Contraception is Overrated

Why is contraception so overrated?

The evidence indicates most forms of contraception merely reduce the number of unintended pregnancies that a woman experiences rather than eliminating them altogether. For example, oral contraceptives have a one-year failure rate of eight percent. Thus, if she uses them for thirty years, she can expect to experience two or three failures. How can that rate of failure be viewed as acceptable?

Barrier methods are substantially worse. Male condoms fail at a rate of fifteen percent per year. That means that a woman who uses male condoms as her method of contraception for thirty years can expect four or five failures. And yet, the advocates of contraception talk about it as though any woman who uses contraception need not worry about pregnancy.

Even those forms of contraception that are reasonably effective have major limitations. For example, Depo-Provera, an injectable, causes a loss of bone density. IUDs cannot be used by women who have not had a child.

Some women are resistant to contraception because of what it does to their bodies. Hormonal methods, in particular, have many side effects.

The idea that contraception is a panacea to the problem of unintended pregnancies appears to be wishful thinking.

What is the alternative?

There can only be 1-2 alternatives. Use nothing and take their chances. Or don't have sex period unless to make a baby. And that is not gonna happen. Some time of birth control is better than nothing and a combo of 2 is better. Me I just had my tubes tied. 5 years and it has not failed yet.

futureshock wrote:

What is the alternative?

Here is what I do. Take my pill every night on time and we use condoms. The only way to be careful is to use extreme caution. Also, if you think it is over rated what do you propose we do? Not take the pill or use condoms and rely on abortion? No thanks.

People like Northstar don't want anyone having non-procreative sex. I don't get why they care what the rest of us do in the privacy of our own bedrooms.

futureshock wrote:

What is the alternative?

The alternatives are the following.

1. Public policies should be crafted with a recognition that, because contraceptives have significant limitations, pregnancy and sexual intercourse are inherently and inextricably linked. That link was completely ignored by the recent Supreme Court ruling Kennedy v. Louisiana. The concept of rape-induced pregnancy was never considered in the rationale for the holding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

2. Title II of the Prevention First Act, a pro-contraceptives bill in the U.S. Congress with 162 cosponsors in the House, could be amended to apply only to long-acting contraceptives, rather than to all "prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-819

3. Title V of that Act could be amended to apply specifically to long-acting forms of contraceptives.

4. Title VI could be amended to specify that failure rates should take into consideration the potential of failure, the accessibility of the contraceptive in various situations, and the likely length of time that contraceptive services will be needed.

5. Title VII could be amended to exclude barrier methods of contraceptives.

6. Title VIII could be amended to specify that any such program cannot teach that barrier methods are an effective method of preventing pregnancy. (The current wording says almost the opposite.)

7. State-funded health and family planning programs could emphasize long-acting methods of contraception, de-emphasize oral contraceptives and condoms, and exclude barrier methods (other than, perhaps, male condoms- but only for disease prevention).

8. Laws should require that medical providers should give information about long-acting forms of contraception to all patients who request information about contraceptives or sterilization.

7. Education programs should but all of the limitations of contraceptives into perspective and should drop all discussion of barrier methods as legitimate methods of pregnancy prevention.

8. The provision of contraceptives could be improved by preventing the coercive or discriminatory imposition of the use of contraceptives. People should always have the right to refrain from using them.

9. States and the federal government (or the relevant governments in other countries) could fund basic research into improving contraceptives. That research could be aimed at increasing the effectiveness of contraceptives and reducing their negative effects.

10. Tort laws could be modified so that the more effective forms of contraception are not discouraged. At one point the manufacturer of Norplant faced over 2,700 lawsuits across the United States. Meanwhile the makers of condoms cannot be sued even though they- in practice- fail vastly more often than Norplant ever did.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13593.html

11. The formulation of abortion law should not assume that a woman who used a barrier method took reasonably-reliable steps to prevent pregnancy.

12. State laws could prevent doctors from discriminating based on age and number of prior births with respect to the provision of sterilization.

futureshock wrote:

People like Northstar don't want anyone having non-procreative sex. I don't get why they care what the rest of us do in the privacy of our own bedrooms.

I object to pretending that sexual intercourse can ever be totally non-procreative and, in general, denying that sex has consequences for people other than those consenting to the sex. For example, if a man rapes his twelve-year-old granddaughter in the privacy of his bedroom and she becomes pregnant, the man is not the only one who is affected.

