[Sauve]

Originally Posted by Stark

The odds aren't that low.

95% effective means a 1 in 20 chance of the birth control method failing. Even by doubling up, your risks are still 1 in 400. Take a few sexually active couples and with those odds, chances are one couple will be pregnant within a year.

I know I'm just nit-picking now but take into account the fact that the average woman is only highly fertile for a certain part of the month. I was also being overly cautious with the 95%- it's actually closer to 99%.
I know what you're saying alright, contraception can fail, but the numbers don't tally with the amount of people who claim to have been using both methods.

[Stark]

Originally Posted by Sauve

I was also being overly cautious with the 95%- it's actually closer to 99%.

Depends on whether you use "typical use" or "perfect use" figures. In the typical use scenario, with most people's levels of sex education, the typical effectiveness rate for condoms is 85%. 98% in the perfect use scenario. For the pill, it's 92%/99.7% respectively. 95% is probably a good compromise figure.

(Figures source: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html).

[Pushtrak]

Originally Posted by Sharrow

Or that those figures are only from BPAS and only are women who give an irish address, if they give a UK address then it's not counted. Also the Uk is not the only option so women are traveling to Holland, Belgium and Sweden, some for fear of meeting people they might know in the UK and those countries don't report back the number of irish women attending clinics for abortions.

Good points, all.

Originally Posted by Mr Bump

No it should not be legal just like that, circumstances should be taken into account in some cases

Such as how many weeks pregnant. Anything above that would be exceptions such as risk to the life of the mother if beyond that.

Originally Posted by prinz

Yay, we could start making soap too.

?

You can't have it every which way. On the one hand people are saying the numbers have dropped because the women have gone further afield, in the next breath it's because they can't afford to get to the UK...

Er, try read my post again. I pointed out large numbers who go to the UK. I also pointed out not everyone who'd be in the situation of wanting to go to the UK could necessarily afford it. Would you say this is not the case? Do you assume unwanted pregnancy has a direct correlation to being able to afford to go to the UK? I don't hold to the opposite correlation, but am pointing out that people do exist for whom flight to the UK is not an option.

[Sauve]

Yeah I was referring to perfect use.

I shudder to think what some people get up to with condoms....

[Medusa22]

I am pro-choice, not everyone has to agree with abortion but everyone should have the choice. As for the people who believe that abortion will become the new contraception, is that any worse than people having children who they neglect. The jeremy kyle show is the perfect example of why people should use protection but failing that, should have had abortions if they don't even bother to look after their children and yet continue to have them. This inevitably leads to even more damaged people in the world. I also have a progressive and degenerative disease that will kill me slowly over the years, my mother should have had the choice of abortion, both for myself and for her. Abortion isn't always about being selfish, but thinking of the how the child will suffer aswell.

[OldNotWIse]

Originally Posted by Medusa22

I am pro-choice, not everyone has to agree with abortion but everyone should have the choice. As for the people who believe that abortion will become the new contraception, is that any worse than people having children who they neglect. The jeremy kyle show is the perfect example of why people should use protection but failing that, should have had abortions if they don't even bother to look after their children and yet continue to have them. This inevitably leads to even more damaged people in the world. I also have a progressive and degenerative disease that will kill me slowly over the years, my mother should have had the choice of abortion, both for myself and for her. Abortion isn't always about being selfish, but thinking of the how the child will suffer aswell.

Yes I am sure all those who were abused or neglected as children would prefer to have been killed in-utero instead. Think about the people who might fall under your generalisations before posting...

[Medusa22]

Well done, 'killed in-utero' - very emotive words . I stand by what I said, I really don't see why you would prefer it if these children suffered needlessly just because they would still be alive. You know exactly what I meant.

[nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Sauve

There really is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy imo.

Originally Posted by Sauve

instance of this happening where the contraception has not only been used, but been used correctly is extremely low.

Not really because you are leaving one important factor out of your calculations. The Number of people involved and the number of times they have sex. The odds of any one person winning the Lotto are also minuscule but because of the number of people playing someone usually does.

It sounds good on paper to throw numbers like 85, 95, 98 or even 99% around. They sound huge relative to the number 100%. Even 1% however is going to lead to a far from insignificant number of unplanned pregnancies given the number of people involved and the number of times people have sex.

