we should encourage them to grow up!

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 11:14 AM


    in a case like Cami's case, a couple could use NFP (not the rhythm method, but one of the modern ones like symtho thermal) to delay pregnancy until they are stable financially.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 24, 2009 11:14 AM


    Lauren, regardless of the reason, it just means that just because someone is married doesn't mean they are ready for children, and to pretend otherwise is to pretend like we have a prefect society.

    Liz, maybe it's just me, but I would consider using NFP to delay pregnancy as contraception.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 11:17 AM


    Jodes: when used for deliberately SELFISH reasons, yes, it can be. When used for grave matter (health or financial) it is okay. I think EWTN has more information on its website.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 24, 2009 11:31 AM


    So, if someone uses condoms when it is a GRAVE matter, like health or financial, that would be moral in your view?

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 11:35 AM


    Condoms and other forms of contraception are NOT allowed. That would be using NFP for a selfish reason and deliberately blocking the creation of life. NFP means also being open to life if life should be created.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 24, 2009 11:38 AM


    So, who says you can't be open to life and use condoms? They do fail sometimes, as does NFP. You gave 2 instances where it would be ok to use NFP to delay pregnancy. If those same reasons where applied to condoms, I don't see how you can say one is moral and the other is not.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 11:43 AM


    what is wrong with "blocking the creation of life?"

    Posted by: Hal at February 24, 2009 11:59 AM


    Ha Ha Hal. Like you haven't heard this before??

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 12:02 PM


    what is wrong with "blocking the creation of life?"

    For Catholics (although we believe it is part of the Natural Law, so really for everyone) sex is for the purpose of 1. procreation and 2. uniting a married couple.

    As stated in Humanae Vitae:

    13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13

    Posted by: Pansy Moss at February 24, 2009 12:08 PM


    Hey there Jodes,

    "So, who says you can't be open to life and use condoms? "

    Part of the morality of an action is both the ends and the means. In the case of a couple who uses a condom and a couple who practices NFP, both couple have a noble ends in mind; not having a child for grave reasons. OK. Now let's consider the means that the couples engage in to bring about their desired ends. The means that the NFP couple takes is something that both you (presumably!) and I are doing right now- abstinence; that is, they simply don't have sex. Now I don't think anyone is prepared to argue that it is wrong to not have sex.

    Contrast this with the couple who uses a condom. They wish to experience the pleasure of the conjugal act without its consequences. So they deliberately thwart the very purpose of the act itself. Therein lies the main difference. In one case, the couple wishes the pleasure of the act without its consequences and takes it upon themselves to produce a means in order to ensure that, while in the other case, there is no thwarting or violation of the conjugal act because there IS no conjugal act.

    One may drive the point home further with an analogy. What is the difference between dieting and bulimia? With dieting, you use the natural rhythm of your body and temperance along with exercising to lose weight. If you are trying to lose weight and you are offered a piece of cake, you must resist eating that cake. However, a bulimic would eat that cake and vomit it up later. The bulimic desires the pleasure of eating without the consequences. And that is what contraception is; it is sexual bulimia. With contraception and bulimia, you desire pleasure without it's consequence and one takes unnatural methods to derive pleasure and purge the consequences. With NFP and dieting, you work naturally with your body, show self-control, and attain your desired goals. Hope that helps a bit. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 24, 2009 12:11 PM


    Bobby, thanks, that actually makes sense to me!

    and, I think the line "contraception is sexual bulimia" is hilarious.

    The only problem I can see is when people use NFP and continue to have sex when it is believed that there will be no conception. In that case are they not trying to have there cake? They are trying to not have children, and still have sex.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 12:15 PM


    Jodes,

    "and, I think the line "contraception is sexual bulimia" is hilarious."

    Haha, yeah, I laugh every time I hear it too :)

    "The only problem I can see is when people use NFP and continue to have sex when it is believed that there will be no conception. In that case are they not trying to have there cake?"

    That's a fair question. And this line of yours is true:

    "They are trying to not have children, and still have sex."

    But again, let's go back to this language of ends and means. Not wanting to have children for grave reasons we've established is a good ends, right? Remember, it isn't in the "wanting children" aspect that we claim is immoral; it is HOW you go about that. And the way you go about that is by not having sex. It seems like I'm repeating myself here, but what I want to get at is the following; what is the evil action that is taken by the NFP couple? It can't be abstaining. But it can't be having sex when you know there is little chance that you would become pregnant because that is simply a biological reality that is programed into the woman's body. In our analogy, this can be likened to the fact that maybe every Sunday is your "cheat day" where you allow yourself to go to McDonald's and have a Big Mac, fries, and coke. And most of the time this will not "undue" the hard work you have gone through all week. And sometimes a cheat day may cause you to gain weight, just like NFP may cause you to become pregnant. But both parties are aware of that going in, and if it happens, they know to do something different or learn from their mistake next time (though it is obviously a much bigger deal for the NFP couple). So in either case, both parties are working with the natural rhythms of their bodies, and the natural rhythms of the bodies allow "cheat" days in both cases.

    I don't know if that makes sense, I just kind of came up with that... God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 24, 2009 12:31 PM


    Bobby, you have a wonderful way of explaining things.
    Thanks so much!

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 12:34 PM


    I'm flattered Jodes :) Thank you kindly.

    And now I should nap while the baby naps...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 24, 2009 12:36 PM


    Reality, perhaps most people want only 2 or 3 children because our society has demonized anyone who has more with such comments like "those people should be more responsible!"

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 10:50 AM

    Or maybe most people simply want only 2 or 3 children :)

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 1:45 PM


    What Bobby said is what I was talking about. Thanks for the great explanation, Bobby.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 24, 2009 2:18 PM


    Let's take pre-martial sex off the table for a second.

    I'm incredulous that we're debating when/whether its appropriate for a MARRIED couple to have sex. That two committed adults are not interested in being parents is not a dysfunction, its simply how they choose to create their family (ie, just the two of them).

    Sex is more than for procreation and it always has been. Its primal, human, risky and rewarding. Its a form of expression - love, lust, commitment, curiousity, fun, apology, rekindling, reunion, goodbye, etc. It means different things to different people. In very specific times, some people use it to actively create babies.

    To suggest that a married couple should deny physical affection with each other because they are somehow being immoral or selfish for not allowing themselves to get pregnant...is absolutely absurd.

    Posted by: Danielle at February 24, 2009 2:24 PM


    Danielle, I don't believe they should deny themselves, I just think that they should be open to the possibility that their procreative act might actually lead to procreation.

    For example, I just recently became fertile again after the birth of my daughter. We're not actively trying to have another child, nor are we actively trying to NOT have another child.

    Realistically, we obviously do have some knowledge about when I'm ovulating and having that knowledge does impact other decisions even if it isn't explicitly talked about. However, I think as long as we aren't specifically denying each other ourselves, there's nothing wrong with not being together every chance we get.

