I used to get pregnant, but then I took an aspirin to the knee

WoollyRedHat

blatantrereg wrote: »

Here's something to ridicule:
Foster Freiss Suggests "Aspirin Between Their Knees" As Contraception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOI7fokqkFc

He's a backer of Rick Santorum, who is trying to get a presidential nomination in the USA. Santorum is anti-contraception too.

*Thread title robbed from youtube comments.

Hehe, mmmm, very sexy. The contraception method I mean

Nodin

bluewolf wrote: »

until you get married of course, because a marriage cert is a good contraceptive and no married couples ever have unexpected pregnancies

Never, because baby Jesus watches over the marital bed.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

I am not against but here is something to think about. Before there was readily available and cheap contraception there were a lot less unwanted pregnancies.

....you'd do well to look at the number of children in orphanages circa 1950 and today. Also the numbers available for adoption.

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

....you'd do well to look at the number of children in orphanages circa 1950 and today. Also the numbers available for adoption.

Only because of the shame of a child out of wedlock back then. But there are definitely more accident pregnancies these days. I think I posted a link.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

Only because of the shame of a child out of wedlock back then. But there are definitely more accident pregnancies these days. I think I posted a link.

...you posted a link that said that there was "a marked increase in the number of children living with a single parent." compared to 1960. I'm saying that there are far fewer children in orphanages and available for adoption now as compared to 1960.....

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

...you posted a link that said that there was "a marked increase in the number of children living with a single parent." compared to 1960. I'm saying that there are far fewer children in orphanages and available for adoption now as compared to 1960.....

Well I gave an explanation for that, but what I said still stands before there was wide spread contraception there were less lone parents and less accidental pregnancies.

galwayrush

He's promoting Asprin.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

Well I gave an explanation for that, but what I said still stands before there was wide spread contraception there were less lone parents and less accidental pregnancies.

Right.

1960 - kids in orphanages, good few for adoption.

1960 - not as many kids with single mothers

Now - Feck all kids in orphanages, not many up for adoption.

Now - more kids with single mothers.

Do you see the pattern there?

lone parents and accidental pregnancies are two entirely different things, im not sure why you keep saying they're the same

44leto

galwayrush wrote: »

He's promoting Asprin.

Its a wonder drug and the first drug chemically sinticised by Bayer. Its only now they are discovering its other properties. Its even used in cancer treatment now, and if we go by the vid a contraception as well.

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

Right.

1960 - kids in orphanages, good few for adoption.

1960 - not as many kids with single mothers

Now - Feck all kids in orphanages, not many up for adoption.

Now - more kids with single mothers.

Do you see the pattern there?

So you have it now, OK if for some reason a big taboo happened to day about mothers having children out of wedlock, which compelled all single parents today to give up their children to an orphanage, the state would not be able to cope there would be 1000 and 1000s of them much more then the 60s.

44leto

bluewolf wrote: »

lone parents and accidental pregnancies are two entirely different things, im not sure why you keep saying they're the same

An accidental pregnancy usually makes a lone parent, not always of course.

you think married couples never have an accidental pregnancy, no?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7899568
they're all going to divorce just because?

you think parents with planned pregnancies never have one of them die or split up thereby creating lone parents?

this is nonsense

44leto

bluewolf wrote: »

you think married couples never have an accidental pregnancy, no?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7899568
they're all going to divorce just because?

you think parents with planned pregnancies never have one of them die or split up thereby creating lone parents?

this is nonsense

Yeah I am the result of one, the rhythm method or coitus interuptus didn't work out.

MetalDog

Sindri wrote: »

Has anyone mentioned yet that the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex is known colloquially as Santorum.

Santorum's a slick guy, who believes in the trickle - down theory

southsiderosie

44leto wrote: »

As I said above, its just something to think about, but I am very much for more readily available contraception and abortion, but i seriously doubt those will reduce the problem of teen and unwanted pregnancies, the record speaks for itself.

In the US, several states under George W. Bush switched to abstinence-only sex ed in high schools. Those states in the following 8-10 years all saw an increase in teen pregnancy and STDs. Comprehensive sex ed and easily available contraceptives do reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs.

In addition, conservatives who bang on about women keeping their legs closed need to get a bit of cop-on: why shouldn't insurance coverage be extended to family planning? It makes no sense that your insurance will pay for you to have a baby (and then pay for their coverage), but won't pay for you to get the pills or implant or whatever to prevent having a baby in the first place. Which, in the greater scheme of things, is more expensive?