Lets make up some random numbers... they do not have to be too accurate.... to see just how big an effect 1% can have.

Imagine 1million people are having sex 3 times a month. That's 3 million shots at target. As one has to do it during the fertile period we can divide this by 4. (Remember fertile period does not just refer to when the woman is fertile as sperm can "hang around" for a couple of days too). 750,000 shots at target.

If using condoms alone and even if assuming near perfect use of them we can apply 1% and still get 7500 conceptions. Per month.

Now as I said the numbers are makey uppey and some too high some too low. The point is to highlight that we can easily be misled by seemingly overwhelming statistics such as 99% and under estimate just how significant 1% can be. Let alone the 15%-85% that can often be applicable to condom use.

Numbers and statistics are powerful things and can be grossly misused to confuse people into agreeing with something really bogus.

For example you rarely hear someone in court being accused of possession of 1g of cocaine. The prosecution will normally say 1000mg instead because it sounds larger.

Similarly %s are dangerous and if two experiments are run and one has a 0.00001% success rate and the other 0.00002% then neither experiment is very significant. That won't stop news papers running stories saying "new drugs 100% more successful than the old one" which although perfectly accurate numerically is clearly misleading.

[paddyandy]

The western Tradition in recent years has got to believing that we are born solely for the purpose of having fun and enjoying ourselves .This is very recent and like most of our evils that are new to us .It's all part of the Mass MEDIA package We had very few problems before tv. .Are we born for fun ???

[nozzferrahhtoo]

I would not rush to say we are born "for" anything. Life does not owe us reasons. Concepts of "why" are we here are all too often just human constructs that do not map usefully to reality in any way and serve more to muddy the waters and hamper discourse.

[OldNotWIse]

Originally Posted by Medusa22

Well done, 'killed in-utero' - very emotive words . I stand by what I said, I really don't see why you would prefer it if these children suffered needlessly just because they would still be alive. You know exactly what I meant.

Excuse me? Emotive words? The foetus is killed (sorry, "extinguished" do you prefer that word?) in-utero. "In-utero" is actually a proper scientific term, I dont see why you would have a problem with using scientific terminology?

You are perfectly entitled to "stand by what you said" but if you come on here and say something, other posters are also entitled to question it or raise a counter argument. Otherwise, what is the point of a discussion?

I dont "prefer if children suffer needlessly" but I make the point that saying some children would have essentially, been better off being aborted is such a crass and crude sweeping statement that I feel I have to address it. I know of plenty of people who were neglected, abused etc as children, to say that their lives are somehow less worthy than those who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and doting parents is a ridiculous, insensitive thing to say...regardless of what side of the abortion fence you sit on.

[OldNotWIse]

Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo

Not really because you are leaving one important factor out of your calculations. The Number of people involved and the number of times they have sex. The odds of any one person winning the Lotto are also minuscule but because of the number of people playing someone usually does.

It sounds good on paper to throw numbers like 85, 95, 98 or even 99% around. They sound huge relative to the number 100%. Even 1% however is going to lead to a far from insignificant number of unplanned pregnancies given the number of people involved and the number of times people have sex.

Lets make up some random numbers... they do not have to be too accurate.... to see just how big an effect 1% can have.

Imagine 1million people are having sex 3 times a month. That's 3 million shots at target. As one has to do it during the fertile period we can divide this by 4. (Remember fertile period does not just refer to when the woman is fertile as sperm can "hang around" for a couple of days too). 750,000 shots at target.

If using condoms alone and even if assuming near perfect use of them we can apply 1% and still get 7500 conceptions. Per month.

Now as I said the numbers are makey uppey and some too high some too low. The point is to highlight that we can easily be misled by seemingly overwhelming statistics such as 99% and under estimate just how significant 1% can be. Let alone the 15%-85% that can often be applicable to condom use.

Numbers and statistics are powerful things and can be grossly misused to confuse people into agreeing with something really bogus.

For example you rarely hear someone in court being accused of possession of 1g of cocaine. The prosecution will normally say 1000mg instead because it sounds larger.

Similarly %s are dangerous and if two experiments are run and one has a 0.00001% success rate and the other 0.00002% then neither experiment is very significant. That won't stop news papers running stories saying "new drugs 100% more successful than the old one" which although perfectly accurate numerically is clearly misleading.