    Our bodies are designed with predicatable patterns. I believe this is so we will have natural child spacing without any effort on our part. Unless a married couple is having intercourse EVERY day, the target days are going to be missed fairly often. If you also take into account the fact that most women aren't fertile for the first 6 months after giving birth, the "need" for birth control is greatly reduced.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:03 PM


    Danielle, I don't believe they should deny themselves, I just think that they should be open to the possibility that their procreative act might actually lead to procreation.
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:03 PM

    -This is the issue at hand. There are couples who are not and will not be open to the possibility of children (earlier in the thread this was akin to some sort of dysfunction or denouncement of 'moral/spiritual duty'). Yet they are married, and will have sex with each other without wanting to procreate. NFP has an even larger failure rate than other BC. Therefore your response to these couples is...?

    Posted by: Danielle at February 24, 2009 3:11 PM


    If they are a Christian couple I would ask them to look to scripture to see what God has to say in the matter.

    If they were not I would urdge them to use only contraception that does not kill and to be open to at least giving up for adoption any child that might be conceived.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:21 PM


    Danielle, even if used perfectly, over the period of an entire reproductive lifetime, contraception will most likely fail at least once. This is why people must be open to children that might slip through the cracks of birth control if they are going to continue to have sex.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:23 PM


    even if used PERFECTLY it will MOST LIKELY fail at least once Lauren? How do you figure that Lauren?

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 3:32 PM


    Asitis, the effective rate of even the most effective birth control is less than 99%. The way the measure effective rates is how many people out of 100 will become pregnant in 1 year.


    If a woman uses the same method of birth control for her entire reproductive lifespan, she will face those odds roughly 35 times. Used over such a long span of time, the likelyhood that at least one pregnancy will occur goes up dramatically.

    Of course, when we factor in typical use it becomes a near certainty.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:36 PM


    The Guttmacher Institute uses the language of "perfect" contraceptive use and indeed, they do list the failure rates of perfect contraceptive use
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 24, 2009 3:38 PM


    Also, According to guttmacher:

    "A typical woman...experiences about two contraceptive failures"

    http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/newsrelease3102.html

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:52 PM


    thank you bobby. Did you see that Lauren? Perfect use effectiveness for the pill (using a very common form of BC) is 99.7%. Extrapolate that over 35 years ( which is a long time to be sexually active and fertile) and you get roughly 10%
    Chance of getting pregnant. And that may be overestimated because those effectiveness rates are for first year of use and they tend to increase with time.

    "most likely fail at least once" even if used " perfectly" Lauren?

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 3:57 PM


    Alright, Asitis if someone uses birth control perfectly, they still have a 1 in 10 chance of getting pregnant.

    Not exactly fool proof. Of course, as Guttmacher showes, the typical woman will have about 2 contraceptive failures over her lifetime.

    Even if you fall into the perfect use crowd, you're still accepting a very substantial risk that you will have at least one child. If you aren't willing to accept this, you shouldn't have sex.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 4:02 PM


    Its a far cry from what you claimed Lauren. 1 in 10 is NOT " most likely". And 1 in 10 is even an overestimate!

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 4:13 PM


    Asitis, that is PERFECT usage. There is really no point in debating it other than to say that even PERFECT usage still carries substantial risk.

    Typical usage will result in pregnancy. You are arguing to argue. The point of my original statement was that even with contraception, someone must be open to the idea that they are not guaranteed to not have a baby.

    Everyone acknowledges this. Again, even with perfect use a person would STILL have a 10% chance of getting pregnant. If someone told me that doing something would give my children a 10% chance of dying, I sure as hell wouldn't do it. You are trying to belittle the fact that birth control does not offer perfect protection.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 4:19 PM


    NFP has an even larger failure rate than other BC. Therefore your response to these couples is...?

    NFP couples usually see a child, planned or unplanned, as a blessing from God.

    Posted by: Pansy Moss at February 24, 2009 4:19 PM


    This is not really about whether or not BC is "good" or "bad". I just don't want to pay for someone else's.

    Wow, I wish the government would give us all free electrical outlet covers and cabinet locks and car seats and diapers to improve my "post" reproductive health.

    What a joke, to provide free condoms to college kids for their "extra-curriculars". Is anyone checking the parent's income levels before distributing the freebies (condoms and BC) especially for those kids whose PARENTS are supporting their college educations?

    It's not the tax-payers' responsibility to subsidize anyone's sex-life. With these kinds of policies, it's no wonder the younger generations think the government owes them everything they want.

    Why not use this money for food, medical necessities, or mortgages for the poor and unemployed?

    Posted by: Janet at February 24, 2009 4:23 PM


    Now there is some more 'shovel ready' work if your occupation is a grave digger or you are trying to dig the nation out of debt.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at February 24, 2009 4:36 PM


    Lauren, I am most certainly not arguing just to argue. What you stated about perfect use was incorrect. And it was important to correct it.

    Now, as for " typical use WILL result in a pregnancy, that is also not true. The typical use effectiveness is based on first year of use and is even more problematic to extrapolate over 35 years. And I doubt very much in reality the typical use effectiveness is 0% for the pill or other effective forms of contraception.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 4:40 PM


    Posted by: Danielle at February 24, 2009 2:24 PM

    "Let's take pre-martial sex off the table for a second."

    ------------------------------------------------------

    Two things come to mind when I read that line;

    1. Backseat of a car.

    2. Kitchen or coffee.

    yor bro ken


    Posted by: kbhvac at February 24, 2009 4:47 PM


    kbhvac,
    Ha ha! :)

    Posted by: Janet at February 24, 2009 4:52 PM


    go ken!!!!!

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 4:55 PM


    LOL.

    Posted by: Danielle at February 24, 2009 5:11 PM


    I'm not adding this to argue, just because I'm confused. I thought with probability, it goes back to the start each time. As in, "I took my pill today at the exact same time I always do, and tonight, after I have sex, I will have a .3% chance of conceiving"- if you do that every day for life, how does the chance increase? I just keep going back to this old math problem from back in the day, where there are 4 red marbles in a container and 3 green ones. If you pull out a red one, then put it back, the probability of pulling out a red one again doesn't change, right?
    I guess I'm just confused as to how that extrapolates, over the years, to 10%. Seems to me like every time you don't conceive you start from 99.7% effectiveness again?
    I swear I'm a very smart woman :)

    Posted by: AM at February 24, 2009 5:12 PM


    AM, I thought the exact same thing.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 5:14 PM


    Even if you fall into the perfect use crowd, you're still accepting a very substantial risk that you will have at least one child. If you aren't willing to accept this, you shouldn't have sex.
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 4:02 PM

    Or you could have an abortion if that happened, or put the baby up for adoption.

    Posted by: Hal at February 24, 2009 5:19 PM


    Posted by: AM at February 24, 2009 5:12 PM


    I guess I'm just confused as to how that extrapolates, over the years, to 10%. Seems to me like every time you don't conceive you start from 99.7% effectiveness again?
    I swear I'm a very smart woman :)

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Having to use a calculator before you can have sex is kind of a bummer. Takes the spontanaitey out of it.