As far as my research has shown getting a vasectomy or tubal ligation is not 100% effective. At best its 99% effective and people have been known to get pregnant years after having either procedure done. For males I don't know of any 100% effective way to not cause a pregnancy other than not having sex or being creative in where they stick their penis. For women to be 100% effective in not causing pregnancy is not have sex or have a total hysterectomy.

http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/tubalig.htm
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/tubal-ligation-and-tubal-implants

Quote :

Tubal ligation. There is a slight risk of becoming pregnant after tubal ligation. This happens to about 5 per 1,000 women after 1 year. After a total of 10 years following tubal ligation, about 18 per 1,000 women will have become pregnant.

NorthStar wrote:

futureshock wrote:

People like Northstar don't want anyone having non-procreative sex. I don't get why they care what the rest of us do in the privacy of our own bedrooms.

I object to pretending that sexual intercourse can ever be totally non-procreative and, in general, denying that sex has consequences for people other than those consenting to the sex. For example, if a man rapes his twelve-year-old granddaughter in the privacy of his bedroom and she becomes pregnant, the man is not the only one who is affected.

Good point, RebelCats.

Northstar, my overall impression of your long post regarding alternatives is that it is a tad harsh/extreme/over the edge.

What kind of law are you envisioning that would even mention the kind of contraception a woman used?

Quote :

11. The formulation of abortion law should not assume that a woman who used a barrier method took reasonably-reliable steps to prevent pregnancy.

That sounds down right creepy.

What is it that bothers you so much about the difference in effectiveness between long acting bc vs. non- long acting bc, that you would involve the difference in public policy decisions?

NorthStar, I also have a question about this:

Quote :

1. Public policies should be crafted with a recognition that, because contraceptives have significant limitations, pregnancy and sexual intercourse are inherently and inextricably linked. That link was completely ignored by the recent Supreme Court ruling Kennedy v. Louisiana. The concept of rape-induced pregnancy was never considered in the rationale for the holding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-343.pdf

I just read the majority opinion as well as the dissent. I still do not see what your comment has to do with the decision. Also, since the decision mainly dealt with the rape of young children, pregnancy is not an issue.

futureshock wrote:

Northstar, my overall impression of your long post regarding alternatives is that it is a tad harsh/extreme/over the edge.

How so?

Quote :

What kind of law are you envisioning that would even mention the kind of contraception a woman used?

Maybe I am confused here, but did I not just give you twelve such laws?

Quote :

Quote :

11. The formulation of abortion law should not assume that a woman who used a barrier method took reasonably-reliable steps to prevent pregnancy.

That sounds down right creepy.

Ooooooooo.

Quote :

What is it that bothers you so much about the difference in effectiveness between long acting bc vs. non- long acting bc, that you would involve the difference in public policy decisions?

Well, for starters, I think public policy should be based on solid science rather than mindless dogma.

NorthStar wrote:

futureshock wrote:

Northstar, my overall impression of your long post regarding alternatives is that it is a tad harsh/extreme/over the edge.

How so?

Quote :

What kind of law are you envisioning that would even mention the kind of contraception a woman used?

Maybe I am confused here, but did I not just give you twelve such laws?

Quote :

Quote :

11. The formulation of abortion law should not assume that a woman who used a barrier method took reasonably-reliable steps to prevent pregnancy.

That sounds down right creepy.

I meant specifically the abortion law, sorry I should have done more than just quote that part.

NS do you really think you can succeed in eliminating all contraception because it sometimes fails? Were you born that stupid or did you take classes to get there?

do you know how many people would be walking in and out of abortion clinics?
how many teens would be pregnant...
contraception is there for a reason, to minimize the risk of pregnancy.
it does say both on condoms AND birth control that there is a 1% chance birth control can fail
and that condoms are 98% effective.
if you took it out all together these would sky rocket.
if you use them properly your risk is not as high.

I've seen NS around a few sites. Last time we tangled was over his idiot idea that a marriage certificate gave him the right to rape his wife...

WHAT!?
married or not, if someone attacks you its rape. if someone forcable has sex with you its rape.
that is twisted.

Thats NS. He wants a contractual agreement in marriage to sex and the right to rape if the woman denies him. I"ve tried pointing out to him that even BDSM contracts are nonbinding when it comes to nonconsensual sex.