Finally, I'm sick of this idea that women are supposed to be the keepers of virtue. When I see a grouchy old conservative telling young men to keep it in their pants, then maybe I will at least give them credit for being consistent, but I highly doubt that will ever happen in this world or the next.

44leto

southsiderosie wrote: »

In the US, several states under George W. Bush switched to abstinence-only sex ed in high schools. Those states in the following 8-10 years all saw an increase in teen pregnancy and STDs. Comprehensive sex ed and easily available contraceptives do reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and transmission of STDs.

In addition, conservatives who bang on about women keeping their legs closed need to get a bit of cop-on: why shouldn't insurance coverage be extended to family planning? It makes no sense that your insurance will pay for you to have a baby (and then pay for their coverage), but won't pay for you to get the pills or implant or whatever to prevent having a baby in the first place. Which, in the greater scheme of things, is more expensive?

Finally, I'm sick of this idea that women are supposed to be the keepers of virtue. When I see a grouchy old conservative telling young men to keep it in their pants, then maybe I will at least give them credit for being consistent, but I highly doubt that will ever happen in this world or the next.

I never advocated the abstinence policy I am a guy, I know it wont work. I thought it ironic, that the pill and easily available contraception which would have been the main cause of sexual liberation, but to spite the ease of contraception and abortion there are more lone parents.

But once sexual liberalization is out of the bottle its not going back. Even the threat of a deadly disease did not put it back in the bottle.

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

So you have it now, OK if for some reason a big taboo happened to day about mothers having children out of wedlock, which compelled all single parents today to give up their children to an orphanage, the state would not be able to cope there would be 1000 and 1000s of them much more then the 60s.

Good jaysus.....

Did it occur to you that the children in the orphanage and up for adoption then are essentially the 'same' children that are with the mothers today?

44leto

Nodin wrote: »

Good jaysus.....

Did it occur to you that the children in the orphanage and up for adoption then are essentially the 'same' children that are with the mothers today?

Gawd would a quarter of all children born before the 60s be in orphanage

Because a quarter of all children born today are born to single parents.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=rates%20of%20single%20parent%20families%20history&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishexaminer.com%2Fireland%2Fkfqlcwkfmhid%2Frss2%2F&ei=5CpBT-bwHMbNhAeR5-HGBQ&usg=AFQjCNEEmRTbtzuMtISrJ7M1FT1dF6x-3A&cad=rja

Nodin

44leto wrote: »

Gawd would a quarter of all children born before the 60s be in orphanage

A large number of that amount would. The US turned against the notion of such places in the 1940's/1950's, but - for instance - at the turn of the 19th century they had a population of 100,000 when the total US population was approx 77 Million. Whilst a good number would have been there because of the inability of parents to support them, its undoubtedly true that many were there because of a pregnancy outside marriage.

Then there's adoption, fo unofficial adoption (eg grandmothers/relatives claiming children as their own), fostered children in state care, back street abortion, and doubtless a small amount of infanticide in the more isolated areas. It all adds up, so to say that its a straight 19% increase in children born to single women would be fallacious.

southsiderosie

Nodin wrote: »

A large number of that amount would. The US turned against the notion of such places in the 1940's/1950's, but - for instance - at the turn of the 19th century they had a population of 100,000 when the total US population was approx 77 Million. Whilst a good number would have been there because of the inability of parents to support them, its undoubtedly true that many were there because of a pregnancy outside marriage.

Then there's adoption, fo unofficial adoption (eg grandmothers/relatives claiming children as their own), fostered children in state care, back street abortion, and doubtless a small amount of infanticide in the more isolated areas. It all adds up, so to say that its a straight 19% increase in children born to single women would be fallacious.

The NY Times is running a series on single motherhood right now, and one of the interesting statistics was that 30% of pregnancies in the 1960s happened outside of marriage, but the difference was, most people then went running up the aisle. So I'm not convinced the issue is the availability of birth control, but rather - as others have pointed out - that there isn't the same social stigma around being an unwed mother today that there was a generation or two ago.

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

The NY Times is running a series on single motherhood right now, and one of the interesting statistics was that 30% of pregnancies in the 1960s happened outside of marriage, but the difference was, most people then went running up the aisle. So I'm not convinced the issue is the availability of birth control, but rather - as others have pointed out - that there isn't the same social stigma around being an unwed mother today that there was a generation or two ago.

Indeed. There's a limit to what controls culture can put on primal urges. Besides, the argument of 'It didn't happen in my day' is as much about propoganda as it is about a misrembered and misunderstood past.