I probably don't need to say much more than the Washington Post and USA Today wrote glowingly of a new "pro-life" plan. Red flags arise.
Last week USA Today editorialized:
Realism seems to have struck some ardent foes of abortion. After 35 years of trying to outlaw the procedure nationally while chipping away at abortion rights state by state, they have decided to add a new and sensible initiative. They'll work with the other side to reduce the number of abortions.
It's not that the opponents changed their minds or that they're any less committed to their cause. It's just that they have done the new math. And the numbers don't add up to more anti-abortion justices on the US Supreme Court or a sea change on the issue among most Americans.
The new "pro-life" coalition is composed of Barack Obama supporters....
Continue reading my column, "Counterfeit pro-lifers: A case of mistaken identity," on WorldNetDaily.com.
"Abortion can only be prevented by chaste living: abstinence until marriage and faithfulness within marriage. In fact, this is a cure-all."
That's a good example of the cure being worse than the disease.Posted by: Hal at November 26, 2008 2:05 PM
Excuse me. Is there really an official list of criteria that defines the AUTHENTIC pro-life position as you suggest Jill? Because it seems to me that in reality there's a whole lot of variance. Keep this attitude up and you may find the pro-life movement splitting and you'll be left with dwindling numbers.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 2:06 PM
For shame Hal! I agree with Jill on the abstinence within marriage (well, assuming that is what you and your spouse agree to of course).
But I'm with you on the abstinence until marriage part. I mean ...really? Seriously? Really?Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 2:13 PM
I was referring to the pre-marriage sex part. I am not a fan of married people cheating. Except, I have no objection if a married couple agrees otherwise.(I guess that's not "cheating")
Posted by: Hal
at November 26, 2008 2:15 PM
Asitis Help me to understand your position, because as I see it, when my daughter is of age. abstinence = no pregnancy and no std. zero.
birth control = no pregnancy if used correctly and std maybe if using condom, std yes if using pill.
I'm thinking I may need to move to the north pole though in this culture. I guess that's not the answer either. This whole subject frightens me to death but you seem so sure. Aren't you fearful of getting an STD or AIDS?
Well...in reading this, I finally see Jill Staneck as the fraud she is. You'd rather oppose those that would use progressive economic policies to lower the number of abortions (remember abortions dropped dramitically in the Clinton Administration as the economy improved) on purely ideological grounds than save unborn babies. Why do you think abortion centers are in poor neighborhoods? Why are their gas stations out by the interestate exit? I see now that this is about conservative ideology and not really about stopping abortions. I shall darken the door of this website no more. Shame on you...Posted by: JohnS at November 26, 2008 2:35 PM
Oh yeah, Hal, it's totally worse to have to exercise some self control than to kill your child!
John, the liberal notion of pushing birth control hasn't worked in the past 40 years, and it's not going to start helping anytime soon.
50% of women who have an unplanned pregnancy got pregnant while using birth control. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.Posted by: lauren at November 26, 2008 2:39 PM
lisa, i'd say that moving to the North Pole would be a good idea if you're not going to think realistically. Do you honesty think people wait until they are married to have sex? did you?Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 2:40 PM
Asitis, Truthfully-no I was not a virgin on my wedding day. But in 1986 AIDS was a distant disease. I wasn't afraid of it. If I were single today I think I would be.Posted by: Lisa at November 26, 2008 2:52 PM
you probably had more to fear in 1986 than you do now.
To be clear, I'm not advocating random sex before marriage, but recreational sex in relationships in one's twenties doesn't seem like a bad idea.Posted by: Hal at November 26, 2008 2:54 PM
I honestly think people wait until marriage. In fact I know several couples who waited. GASP!!Posted by: Carla at November 26, 2008 2:56 PM
And I bet they are a sexy bunch Carla! Just kidding. But seriously, no doubt there are some people who do wait. but the vast mjority don't. "Several" couples divided by the couples you know and then multiply by 100 is probably a low per cent. And you should probably also take into account that while those couples might have waited, they didn't necessarily wait for each other or are both being totally honest.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 3:01 PM
Sure it happens Carla, but I don't see any reason to expect it to be the norm or wish it to be. People are getting married in their late 20s and early 30s. Many have several serious relationships before that. Many people are with their future spouse for years prior to marriage. Why shouldn't these people be enjoying a health sex life. (I'm not talking about those who refrain for religious purposes, that's a whole different thing.)Posted by: Hal at November 26, 2008 3:02 PM
"you probably had more to fear in 1986 than you do now." Posted by: Hal at November 26, 2008 2:54 PM
Really because I don't remember the Herpes commercials back then? Also, I can't say that I oppose contraception completely either. Just handing it out to kids is what I'm not sure I can agree with.Posted by: Lisa at November 26, 2008 3:05 PM
Great honesty Lisa. So you think the supposed fear of AIDS is going to make all the difference for your children? To be honest, I doubt it.