    Kind of like having to have a compass before you can pray.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at February 24, 2009 5:22 PM



    Or you could have an abortion if that happened....

    Posted by: Hal at February 24, 2009 5:19 PM

    What a novel idea.


    Posted by: Janet at February 24, 2009 5:26 PM


    Janet??!! Is that my Janet?? My long lost Janet??

    If it is WELCOME BACK!!
    If it isn't WELCOME!!

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 5:30 PM


    Hi Janet,

    nice to see you again.

    Posted by: Jasper at February 24, 2009 5:34 PM


    nodes, AM... I was thinking likewise but need to think on that first (hard to right now running errands). In the meantime I cut Lauren some slack and looked at it cumulatively. Even at that, she's still way off on all counts. Not to mention it's inappropriate also to use first year effectiveness rates and apply them to lifetime use.......

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 5:44 PM


    Hi Carla, and Jasper!

    Thank you both. I was lost, now I'm found. :) Thanks to you, Carla!

    Happy Mardi Gras everyone!

    Posted by: Janet at February 24, 2009 5:47 PM


    AM,

    It doesn't extrapolate. Lauren is using probabilities incorrectly (a common mistake).

    Posted by: Bee at February 24, 2009 5:59 PM


    Asitis, Bee I am using guttmacher's statistics. THEY claim the 10%, THEY claim the 2 "accidents" per typical use.

    If you have a problem with my statistical analysis, perhaps you should take it up with Guttmacher was well.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 6:07 PM


    OH and Hal, killing yoru child for your own calculated responsibility is about as evil as it comes. I'm sorry, I'm not going to pussy foot around the issue anymore. If you know the exact risks of failure for your contraception, and you know the truth about fetal development, and you kill your child so that you can have sex, you're a horrible person.

    It's one thing to be young and single and scared. It's quite the other to say "oh well, I can just kill any kid that comes along so that I can have sex without any responsibility."

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 6:14 PM


    Having a spouse, hence having sex means you are ready for children.

    lololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!!!

    Are you serious? That reduces marriage to sex! There is so much more to marriage than sex. And also, I'm Muslim, so I don't quite follow Catholic doctrine.

    Posted by: Leah at February 24, 2009 6:21 PM


    No, leah, it "reduces" marriage to what it is...A partnership that lays the groundwork for a family.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 6:26 PM


    I think I have said this before, but I don't think that just because you get married means you are mature enough or responsible enough to handle the challenges a baby brings. And I think this can be seen in quickie weddings where the marriage ends up in annulment or divorce.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 6:32 PM


    If you have a problem with my statistical analysis, perhaps you should take it up with Guttmacher was well.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 6:07 PM

    Lauren, don't be silly. The issue isn't Guttmacher's data.... it's how you are using it.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 6:54 PM


    It's one thing to be young and single and scared. It's quite the other to say "oh well, I can just kill any kid that comes along so that I can have sex without any responsibility."
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 6:14 PM

    Many many people feel differently than you do Lauren. Some believe an abortion is the responsible decision.


    Posted by: Hal at February 24, 2009 6:55 PM


    I wasn't trying to be a bully about the statistics Lauren, I was just confused about probablities, that's all.

    And here's some food for thought- Britney Spears got married at like, age 21 to a guy in Vegas on a whim (yes, he was her friend- but still a whim!). Should she have immediately started having kids JUST because she's now a wife? Or can we see that she was immature and could use time to reflect on what she wants in life?

    Posted by: AM at February 24, 2009 7:01 PM


    Hal, and some people believe it's ok to murder their wives to avoid child support. It doesn't make it ok.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 7:14 PM


    Hal, and some people believe it's ok to murder their wives to avoid child support. It doesn't make it ok.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 7:14 PM

    No, it certainly doesn't make it okay and that's why they'll go to jail for that.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 7:16 PM


    Asitis: "Lauren, don't be silly. The issue isn't Guttmacher's data.... it's how you are using it."

    Okay, let me explain it mathematically.

    There is a 997/1000 chance of success for year one. For year two there is probably the same chance of success, but if you take the two years together....

    The chance of success for year one AND year two is 997/1000 squared, or 994/1000. Take that across 35 years that number becomes 9/10. So there is a 10% chance of becoming pregnant across 35 years, with perfect use, assuming that first year use is analogous to the other years.

    Now for the "typical" use the number becomes even greater. Take a 913/1000 chance to the 35 power and you get 4/100, or a 4% success rate. In other words there is a 96% chance of becoming pregnant across 35 years.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 7:41 PM


    Lauren, I may be wrong, but I don't think the statistics are compounded like that. I am under the impression that each time period, such as a year, has the same probability as every other year, and stands on its own, and not added to the probability of the past years.

    Again, I could be wrong, or that could make no sense to anyone, but I don't think probability is added like that.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 7:46 PM


    I guess this was what Obama was referring to when he said "a new era of responsibility." I wonder if the fiscal responsibility summit mentioned this increase in funds being something that could be cut to reduce the deficit? Nah... lol

    Posted by: segamon at February 24, 2009 7:48 PM


    Lauren,

    First of all, I was refuting your statement that
    "even if used perfectly, over the period of an entire reproductive lifetime, contraception will most likely fail at least once". This is false.

    Secondly, I was refuting your statement that "typical usage will result in pregnancy". This is false. According to your calculation above it might result in pregnancy (96% chance). HOWEVER (for starters), you have used the typical use effectiveness rate for the first year of use. This effectiveness rate is not appropriate for every year thereafter.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 7:54 PM


    Jodes, as I mentioned before I think you might be correct in saying the probability isn't cumulative. Which makes Laurens claims even "more incorrect".

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 7:57 PM


    Jodes, probability compounds.

    Here's a really brief definition of how this works:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/compound-probability

    Asitis, my understanding is that the subsequent years effectiveness is actually lower than first year. This would make my calculations generous.

    For example, it looks as though perfect use numbers get less effective as time goes on. 1st 6month is .1 while 6-12 months is 1.4.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 8:10 PM


    Lauren I know that probability compounds when it is two separate events (as in the example on the site you posted), but I thought that when it is the probability of a single event happening (such as pregnancy) it didn't compound.

    And, I am not trying to set you up or prove you wrong or anything, I honestly am just unsure!

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 8:15 PM


    Yay Janet is back!! I have missed you!! :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 8:19 PM


    Jodes: "Lauren I know that probability compounds when it is two separate events (as in the example on the site you posted), but I thought that when it is the probability of a single event happening (such as pregnancy) it didn't compound.

    And, I am not trying to set you up or prove you wrong or anything, I honestly am just unsure!"

    You are right in that each individual event does not affect the probability of the other events. However, when the events are taken in relation to each other, they most certainly "compound" each other.

    Heres a simple example.

    Even if you were to flip a coin 100 times, and end up with 100 heads, you would have a 50% chance of landing another head on the 101st flip. However, it would be sheer lunacy to suggest that you have a 50% chance of hitting 101 straight heads.