I'm pro life but I have to say your post is very much "food for thought". Thanks for the info!

[Stark]

Originally Posted by OldNotWIse

I dont "prefer if children suffer needlessly" but I make the point that saying some children would have essentially, been better off being aborted is such a crass and crude sweeping statement that I feel I have to address it. I know of plenty of people who were neglected, abused etc as children, to say that their lives are somehow less worthy than those who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and doting parents is a ridiculous, insensitive thing to say...regardless of what side of the abortion fence you sit on.

There's a mindset that says "breed as much as possible to spread the gift of life" and there's a mindset that says "only have as many children as you can provide a good quality of life to". Now it's clearly wrong to end a life once it's begun (the debatable point is at what point sentient human life emerges from a non-sentient embryo) but nothing wrong with the thinking that you shouldn't have children that you can't look after.

Is it really a good thing that they have high birth rates in poor African countries for instance when those children are born into starvation? Would the better situation not be smaller families but higher quality of life?

[Medusa22]

Originally Posted by OldNotWIse

Excuse me? Emotive words? The foetus is killed (sorry, "extinguished" do you prefer that word?) in-utero. "In-utero" is actually a proper scientific term, I dont see why you would have a problem with using scientific terminology?

You are perfectly entitled to "stand by what you said" but if you come on here and say something, other posters are also entitled to question it or raise a counter argument. Otherwise, what is the point of a discussion?

I dont "prefer if children suffer needlessly" but I make the point that saying some children would have essentially, been better off being aborted is such a crass and crude sweeping statement that I feel I have to address it. I know of plenty of people who were neglected, abused etc as children, to say that their lives are somehow less worthy than those who were born with silver spoons in their mouths and doting parents is a ridiculous, insensitive thing to say...regardless of what side of the abortion fence you sit on.

It is quite obvious from my post that I am addressing the suffering of the child. I am not saying that they don't deserve to live, but rather that it would save them from suffering if they didn't. People who are rich are also capable of abusing their children and I never mentioned 'being born with a silver spoon in their mouth' , so don't take your inferiority complex out on me. I believe that we should consider what we are born ''for''. What is the point of living if you suffer to the point that the bad definitely outweighs the good? To pro-create and continue the species? I don't see the point. It comes down to quality of life. I recently read a thread about how long people would like to live. The majority of people agreed that they wanted to live as long as their quality of life was good.

[OldNotWIse]

Originally Posted by Medusa22

It is quite obvious from my post that I am addressing the suffering of the child. I am not saying that they don't deserve to live, but rather that it would save them from suffering if they didn't. People who are rich are also capable of abusing their children and I never mentioned 'being born with a silver spoon in their mouth' , so don't take your inferiority complex out on me. I believe that we should consider what we are born ''for''. What is the point of living if you suffer to the point that the bad definitely outweighs the good? To pro-create and continue the species? I don't see the point. It comes down to quality of life. I recently read a thread about how long people would like to live. The majority of people agreed that they wanted to live as long as their quality of life was good.

Ah yes, that old trick - say it with one sentence and then take it back with another. How do you propose your logic should be applied to the abortion argument so? Will you carry out some kind of pre-emptive analysis of potential parents and say which ones are or are not justified in seeking out terminations? I sincerely hope not.

Or does it just suit your agenda to highlight cases of people less fortunate than you and say, "oh yes, if that person had been aborted they would not have suffered"? Of course we all know this. I could look at someone who had a hideous car accident and was left with no motor function from the neck down, or someone who was blinded in a freak accident, or any of the thousands and thousands of innocent Irish children whose lives were absolutely destroyed by sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy - it's easy for me to say "Oh if these had been aborted they would never have suffered" but what good does that bring to the argument? And moreover, if you cannot predict the future sufferings of the unborn child, then how in Gods name can you use it as a stick to beat the pro-life side with?

Saying that abortion would have stopped suffering is true - but absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Where exactly did you get that I have an inferiority complex? I hope you are not resorting to childish insults in order to validate your own argument. That's not very nice

It doesn't matter if a million people tell you they only want to live until their first wrinkle or wet fart - it has nothing to do with deciding if someone else's live is worthy of being lived.