As for the 50% of unwanted pregnancies being the result of failed contraception. I'm suspicious of that figure. No one wants to admit they were an idiot (right Patricia?). So here's the situation: Rather than admit that they weren't using birth control at all or weren't using it "that time" or used it incorrectly, they would probably say "Oh yes, we were being careful. Honest".Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 3:08 PM
The question by asitis was, Do you honestly think people wait until they are married to have sex?
I said yes. Not expecting, not wishing not saying majority, or vast or several or many. I said yes.
You know my story. I want so much better for my children then the path that I took. Recreational? Random? Hookin up? Please. Self control never killed anyone.
Carla. Yes, we know your story. But having unmarried sex at say 20 or 25 or 30 or 35.... is a whole lot different than having sex at 15 because you have low self esteem or a myriad of other issues going on in a troubled life. It might be hard, but try to look beyond your own bad experience.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 3:33 PM
JohnS, 2:35p: You may call what we're talking about "progressive economic policies," but it's actually a combination of failed welfare and failed social policies. Note most of the money goes to the abortion industry.
One of the bills being proposed is accepted by pro-abortion Third Way and another accepted by NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
Why is that? Because these do not slow casual sex ($$ for contraceptives), they only increase it. And they do not slow abortion, only increase it.
It's liberal urban legend that Bill Clinton's policies had anything to do with lowering the abortion rate. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.
Clinton overturned the Mexico City Policy; got RU-486 unsafely approved on the FDA fast track; vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban TWICE; signed FACE, clamping down on abortion protesters; resumed funding of UNFPA, which was and is involved in coercive population control around the world, including China; and stopped the Title X gag rule that prohibited abortion counseling from federally funded clinics.
Tell me how Clinton had anything to do with lowering abortion?Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 26, 2008 3:34 PM
Hey Jill, while you are here.... what about my question about the origin of criteria for the "authentic" pro-life movement. Is this your own list?Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 3:39 PM
MMMM..good advice there, asitis. Thanks.
I shall hold it close to my heart and think of you fondly every time I tell my abortion story of regret.
Love how you just dismiss me.
Carla, you got me wrong there. I am not dismissing you at all. I appreciate where you are coming from.But you said you want so much better for your children than the path you took. I was just pointing out that while they will very likely take a different path, because no doubt you are a wonderful parent, they may very well have sex before they are married and that experience not be like yours.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 3:45 PM
My children already have more than I ever had growing up. :)
I hope I do have you wrong.
WorldNetDaily makes me laugh, its the journalistic version of the people that went to alaska convinced that it will be spared from "Gods wrath', unaware that many in that journalistic bunker are politically corrupt and morally bankrupts (Chuck Colson, Pat Boone... ) lol. I read that site and feel even better about my views.Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 26, 2008 4:04 PM
"Abortion can only be prevented by chaste living: abstinence until marriage and faithfulness within marriage. In fact, this is a cure-all."
"Oh yeah, Hal, it's totally worse to have to exercise some self control than to kill your child!"
You can still get pregnant during your marriage when you don't want a baby, can't you? Being faithful during your marriage in no way stops you from having babies. Have you ever seen Desperate Housewives? Lynette? :)
Oh, and as a "kid" I can let you know... people aren't just handing us out contraception! :) I had to go to the doctor (just like everyone else) to get on the depo shot. I've never been given a condom in school, on the street, or at any kind of event. I don't think a lot of you guys have any idea what's going on in real life for us kids.Posted by: Josephine at November 26, 2008 4:10 PM
Hal, the reason it's "unreasonable" for young people to wait is because society has set up a ridiculous system of adolesence that lasts until 30. If people would grow up and act like adults from the time they leave their parent's home, they would be ready for marriage in their early 20's and could easily wait until marriage to have sex.
Instead, they leave their parent's house as spoild little children who continue to act like children until well after college. They finally decide that they are "grown up" enough for marriage after several failed sexual relationships that serve no purpose but to damage a person emotionally.Posted by: lauren at November 26, 2008 4:12 PM
"remember abortions dropped dramitically in the Clinton Administration as the economy improved"
You mean Bill Clinton, the economic conservative who passed Welfare Reform? Thanks for playing.