    In other words, the probability of not getting pregnant may be a certain amount for one year, and it may even be the same amount for the next year, but ultimately the two years when taken together lower that probability.

    The probability of event A and event B is always, always lower than that of either A or B individually, unless one or both of the events have a probability of 1.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 8:20 PM


    Lauren, your understanding is that typical use effectiveness DECREASES with years???? Where do you get this? Everything I have seen says just the opposite. And for obvious reasons.

    And here's a longer term study I found that shows just that: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/dem184v1. It's a five year study out of France. In the first year, overall typical use failure rate of all contraceptive methods tested was 2.9%. In first five years it was 8.5%


    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:21 PM


    Oliver, thanks for clearing that up for me!
    It makes sense now!

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 8:22 PM


    For example, it looks as though perfect use numbers get less effective as time goes on. 1st 6month is .1 while 6-12 months is 1.4.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 8:10 PM

    Lauren, where does this come from?

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:25 PM


    Asitis: "Jodes, as I mentioned before I think you might be correct in saying the probability isn't cumulative. Which makes Laurens claims even "more incorrect"."

    Unfortunately for you, you are yet again incorrect. Its the same as playing the lottery. There may only be a .000001% of winning the lottery, but you increase your lifetime success by playing multiple times.

    There is a certain chance of becoming pregnant, and although it may be low, the chance of a lifetime success is increased by repeating the same behavior multiple times.

    If you have trouble with the concept of probablity have fun with this little mind screw...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 8:26 PM


    True that Oliver @ 8:20pm.

    But Lauren it remains that your two statements
    "even if used perfectly, over the period of an entire reproductive lifetime, contraception will most likely fail at least once" and "typical usage will result in pregnancy" are not true.

    Which is what I have been "arguing" all along.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:29 PM


    That's okay Oliver. I get it. No skin off my teeth! :)

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:31 PM


    Oliver, I have to admit, that problem started to hurt my head trying to solve it and then trying to understand the solution!

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 8:33 PM


    And Lauren a study conducted by Guttmacher found overall typical use failure rate for various forms of contraception to be 12.5% in first year and 8.0% in second year.....

    Still haven't found anything yet that shows failure rate for the year increase over lifetime .....

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 8:38 PM


    Here's the source

    Family Planning Perspectives, Table 1, p 60, Vol 31, Number 2, March / April 1999

    And you're right, I can't say that it will necessrally happen to any given person but I can say that:

    Perfect use WILL result in pregnancy a significant % of the time.

    Typical use will result in pregnancy 96% of time statistically.

    According to Guttmacher, the typical woman will have 2 unplanned pregnancies across the span of her life.

    Obviously there is some disconnect between the statistical probability in becoming pregnant using typical usage and the actual pregnancies. While it can not be definitively said that this will also occur with perfect usage, it stands to reason that the same would be true.

    My point was that birth control is not perfect and that couples using it should be prepared to face this fact. I think this is a point where you couldn't see the forest for the trees and are trying to confuse the issues with semantics rather than admit that my point is valid.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 8:41 PM


    Lauren, I don't think there is a person here who would say that any artificial contraception is 100% effective.
    But, I also don't think anyone could say that every couple using contraception wouldn't be open to a child should the contraception fail.

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 8:47 PM


    Asitis: "That's okay Oliver. I get it. No skin off my teeth! :)"

    Right. Im sure you do, even though you confidently cast doubt on the basic fundamentals of probabilities 5 minutes ago and read the problem for, I dunno, 3 minutes max. Gotcha.

    Jodes: "Oliver, I have to admit, that problem started to hurt my head trying to solve it and then trying to understand the solution!"


    Im not sure how the Wiki article explained the problem, but the best way I found to "accept" the answer is to think of the probability of NOT getting the guess right. Plus, you have to remind yourself that Monty has special knowledge, and eliminates a door he KNOWS to be wrong.

    Think of it like this...

    When you pick door one, you have a 2/3 chance of being wrong, correct? Think of another way to phrase that. You have a 2/3 chance that one of the other two doors is the prize door. After you make your selection, Monty eliminates a secretly KNOWN wrong door, so all of that 2/3 chance now "goes" to the remaining door. It bugged me for a long time until I heard it explained to me this way.

    I think there is a youtube video that does a good job of breaking it down.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 8:50 PM


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlc7peGlGg

    The voice is weird and its a long explanation, but this is a pretty good explanation. Not that Asitis would need it apparently. She happens to be a probability guru afterall!

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 8:56 PM


    (BTW, that video's explanation is also a MUCH better explanation than the one I gave.)

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 8:57 PM


    Oliver, you are right on all accounts, it makes more sense and it is a creepy voice!

    Posted by: jodes at February 24, 2009 9:02 PM


    lauren your point was that birth control is not perfect? Well duh! Whoever said it was 100% effective?

    Stop this nonsense about me trying to confuse the issue. All I did was show that two bold claims you made were untrue. And it was important to do so.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 9:04 PM


    yep Oliver.... Just like you are a guru on sayings! Only I schooled you way worse!

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 9:08 PM


    Asitis: "yep Oliver.... Just like you are a guru on sayings! Only I schooled you way worse!"

    How old are you again? And that was how many days ago?

    I dont think Ive ever heard that saying, but apparently some people use it. Its more than likely a very old mixed metaphor that worked its way into obscure venacular. I was wrong, but whoop. At least I can admit it. But I guess admiting when you make a mistake has something to do with not having all the wisdom that your many years have granted you.

    I guess pretending to understand a heavily misunderstood probability problem is the wise and mature thing to do.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 9:25 PM


    I was wrong, but whoop. At least I can admit it.
    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 9:25 PM

    At least you can admit it? Great, I guess that means you are admitting it now. Because you certainly didn't before. And you were pretty rude about it.

    And I am 44 years old. And yes it was days ago, but you've been lying low ever since.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 9:30 PM


    Lauren, I found the anti-contraceptions website that shows the table, but i can't find this table in that issue of Family Planning Perspectives.

    Though there is another articles in that issue which shows data from the first six and first twelve months of contraceptive use and the oppposite trend is shown: That failure rate is highest in the first six months. And another study that shows up to two years, and again, failure rate decrease with time.

    Data aside, it would simply make sense that failure rate would decrease over time as the person became better at using the contraception and fertlity decreased with age.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 9:36 PM


    Oliver, I went back to the post from a couple weeks ago thinking maybe you had admitted you were wrong and had apologized and I had just missed it. But, no....

    Here it is again. In case you forgot:

    Asitis: ""no skin off my teeth" is a saying"

    Sorry, I know this is tangental to the issue, but seriously. This is no a saying..... your support of her in this case is absolutley ridiculous. Do you just support whatever Josephine does period? Im starting to think that YOU have ulterior motives here. Are you trying to live your life through her? Is she secretly your daughter? Are you in love with her? Why would you support her in this case when she is clearly wrong?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 14, 2009 9:34 AM

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 9:45 PM


    ASitis: "And I am 44 years old. And yes it was days ago, but you've been lying low ever since."