It's very easy to separate the truly pro-life sheep from the falsely pro-life goats. All you have to do is ask one question:
Should unborn children have the right to life?
A real pro-lifer will answer with an unequivocal YES! A false pro-lifer will make excuses about why we can't/shouldn't outlaw abortion, and then more likely than not go on to parrot Planned Parenthood's talking points.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 26, 2008 4:16 PM
Lauren, I left my parent's house at 17 and got married at 29. I don't think I acted like a spoiled child in between. In fact, I got two degrees, had many fulfilling relationships, and some good jobs. "Grow up and act like adults" means more than getting married. Some people never get married. They should never have sex?Posted by: Hal at November 26, 2008 4:19 PM
Wait a sec, Josephine is a "kid"? A long time ago I decided to forgive anyone under the age of 25 for supporting Obama. If that's the case, then I excuse the mistake.
25+ year old folks, though, have no excuse.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 26, 2008 4:26 PM
"Lauren, I left my parent's house at 17 and got married at 29. I don't think I acted like a spoiled child in between."
Saved it all up for now, huh?Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 26, 2008 4:27 PM
I second everything Hal said @ 4:19Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 4:28 PM
John, I'm only nineteen. I hope I sound a little bit more intelligent by the time I'm twenty-five!Posted by: Josephine at November 26, 2008 4:46 PM
Josephine @4:10, I meant you no harm. To me you are a young lady, not a kid. I was thinking more along the lines of middle school kids in my statement.
John @ 4:16, yes, I think that simply states it... if I am pro life then I believe unborn children have a right to live. I'll go with that.Posted by: Lisa at November 26, 2008 4:47 PM
Josephine, 19 you say? Well then, I take back all the rotten stuff I said about you. I'm not totally heartless.
I try to spare my venom for the truly guilty. You're not old enough yet.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 26, 2008 4:54 PM
John, thank you. I'm a big believer in Winston Churchill:
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative by the time you're 35-- you have no brain."Posted by: Josephine at November 26, 2008 4:57 PM
I think Churchill would have been referring to the Liberal and Conservative political parties. Not quite they same as what Americans mean when they talk about liberal versus conservative.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 5:01 PM
One British commentator once told an American audience, "In England we have two political parties. We have the labor party, which would would call 'Communist' and we have the Conservative party, which you would also call 'Communist.'"
I think Churchill (ih he did in fact say this at all)would have been referring to the Liberal and Conservative political parties. Not quite they same as what Americans mean when they talk about liberal versus conservative.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 5:04 PM
I think the opposite, asitis, I don't think he was referring to political parties. I think he was talking about liberal and conservative values. I guess I could be misunderstanding it, but that's just how I took it.Posted by: Josephine at November 26, 2008 5:11 PM
Hal, you also got your girlfriend pregnant and facilitated her abortion during that "responsible" time.
And no, I do not think that people who never plan to marry should be sexually active. If they are in a committed relationship with another person, why not marry?
If they aren't in a committed realtionship, they shouldn't be having sex.
Of course, there is a vast difference between a "committed relationship" and marriage. I have many friends how were in "committed realtionships" or even engaged, only to end the relationship at a later date.Posted by: lauren at November 26, 2008 5:40 PM
some marriages end too, I've heard.Posted by: hal at November 26, 2008 5:41 PM
And no, I do not think that people who never plan to marry should be sexually active. If they are in a committed relationship with another person, why not marry?"
all kinds of reasons. Some people are refusing to marry until gay people have that right.Posted by: hal at November 26, 2008 5:44 PM
And I think an adult should be free to have sex whether married or not. I see nothing amoral about it. Why should marrieds have all the fun!Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 5:56 PM
Hal, then they should abstain from sex as well.
Sex is appropriate only within marriage. If a person chooses not to marry, they are also choosing to live without the "perks" of marriage.
Of course, the type of person who would decide not to get married to make a political point is probably the type of person who is already having sex to begin with.
"Marrieds" should have all the fun because they are in a covenant relationship with another person (and God, if they're a theist). They have taken on the responsibility of marriage, and are in the position to welcome life.Posted by: lauren at November 26, 2008 6:04 PM
Yes, some marriages end, and those responsible for the disolvement of a marriage are guilty of sin.Posted by: Lauren at November 26, 2008 6:05 PM
Actually, some unmarrieds are in a better position to welcome life than some marrieds.
And not everyone believes sex outside of marriage is "inappropriate" nor that choosing to not marry means you have to live a life without sex.Posted by: asitis at November 26, 2008 6:55 PM
"Sex is appropriate only within marriage. If a person chooses not to marry, they are also choosing to live without the "perks" of marriage."
This doesn't apply to everyone. If you don't follow a religion, why should you be forced to follow the rules of a religion? It's not illegal to have sex outside of marriage. That is strictly a religious belief.
A religious belief even some very devoted Christians break. You can't really argue that. Things happen. I mean, don't you ever wonder why people have sex so young? We're designed that way. Didn't we use to get married REALLY young? I honestly think my parents prefer me living in sin with my boyfriend than me getting married at nineteen, as odd as it sounds.Posted by: Josephine at November 26, 2008 7:06 PM
Can we all agree to separate "sex" from "marriage?"Posted by: hal at November 26, 2008 8:29 PM
"Can we all agree to separate "sex" from "marriage?""
You know the answer to that is no, Hal :)Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 26, 2008 8:45 PM
It still all boils down to life...
Who says who lives and who doesn't...
A baby in the womb is life, so is the guy on the street, both are equal, and should be equally cherished....
Life Trumps Choice
Who are you to choose who lives and whose slain?
Posted by: Pablo
at November 26, 2008 9:48 PM
The total irony of so many...
I was at a Vegan convention 2 weeks ago,(neighbors wife is one, long story.) man they treat animals like their own, they won't wear anything from an animal let alone eat anything, because they view animals as our equals, yet about 90% of them think ripping apart a baby piece by piece limb from limb is perfectly acceptable... do it to their cat or dog and it's a felony, but a baby... well nothing wrong there...... no wonder their movement is struggling for new members... idiots..but that's a whole nother blog site..........
I became a vegetarian when I was in the eighth grade. I tried veganism, but I'm a gymnast and my trainer basically told me he'd drop me if I continued. (At the time, I thought I could go to the Olympics. I was wrrrong.) Anyway, it sure does seem like you're misrepresenting people that care about animal rights.
I don't think an animal should be hurt, just like I don't believe babies should be hurt. How animals are treated and killed now isn't really too far off from how babies are aborted.
The people being vegan has nothing to do with them being pro-choice. The two don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. So, please, I'm asking nicely, let's not go that route. :)
P.S. With the "green" movement, more and more people are becoming vegan and/or vegetarian. And, it's not a "club"..Posted by: Josephine at November 26, 2008 10:34 PM
So nice to hear you think my marriage is worse than a disease....wait a sec...I don't have any diseases! Neither does my husband! We have four children, all born in wedlock, all four both biologically ours, no step-children, shared custody, child support, no need for pap smears, AIDS tests, STI screens etc and I have a lower risk of breast cancer, osteoporosis and numerous other ailments which are besieging women who delayed or avoided motherhood....and without giving out TMI on a blog, I'm quite satisfied with a certain intimate part of my life! This post is not intended to be viewed as a criticism of anyone who has made other choices, but I feel I have the right to be proud of my choices, and wish the same for my children.
The best things in life don't come easily, but they are often the most satisfying. The self-control we had to show what seems like a very long time ago now has paid dividends a thousand times over and will for many more years. What is wrong with striving for the best, especially when there's so much to gain (and when you go the other way, there's so much to lose....)? When you keep repeating that it's unrealistic for people to wait and stay faithful, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy. My experience with people is that when you set goals high and give good reasons to reach them, people rise to the occasion- but tell them they can't, and they won't.
Go Jill! Stand true! :o)Posted by: MickiMac at November 27, 2008 8:36 AM
Hey MickiMac, I'm not sure how much you know about cancer, but some people are more susceptible than others. :) So, it's just luck of the draw. Many people that have had children get breast cancer. Even some men do, and they never have children..Posted by: Josephine at November 27, 2008 11:44 AM
So nice to hear you think my marriage is worse than a disease....wait a sec...I don't have any diseases! Neither does my husband! We have four children, all born in wedlock"
Posted by: hal
at November 27, 2008 11:52 AM
I'm sorry, I don't recognize your relationship with your boyfriend as a "marriage."