    Ive been "lying low" because Ive been working. I periodically stop posting for usually long periods because of this. In fact, the only reason I posted here is because of the incredible misunderstanding of basic probability going on.

    By the way, for a 44 year old, you seem to be pretty excited that you "schooled" me on information on an obscure saying. I guess you should be appreciative of what you can get!

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 9:45 PM


    No, Oliver... I "schooled" you for being rude, and cocky and so clearly in the wrong.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 9:51 PM


    Hmmm...and rubbing it in my face too. Sure are a mature and wise 44 year old. You really know your probability too! What a catch you are.

    See, you fail to understand that I accept that I am wrong. If I were never wrong, I would never learn, and learning is an incredibly important process to me. I make sure to better myself at everything that I do. I even make sure that I get out of my car faster and smoother every time I exit the driver's seat. If I didnt accept when I was wrong, I would kill myself. Rubbing it in my face only shows how weak you are. You are 44 year old woman jeering a 24 year old man on website because he mistakenly posted about a saying. I shouldnt have to say this, but grow up.

    By the way....here is the information from the table that you "couldnt find," just like your "got" the Monty Hall problem of course.

    http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Resources/contraceptive_failure_rates_contraception.htm

    It clearly points to a 3.8% failure rate increase from the first 6 months to the next 6 months.

    Asitis: "Data aside, it would simply make sense that failure rate would decrease over time as the person became better at using the contraception and fertlity decreased with age."

    How very wise and experienced you are! We should all know that when we put data aside, we can just use a simple call to what "seems" like should be the case of course! Thats why all those crazy scientists are wrong about the earth being round. I mean, look at it, it simply makes sense that the earth is flat!

    (How about it seems reasonable that people who get tired of taking a pill every day slowly degrade in their responsibility? Or how about it seems reasonable that the body adapts to the hormones and the effectiveness wears down? Or how about it seems reasonable that some people get arrogant and stop feeling the need to take the pill every day on time? All seems reasonable to me!)

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 9:59 PM


    Asitis: "Oliver, I went back to the post from a couple weeks ago thinking maybe you had admitted you were wrong and had apologized and I had just missed it. But, no...."

    As I remember, I pretty much stopped posting at that point. I saw the post offhand a few days after the fact and really didnt feel like posting, considering that I didnt have the time to properly respond to Rae in the Darwin thread and didnt want to be accused of dodging her post. But I guess you gotta take the small wins when you cant get much of anything else!

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:03 PM


    Oliver: By the way....here is the information from the table that you "couldnt find," just like your "got" the Monty Hall problem of course.

    Oliver, I already told your wife I found that table on that website. Problem is, i can't find the article the website says it came from. Though I did find an article in that volume of Family Planning Perspective that shows just the opposite, that failure rate decreases over time.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:17 PM


    Oliver: How very wise and experienced you are! We should all know that when we put data aside, we can just use a simple call to what "seems" like should be the case

    Oliver, as far as I can tell, there have been no long term studies on the effectiveness rate of contraceptives over time. I was not saying my comment PROVED anything. I was just saying it would make sense.

    Nice try.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:21 PM


    Oliver at 10:03pm

    Yeh, that's probably it.....

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:22 PM


    Oliver:What a catch you are.

    Why, thank you!

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:23 PM


    Asitis,

    Did you just feel like fact checking? Here is the original article that was suprisingly easy to find, I know because I found it, and I normally am no good at the data side of the argument.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3105699.html

    Care to show me your article? Or are you going to pull that crap you tried earlier where you make up an excuse as to why you cant give me the information and challenge me to go look it up?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:25 PM


    Oliver:You are 44 year old woman jeering a 24 year old man on website because he mistakenly posted about a saying. I shouldnt have to say this, but grow up.

    Nice try again Oliver. I am not "jeering" at you because you were wrong about a saying. I am "jeering" at you because you thought I was wrong about the saying and jeered at me! You should be saying grow up... to yourself. And sorry to me.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:27 PM


    Asitis,

    Did you just feel like fact checking? Here is the original article that was suprisingly easy to find, I know because I found it, and I normally am no good at the data side of the argument.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3105699.html

    Care to show me your article?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:25 PM

    Yeh, THAT article is very easy to find. I've already seen it.

    Thing is, it doesn't match up with Table 1 in the article you cited @9:59.

    Which article of mine do you want?


    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:35 PM


    I was trying to find the website that failed to mention this rare idiom when interestingly enough I found another website dicussing the same argument we are having. Turns out that the saying is incredibly rare.

    http://dragonage.bioware.com/forums/viewtopic.html?topic=649999&forum=135

    Apparently, it is so rare that "nowtro" shows up more often. I think it is safe to say that I was not CLEARLY in the wrong, although I will admit that, mixed metaphor or not, it is recognized as an idiom by a handful of people, and is likely some sort of regional idiom, so yes, I was technically wrong and made a false assumption. However, to point out that I was CLEARLY incorrect is a bit of an overstatement wouldnt you say Asitis? Of course, you could be milking this for all its worth since you can never logically make your points.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:39 PM


    Hmmm.... let me go back and copy the definitions I posted for you before. Not so obscure....

    Oh how you do LOVE that word "logically" Oliver. You seem to think it's all yours. You're funny.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:43 PM


    Asitis: "Yeh, THAT article is very easy to find. I've already seen it.

    Thing is, it doesn't match up with Table 1 in the article you cited @9:59."

    What are you talking about? Look at the information in the table. It matches perfectly. It isnt in the same format, but all the information is number for number. Im confused are you even looking at the table?


    Asitis: "Which article of mine do you want? "

    Im asking for the one that points to the opposite. I cant tell whether you are doing it on purpose or not, but dont be dense please.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:46 PM


    Here it is Oliver. Google it and you'll see just how obscure it's not:


    Oh really Oliver? Sorry bud, but it actually IS a saying:

    from idionconnection.com:
    no skin off (someone's) teeth/nose
    - no difficulty for someone
    It will be no skin off my teeth if the meeting is not held.

    from dictionary.reference.com:
    no skin off one's back, nose, or teeth, Slang. of no interest or concern or involving no risk to one.

    from idioms.freedictionary.com:
    no skin off someone's teeth and no skin off someone's nose

    I could go on, but I think you get the message!

    Posted by: asitis at February 14, 2009 11:25 AM

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 10:48 PM


    Asitis: "Hmmm.... let me go back and copy the definitions I posted for you before. Not so obscure....

    Oh how you do LOVE that word "logically" Oliver. You seem to think it's all yours. You're funny."

    So because there is a definition online it isnt obscure? How on earth does that make sense?

    And I by no means act like I am the only logical person, here or anywhere, just that you are not. All you got is throwing some stupid argument up from several days ago. The funny thing is that your dogged pursuit has actually led me to feel more vindicated. At least the idiom is notably obscure, and likely a mixed metaphor anyways. I actually feel better.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:51 PM


    Okay, I did Google it, and I came up with 2,350 posts.