What? No need for PAP sears?? Don't you have a cervix MickiMac?Posted by: asitis at November 27, 2008 12:54 PM
It is very foolish to think that you do not need pap smears because you are married. I hope you come to your senses, MickiMac, before it's too late.Posted by: Nana at November 28, 2008 4:51 PM
I thought that the whole idea was to reduce the number of abortions. Foolish me! By entangling opposition to abortion with conservative politics and reading out of the movement anyone who disagrees with her, Jill is not doing the pro-life movement any favors.Posted by: David P. Graf at November 28, 2008 6:43 PM
Josephine, I agree that people should have sex at a young age...if they are married.
I don't disagree w/ pre-marital sex simply because God say's it's wrong. I disagree with it because it leads to hurt, and disease, and death.
Even "safe" sex isn't really safe. Condoms don't protect against diseases like herpes and HPV that are spread via skin contact. Condoms don't protect against being used and hurt. Condoms and birth control don't "protect" against pregnancy at an effective rate at the population level.
Abstaining from sex has many practical applications beyond religion.Posted by: lauren at November 28, 2008 8:35 PM
Wow lauren. You make sex sound like a really scary, evil thing. Doesn't have to be. Yes, even outside marriage.Posted by: asitis at November 28, 2008 8:39 PM
Asitis, when a quarter of all highschool girls have at least one STD, and 40% of all women will become pregnant at least once prior to 20, I think we have a problem beyond just a few outliners.
I'm not trying to make sex sound "scary" but rather explain that it has implications beyond just "don't have sex because God says so."Posted by: lauren at November 28, 2008 8:50 PM
Lauren, can you give me a reference for that 40% pregnancy rate for teens please.
I agree that having sex without birth control most certainly has implications.Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 12:40 AM
I realize that the US has an dismal rate of teenage pregnnacy, and abstinance-only teaching isn't helping, but 40%????? Lauren I find it heard to believe that 40% of teens get pregnant. Consider that...........
I did some chacking and there are various rates reported, around 30-40 pregncies per year per 1,000 teenagers. Perhaps you mean 4%? Did you do the math wrong Lauren?Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 8:20 AM
Nope, asitis, I did not do the math wrong. I got my numbers from Planned Parenthood.
Here's the quote: By age 20, more than four in 10 (44 percent) will have a pregnancy.
And the Link:
From:National Abortion Federation. THE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION. Washington, DC: National Abortion Federation, 1996.
Also, it's been posted before, but since it keeps getting skipped over...
50% of all women who become pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy used contraception during the month in which they became pregnant.Posted by: Lauren at November 29, 2008 9:23 AM
But Lauren, that might mean that PP actually promotes abortion by continuing their marketing of BC and "safe sex" directed at our young people??!! Say it ain't so!!
:PPosted by: Carla at November 29, 2008 10:11 AM
... and as I have commented before, you need to be careful with that 50% figure. Two reasons: 1) No one likes to look like an idiot, so I suspect that in some cases when asked if they had been used contraception, the women claimed "oh, yes" rather than admit they weren't. And 2) they may not have been used it everytime or correctly as a result of carelessness or lack of education. It does NOT mean contraception is 50% effective.
I checked that PP of California site and they do state 44% will be pregant by 20 years. They also say 12% by 19 years (Guttmacher says 7.5%). That's a big jump in one year to get to 40%.That's a whole lot of pregnant 19-20 year olds waddling around. I still find that rate unbelievable, not to mention embarrassing, for this nation if true. I checked the resource they reference, but cannot find the 44% figure there.Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 10:15 AM
asitis, perfect use statistics don't mean a thing. You have to look at typical use. Teenagers, even well educated ones, do not use birth control perfectly.
No one does.
If you factor in that young women are the most fertile, it becomes obvious that birth control use alone will not cut the rate of pregnancy in teenagers.Posted by: lauren at November 29, 2008 11:13 AM
You are wrong lauren. CORRECT use of birth control WILL cut the pregnancy rate in teenagers. Will it reduce it to zero? No, but it can come very close. Will the teen pregnancy rate ever match the effectivenesss rate of birth control? No. But accessibilty and education will get us closer.Posted by: asitis at November 29, 2008 11:26 AM
Lauren and others, here is something you should read:
In Sweden, France, Canada, Britain and the US approx 80% are sexually active by age 20. Pretty much the same. However the teen pregancy rate differs greatly between the countries: ~8% in the US, ~4% in Canada and Britain, ~ 2% in Sweden and France.
Countries with the lowest pregnancy rates and incidence of STD's are those with the greatest societal acceptance of teen sex, sex education and clear expectations.