    "Skin off my nose" had 39,200.

    "skin of my teeth" got 76,000.

    By contrast, something common like "backseat driver" got 251,000 uses.

    So the ratio of commonality b/w all three is pretty extreme, with a 20:1 ratio being the best option. I think its safe to say that it is obscure.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:59 PM


    I see how they have taken part of the table and reconfigured it.

    But here's the thing Oliver: It doesn't support what Lauren claims it did (ie effectiveness decreases with time)

    Nor does it actually show what the anti-contraception website states it does: "Of significant importance is the increase in failure rates over time, even amongst the methods with lower failure rates."The only two that show an increase is failure rate in months 6-12 compared to months 1-6 are Implant and Injectable. The others show the opposite.

    In fact, the original research article states the following: "Overall, the probability of failure during the first six months of use accounts for more than half (60%) of failure within the first year of use. This pattern reflects both the greater difficulty in using a relatively new method correctly and consistently and the higher likelihood of continued use among those who are more comfortable with their method and able to carry out the steps needed to use it successfully."

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:07 PM


    Im asking for the one that points to the opposite.
    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:46 PM

    I had two articles for that Oliver. One you already cited (though you though it supported the opposite).

    The other is this: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3106499.html. Note Table 1 which shows effectiveness for 6 months intervals for 2 years.

    And there's the 5 year study from France that I already cited.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:14 PM


    I think its safe to say that it is obscure.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 10:59 PM

    Not so obscure that it doesn't get over 2,000 posts though.

    Nice try. You're still wrong.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:18 PM


    I think I see the confusion. Lauren and I, were talking about general hormonal contraceptives, not just the pill. If you take the implants and injectables into the mix, there is a significant drop off. The pill had a slightly better run in the first 6 months, 4.3 in first to 3.8 in second. I am now assuming that you are talking about only the pill.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:21 PM


    Asitis: "Not so obscure that it doesn't get over 2,000 posts though.

    Nice try. You're still wrong."

    So whats your line of reasoning?

    "Oh wow, 2000 sure is a big number! Must mean it gets used a lot!"

    2000 on Google is rare.

    I get 2,290 returns for my full name. Must mean Im popular!

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:25 PM


    I think I see the confusion. Lauren and I, were talking about general hormonal contraceptives, not just the pill. If you take the implants and injectables into the mix, there is a significant drop off. The pill had a slightly better run in the first 6 months, 4.3 in first to 3.8 in second. I am now assuming that you are talking about only the pill.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:21 PM

    No Oliver. I am talking about contraception in general. Because that is what Lauren was talking about:


    Danielle, even if used perfectly, over the period of an entire reproductive lifetime, contraception will most likely fail at least once. This is why people must be open to children that might slip through the cracks of birth control if they are going to continue to have sex.

    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:23 PM

    Where does Lauren state that she is talking about hormonal forms of birth control in general and implant and injectable in particular?

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:32 PM


    Implant 146 0.0 (0.0-0.0) 2.3 (0.6-8.6) 2.3 (0.5-10.5) 2.3 (0.3-16.5)

    Implant increased from 0 after the first 6 months to 2.3 after 12. Thats an undefined percent increase there.

    Injectable 209 1.2 (0.2-6.4) 3.2 (0.6-14.4) 9.3 (2.2-31.6) 9.3 (1.2-45.8)

    Injectable went from 1.2 after the first 6 months to 3.2 after 12. Thats a 166% increased failure rate in the second 6 months.

    IUD 59 2.3 (0.3-14.2) 3.7 (0.5-22.6) 9.5 (2.2-32.6) 17.9 (5.5-44.9)

    IUD went from 2.3 after the first 6 months to 3.7 after 12. Thats a 40% decreased failure rate in the second 6 months.

    I wasnt sure if IUD was hormonal or not...but...

    Pill 2,130 3.0 (2.2-4.0) 6.9 (5.5-8.6) 9.5 (7.5-12.0) 12.4 (9.5-15.9

    The Pill went from 3 after the first 6 months to 6.9 after 12. Thats a 130% increased failure rate in the second 6 months.


    That was from your article though. Care to illuminate your points?

    By the way, sorry if my posts are a bit spaced out, I am writing a "report" for work. Part of why I normally have not been posting.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:32 PM


    I get 2,290 returns for my full name. Must mean Im popular!


    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:25 PM

    Probably more likely you don't have an obscure name. I do have an obscure name and get much fewer than 2000 returns. Of the ones I do get, they are all about me. That's how obscure my name is.... and how popular I am! ;)

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:34 PM


    Asitis: "Where does Lauren state that she is talking about hormonal forms of birth control in general and implant and injectable in particular?"

    Maybe that is an unfair expectation, but most people here, and I think around the world, have come to accept "BC" or "birth control" to be talking about hormonal methods of general birth control. For your future reference, that is most likely what she, or anyone you know, is talking about when he/she mentions BC. I really dont think "pulling out" should be considered part of this debate.

    Now, I may be putting words in her mouth, so you'll have to ask her officially.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:36 PM


    Asitis: "Probably more likely you don't have an obscure name. I do have an obscure name and get much fewer than 2000 returns. Of the ones I do get, they are all about me. That's how obscure my name is.... and how popular I am! ;)"

    I think my name is pretty obscure. I have only met one other person in my life with my first name, and I have never met anyone with my last name, excluding my family of course. Besides, it was an example. 2000 hits is nothing, especially when compared to the 30-200 thousand a known idiom receives.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:41 PM


    That was from your article though. Care to illuminate your points?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:32 PM


    Oliver, you've made a critical error: Look at the tabel again. Look at the time frame for those failure rates. They are not in 6 month interavls. They are after 6 , 12, 18, 24 months.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:43 PM


    I see what I did. I know that, but I fudged the math.

    Here is the corrected math.

    Implant correct as is.

    Injectable correct as is.

    IUD correct as is.

    Pill 2,130 3.0 (2.2-4.0) 6.9 (5.5-8.6) 9.5 (7.5-12.0) 12.4 (9.5-15.9

    The Pill went from 3 after the first 6 months to 6.9 after 12. Thats a 30% increased failure rate in the second 6 months.

    CORRECTION: The increase is not 130%, just 30%.

    I guess I only fudged it once, but still.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:53 PM


    Maybe that is an unfair expectation, but most people here, and I think around the world, have come to accept "BC" or "birth control" to be talking about hormonal methods of general birth control. For your future reference, that is most likely what she, or anyone you know, is talking about when he/she mentions BC. I really dont think "pulling out" should be considered part of this debate.
    Now, I may be putting words in her mouth, so you'll have to ask her officially.
    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:36 PM

    Oliver, I don't get the impression that people on this blog, or anywhere for that matter mean only hormonal methods when they refer to birth control. You should take a look at this table from Guttmacjer showing the number and percentage for each form of birth control. And note that the injectables and implants to which you (Lauren?) were specifically referring to account for only 6.5% of the total.

    CONTRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE
    Contraceptive method use among U.S. women who practice contraception, 2002
    Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
    Pill 11,661 30.6
    Tubal sterilization 10,282 27.0
    Male condom 6,841 18.0
    Vasectomy 3,517 9.2
    3-month injectable 2,024 5.3
    Withdrawal 1,513 4.0
    IUD 774 2.0
    Periodic abstinence (calendar) 450 1.2
    Implant, 1-month injectable, patch 461 1.2
    Periodic abstinence (natural family planning) 133 .4
    Diaphragm 99 .3
    Other* 354 .9
    TOTAL 38,109 100.0
    * Includes the sponge, cervical cap, female condom and other methods.

    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 11:54 PM


    Asitis: "And note that the injectables and implants to which you (Lauren?) were specifically referring to account for only 6.5% of the total."

    I know you get confused easily, and Im sure getting that Monty Hall problem was a fluke, so let me explain to your already overworked brain. I am Oliver. Hi, nice to meet you. Lauren is my wife. Shes asleep right now.

    Asitis: "Oliver, I don't get the impression that people on this blog, or anywhere for that matter mean only hormonal methods when they refer to birth control."

    Maybe I am the one who is confused then. All I know is that when someone talks about taking their pill, they often refer to taking their BC or birth control. I have always got the impression from the posters here and in the every day encounters, albiet relatively rare, and many based on television, books, and/or films, that BC is slang for "the pill," which from a pro-lifer point of view is really speaking of the hormones, considering the hormones are the things killing the preborns.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:02 AM


    I guess I only fudged it once, but still.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 24, 2009 11:53 PM

    But still.... There is a general trend of decreasing failure rate with time overall.
    The totals reflect this.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:07 AM


    Asitis: "But still.... There is a general trend of decreasing failure rate with time overall.
    The totals reflect this."

    Did you read my correction? There was a 30% increase from the first 6 months to the second 6 months. Having trouble again reading tables?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:10 AM


    Asitis: "And note that the injectables and implants to which you (Lauren?) were specifically referring to account for only 6.5% of the total."

    I know you get confused easily, and Im sure getting that Monty Hall problem was a fluke, so let me explain to your already overworked brain. I am Oliver. Hi, nice to meet you. Lauren is my wife. Shes asleep right now

    I get confused? Oliver,really.... I know you aren't Lauren. That's not what I meant Let me remind you, because you seem to be confused: Go back to your comment @11:36. You said you thought Lauren was, like you, referring to hormonal BC only when she said BC. That's why I also added her name, along with a ?, to the comment.

    You really are reaching tonight.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:13 AM


    Did you read my correction? There was a 30% increase from the first 6 months to the second 6 months. Having trouble again reading tables?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:10 AM

    Am I have trouble reading the tables? Now you are just being silly Oliver.

    Yes, I know that the data for the Pill shows an increased failure rate for the second 6 months of the study and then a decrease in the subsequent two 6 month periods. Overall, the full 24 months the failure rate is 12.4, which is fairly consistent with its 0-6 month rate.

    And once again, overall for all of the contraceptive methods, there is a decreasing trend for failure rate with time.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:21 AM


    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:02 AM

    Yeh.... you are "confused". birth control is not "slang" for the pill. Except maybe for someone on the pill. Maybe. I'm on the pill and when I hear someone say "birth control" I certainly don't assume they necassarily mean the pill.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:27 AM


    Okay Oliver, I should have been in bed awhile ago. And you seem to have run out of steam. So I'm off to bed.

    Good night.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:30 AM


    Asitis: "I get confused? Oliver,really.... I know you aren't Lauren. That's not what I meant Let me remind you, because you seem to be confused: Go back to your comment @11:36. You said you thought Lauren was, like you, referring to hormonal BC only when she said BC. That's why I also added her name, along with a ?, to the comment. "

    You said "You(Lauren?" This made no sense and appeared as if to imply that "you" could also be "lauren" but you werent sure, hence the "?" If you want to avoid confusion, explain what your random grunt words mean a little bit more clearly.

    Asitis: "Yes, I know that the data for the Pill shows an increased failure rate for the second 6 months of the study and then a decrease in the subsequent two 6 month periods. Overall, the full 24 months the failure rate is 12.4, which is fairly consistent with its 0-6 month rate."

    Your argument was not a "fairly consistent" rate, but that it decreased. Now, granted I think we are talking about two different things, but you are seemingly continueing your stance along the lines of the pill. The pill has a higher failure rate as you go along from the first 6 months, according to this information.

    Simply put, the average 6 month failure rate is 3.13 and the first 6 months had a failure rate of 3.00. Not much of a difference, but clearly not a decrease, and definitely an increase.

    Asitis: "And once again, overall for all of the contraceptive methods, there is a decreasing trend for failure rate with time. "

    Once again, I dont really care.

    Although on a slight tangent, I do find it interesting that your article implies that, on the pill, there is a 12.5% failure rate at only 2 years. What was that earlier argument about again? Something to do with probability and liklihood?

    I also just noticed this hilarious gem.

    Bee: "It doesn't extrapolate. Lauren is using probabilities incorrectly (a common mistake)."

    A common mistake indeed Bee. If only you knew that your paranthetical comment was actually refering back to your own statement.


    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:33 AM


    "Your argument was not a "fairly consistent" rate, but that it decreased. Now, granted I think we are talking about two different things, but you are seemingly continueing your stance along the lines of the pill. The pill has a higher' failure rate as you go along from the first 6 months, according to this information".

    Oliver, once again..... I am not just talking about the pill. I am talking about contraception in general showing. LOOK AT THE TOTALS.

    As for the pill, yes the overall rate for the 24 months is a bit higher than the first six months.....it's off by about 2%

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:40 AM


    sorry... I meant 5%

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:41 AM


    Now your misinterpreting the table in my favor. The total being off is meaningless unless you consider the average 6 month. Its only off by .133, but the point is that it is still off.

    Remember that you and Lauren were originally arguing about the effectiveness of the pill, with that whole 99.7% thing.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:48 AM


    Asitis: "And once again, overall for all of the contraceptive methods, there is a decreasing trend for failure rate with time. "

    Once again, I dont really care.

    Although on a slight tangent, I do find it interesting that your article implies that, on the pill, there is a 12.5% failure rate at only 2 years. What was that earlier argument about again? Something to do with probability and liklihood?
    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:33 AM

    You don't care? Well you should care, because that's what we are talking about: Contraception in general.

    And as for the 12.5% after only 2 years and how that relates to my "earlier argument". What? You mean where I said there was about a 10% failure rate over the whole 35 years? Oh.... you just made another critical error there Oliver! Go back to my comment. You'll see I was clearly referring to perfect use. That is not what this study is about.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:49 AM


    Remember that you and Lauren were originally arguing about the effectiveness of the pill, with that whole 99.7% thing.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:48 AM

    I chose the Pill as an example Oliver, but her original comment was about contraception in general. That is what we were talking about.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:54 AM


    Asitis: "You don't care? Well you should care, because that's what we are talking about: Contraception in general."

    Im not, and I havent been from the beginning.

    Asitis: "And as for the 12.5% after only 2 years and how that relates to my "earlier argument". What? You mean where I said there was about a 10% failure rate over the whole 35 years? Oh.... you just made another critical error there Oliver! Go back to my comment. You'll see I was clearly referring to perfect use. That is not what this study is about. "

    The original argument was about the liklihood of the pill failing in general. Lauren made a few bad choices of words, and you got her on the semantics, but the heart of the argument was that contraception is likely to fail. Whether or not you want to defend yourself by claiming that you were only interested in the "prefect" use, the original argument at hand was about the expectations of someone taking the pill. If anything, this article is more illuminating because it covers the average person in general, whether typical or not.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 1:01 AM


    Now your misinterpreting the table in my favor. The total being off is meaningless unless you consider the average 6 month. Its only off by .133, but the point is that it is still off.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 12:48 AM

    ??????? How am I misinterpreting the table? I said the pill's average monthly rate for the 24 months is 5% higher than the first six months. 3.13 vs 3. Um, wouldn't that be 5%? Or did you somehow(?) think I meant an absolute 5%, as in its 8% vs 3%??????

    I am going to bed. I think you should too!

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 12:40 AM

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 1:01 AM


    Asitis: "Um, wouldn't that be 5%? Or did you somehow(?) think I meant an absolute 5%, as in its 8% vs 3%??????"

    That is actually what I thought you meant. Not a 5% increase on the original percentage. The percent difference is .133, but the percent change is 5%. I got confused on your wording.

    Asitis: "I chose the Pill as an example Oliver, but her original comment was about contraception in general. That is what we were talking about."

    I dont know about you, but I was here talking to her on the other side, and I can assure you that she most certainly meant hormonal contraceptive, specifically the pill. Im not sure what her goal was exactly, I just got involved when multiple arrogant choicers and Jodes(therefore implying that you are not arrogant) started to butcher probability. I personally dont care about contraceptives.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 1:09 AM


    The original argument was about the liklihood of the pill failing in general. Lauren made a few bad choices of words, and and you got her on the semantics, but the heart of the argument was that contraception is likely to fail. Whether or not you want to defend yourself by claiming that you were only interested in the "prefect" use, the original argument at hand was about the expectations of someone taking the pill. If anything, this article is more illuminating because it covers the average person in general, whether typical or not.

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 1:01 AM


    Oliver, that utter nonsense! This has absolutely nothing to do with semantics. First of all the original argument was NOT about the pill. It was about contraception in general. I used the pill as an example.

    Secondly, Lauren was the one who made a very specific comment about perfect use. And that is what I addressed very clearly. She claimed that even with perfect use contraception was most likely to fail.

    Here it all is for you:

    Danielle, even if used perfectly, over the period of an entire reproductive lifetime, contraception will most likely fail at least once.
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:23 PM

    even if used PERFECTLY it will MOST LIKELY fail at least once Lauren? How do you figure that Lauren?
    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 3:32 PM

    Asitis, the effective rate of even the most effective birth control is less than 99%. The way the measure effective rates is how many people out of 100 will become pregnant in 1 year.

    If a woman uses the same method of birth control for her entire reproductive lifespan, she will face those odds roughly 35 times. Used over such a long span of time, the likelyhood that at least one pregnancy will occur goes up dramatically.
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 3:36 PM


    Did you see that Lauren? Perfect use effectiveness for the pill (using a very common form of BC) is 99.7%. Extrapolate that over 35 years ( which is a long time to be sexually active and fertile) and you get roughly 10% chance of getting pregnant. And that may be overestimated because those effectiveness rates are for first year of use and they tend to increase with time.

    "most likely fail at least once" even if used " perfectly" Lauren?
    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 3:57 PM


    Alright, Asitis if someone uses birth control perfectly, they still have a 1 in 10 chance of getting pregnant.
    You are arguing to argue.
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 4:02 PM


    Its a far cry from what you claimed Lauren. 1 in 10 is NOT " most likely". And 1 in 10 is even an overestimate!
    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 4:13 PM

    Asitis, that is PERFECT usage. There is really no point in debating it other than to say that even PERFECT usage still carries substantial risk.
    Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2009 4:19 PM

    Lauren, I am most certainly not arguing just to argue. What you stated about perfect use was incorrect. And it was important to correct it.
    Posted by: asitis at February 24, 2009 4:40 PM

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 1:25 AM


    And now I really am going to bed.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 1:28 AM


    I dont see how the refuted anything that I said. The issue was not whether or not perfect usage had a such and such chance of failure. The point was that any form of BC would lead to a significant chance of failure. If you look at the numbers, Lauren was also clearly talking about the pill. How did your post prove anything otherwise?

    Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2009 1:40 AM


    " The issue was not whether or not perfect usage had a such and such chance of failure".

    Sigh..... yes, Oliver it was. How many times do I need to show you that? Lauren had made a very specific statement about perfect use and THAT is what I was taking issue with. I was very clear about this with her from the start and repeated this throughout.

    Posted by: asitis at February 25, 2009 5:51 AM


    Reality,
    How do you know what most people want? I know people that want as many children as God gives them. Shocking, I know.
    I thought I was done and then wow! Pregnant at 40! :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 24, 2009 10:40 AM

    Yes, I love how Michelle Duggar gets trotted out everytime people trust in God for their family size.

    I'm a bit younger than Michelle (37 today) and I trust God for my family size. I'm expecting #7 (a far cry from 18... is that what she's at now or have we moved on to 19? I've not paid close attention.)

    On average, my children are 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 years apart. The one fluke in that is the two current babies, who are 17 months apart at 3 and 4. But said 4 year old turns 5 in June and by the time baby #7 gets here in September it will be less than 2 month until Ari turns 4, so almost 4 years between the Ari and the new baby.

    Honestly, I don't know how Michelle even finds time to get pregnant, she has got to be the most fertile woman ever. Between three night shifts a week, continuing my education (boy, I've made a decision in terms of continuing my career that take me into a whole new can of worms and thrusts me right into the debate about Plan B. I hope I can make a difference... if I can make it through calculus first!) and raising six kids, I don't have the time to baby dance as much as she apparently does! (And with hubby's EMT schedule, conflicting hours and such, yeah... we have to work at scheduling couple time.)

    The point being, life itself usually prevents families like the Duggars, they are the exception, not the rule in the quiverfull community. Yes I have friends with 14 and 15 (and 17) children. Most have between 5 and 9... not double digits.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at February 25, 2009 11:26 AM


    Happy Birthday Elisabeth!! I love hearing about your family!! :)

    Posted by: Carla at February 25, 2009 11:48 AM


    Elisabeth,

    "baby dance" - I LOVE that!!!

    Happy Birthday to you!

    Posted by: Janet at February 25, 2009 1:41 PM