You can read the whole report at
Jill, your indignance over this new "plan" would carry more weight if you had not recently slammed "purists" and sided with "incrementalists." Their position of "regulating" abortion is nothing more than the NRTL stance you defended last week.Posted by: groovsmyth at November 29, 2008 12:16 PM
"50% of all women who become pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy used contraception during the month in which they became pregnant."
That could mean they took a birth control the fourth of the month, and had sex the 19th..
"I don't disagree w/ pre-marital sex simply because God say's it's wrong. I disagree with it because it leads to hurt, and disease, and death."
I didn't say anyone should ho-around. If you're in a monogamous relationship, you're not risking disease or death. Hurt, maybe.. guess what though, all those things can happen to married couples too. :)Posted by: Josephine at November 29, 2008 11:22 PM
Josephine, perhaps they didn't use birth control effectively, but it is obvious that they had both knowledge and access to birth control.
I'm not talking about people who "ho-around". Serial manogomy can lead to the same problems as a few one night stands.
If you are sleeping with someone who is not your husband, and you do not intend to marry, chances are you have slept with other men as well or will in the future.
The more sexual partners, the higher the risks of disease becomes.Posted by: lauren at November 30, 2008 11:39 AM
How is it "obvious" they had both the knowledge and access to BC lauren?Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 11:57 AM
"If you are sleeping with someone who is not your husband, and you do not intend to marry, chances are you have slept with other men as well or will in the future."
Posted by: Josephine
at November 30, 2008 12:19 PM
First, you really don't know who anyone intends on marrying. :) Second, did you make that up? "Chances are you have slept with other men" or... is that an actual statistic?
Asitis, it's obvious because they are using contraception.
Jospehine, men have between 7 and 9 sexual partners on average and women have between 6 and 8.
25%of women and 17% of men report having only one sexual partner. If this is true, the remaining people have slept with more people than the numbers show.Posted by: lauren at November 30, 2008 2:24 PM
They SAY they are using contraception Lauren. In some cases they may be lying. And whether they are using it or not, it does not mean they have the knowledge. Comprehensive sex education is not mandatory throughout the country.... sadly.Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 2:56 PM
Asitis, if they are lying then they know enough about it to know that they should be using it.
Comprehensive sex ed doesn't protect against broken condoms or missed pills. I know tons of women who used birth control exactly as perscribed who got pregnant despite their efforts.
Studies have shown birth control to be ineffective at a population level. The number of pregnant women who claim to have used contraception backs up this report.Posted by: lauren at November 30, 2008 3:14 PM
Ineffective at the population level???? Really???? Then tell me why it is that other countries have the same rate of teenage sex as does the US (80%) but much lower teenage pregnancy ratesand incidence of STD's?Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 4:13 PM
asitis, that's something you'd have to take up with the studies.Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2008 11:10 PM
Oh, I already know the answer from the studies, Lauren. It just doesn't jive with your claims. It's something you should consider.Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 6:12 AM
Oh really, asitis,
For a pregnancy reduction method, there is an exponential relationship between first year pregnancy rates and rates of reduction per act. Mathematically, this is due to the cumulative effect of repetition-in this case, of intercours-n probability. Statistically, the cumulative effect is irrespective of whether the repetition is individual or collective. In short, to be reasonable, the percent effectiveness of a “per act” rate must be in the 90s with typical use; also, as the effectiveness per act tends towards lOO%, the added reduction in the first year rate increases exponentially, so that each percentage point added to the per act rate becomes more and more significant as the rate approaches 100%. l Even though the relationship between first year and per act rates is exponential, the order among rates must be the same in either case. Thus, a method with a more favorable first year rate will also have the more favorable per act rate, and vice versa. l At first glance, the morning-after pill Preven appears to boast a 75% rate of reduction in pregnancy per act with perfect use. But to emphasize the misleading nature of the per act rate, it is noted that even mere typical use the withdrawal method offers, a better rate, i.e., 83.5%!
It goes on to explain the misleading nature of plan-b and other contraception.Posted by: lauren at December 2, 2008 11:10 AM
Lauren, that link doesn't work. Please check and resend because the excerpt you sent doesn't say much and the last sentence seems to have been mangled.Posted by: asitis at December 2, 2008 11:27 AM
hmm, let me see if I can get the link to work.
Try this:Posted by: lauren at December 2, 2008 11:42 AM
Thansk, I'll have a look at it when I get back.... the dog needs a hike!Posted by: asitis at December 2, 2008 12:01 PM