quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

So, if one is poor, one shouldn't have sex? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ghostraven
. As for health insurance and a lack of funding I must say if you can't pay, don't play. The same as buying a car in that instance. A fact of life my friends.

There are natural ways to avoid pregnancy while still having sex that are just as effective as the Pill without all the nasty health hazards. All it requires is a pen and paper. And I'm not talking about the rhythm method but more accurate forms of natural family planning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

The typical use stats EXCLUDE PREGNANCIES!

Effectiveness in avoiding pregnancy

The effectiveness of the CrMS, as of most forms of birth control, can be assessed two ways. Perfect use or method effectiveness rates only include people who follow all observational rules, correctly identify the fertile phase, and refrain from unprotected intercourse on days identified as fertile. Actual use, or typical use effectiveness rates are of all women intending to avoid pregnancy by using CrMS, including those who fail to meet the "perfect use" criteria.[4]

The Pope Paul VI Institute reports a perfect-use effectiveness rate of 99.5% in the first year.[5] In clinical studies of the CrMS conducted at the Pope Paul VI Institute, researchers excluded most pregnancies from the typical-use rate calculation, on the grounds that they believed the affected couples had used the method to deliberately attempt pregnancy.[6] The Institute reports a typical-use effectiveness of 96.8% in the first year.[5] Most studies of similar systems do not exclude such pregnancies from the typical-use failure rate.[7][8]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

So, if one is poor, one shouldn't have sex? Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ghostraven
. As for health insurance and a lack of funding I must say if you can't pay, don't play. The same as buying a car in that instance. A fact of life my friends.

There are natural ways to avoid pregnancy while still having sex that are just as effective as the Pill without all the nasty health hazards. All it requires is a pen and paper. And I'm not talking about the rhythm method but more accurate forms of natural family planning.

Know what they call people who use the 'rhythm method'?

Parents.

Even the Catholics only claim 99.5%/year effectiveness.
Not that I would expect the Catholics to fudge the data to make things look better or anything. [8|]

Seeing as the average woman is fertile for 35+ years, that's a pretty shitty success rate.

quote:

I always find it very interesting that the Religious right is Anti abortion but they're also mostly pro death penalty and against spending extra to care for special needs children and the poor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I always find it very interesting that the Religious right is Anti abortion but they're also mostly pro death penalty and against spending extra to care for special needs children and the poor.

I wasn't aware that the religious right was against charity? I guess you should let these sites know so they can split them out appropriately.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm

quote:

These studies all utilizing life-table analysis and an objective assessment of pregnancies, reported the range of the method-effectiveness to avoid pregnancy at the 12th ordinal month to be 98.7 to 99.8 (with the five-study composite 99.5).

quote:

The use-effectiveness to avoid pregnancy for the same time period ranged from 94.6 to 97.9 and was shown to continually improve over the 14 years of the studies (the five-study composite was 96.8)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And then we come to the cost of such a method. The cheapest I could find was 30 dollars a session with those sessions being every week or two.

While it may work, and the advantage is no hormonal side effects, always a plus, there is no cost advantage, nor is it more effective than some of the other birth control methods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I always find it very interesting that the Religious right is Anti abortion but they're also mostly pro death penalty and against spending extra to care for special needs children and the poor.

I wasn't aware that the religious right was against charity? I guess you should let these sites know so they can split them out appropriately.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm

I should have clarified, boi. I meant government spending.

quote:

HW: I never said to use the rhythm method. I said to use fertility awareness. Do you really think oral contraceptives or condoms have a less than 0.5% failure rate? The pill has a typical use failure rate of 8% in the first year (not to mention the health and environmental risks involved in taking them). Condoms are even less effective and don't biodegrade in landfills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

These studies all utilizing life-table analysis and an objective assessment of pregnancies, reported the range of the method-effectiveness to avoid pregnancy at the 12th ordinal month to be 98.7 to 99.8 (with the five-study composite 99.5).

Meaning that, if used perfectly, the method can work 99.5% of the time.

quote:

The use-effectiveness to avoid pregnancy for the same time period ranged from 94.6 to 97.9 and was shown to continually improve over the 14 years of the studies (the five-study composite was 96.8)

Meaning that when actually used its effective only 96.8% of the time.

http://www.creightonmodel.com/effectiveness.htm

So, the typical method, or perfect, rate is 0.5%, according to an average of 5 studies. And the use, actual, failure rate is 3.2%.

So, realistically, a woman has a 3.2% chance of becoming pregnant.

And then we come to the cost of such a method. The cheapest I could find was 30 dollars a session with those sessions being every week or two.

While it may work, and the advantage is no hormonal side effects, always a plus, there is no cost advantage, nor is it more effective than some of the other birth control methods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I always find it very interesting that the Religious right is Anti abortion but they're also mostly pro death penalty and against spending extra to care for special needs children and the poor.

I wasn't aware that the religious right was against charity? I guess you should let these sites know so they can split them out appropriately.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm

I should have clarified, boi. I meant government spending.

There is a difference between not believing in charity versus believing that charity is not the government's job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

HW: I never said to use the rhythm method. I said to use fertility awareness. Do you really think oral contraceptives or condoms have a less than 0.5% failure rate? The pill has a typical use failure rate of 8% in the first year (not to mention the health and environmental risks involved in taking them). Condoms are even less effective and don't biodegrade in landfills.

Implanon[ref 1] "the implant" 0.05 (typical use) 0.05 (perfect use)
Jadelle[ref 2] (lower-dose) "the implant" 0.05 0.05
Vasectomy[ref 1] "male sterilization" 0.15 0.1
Combined injectable[ref 3] Lunelle, Cyclofem 0.2 0.2
Essure[ref 4] "female sterilization" 0.2 0.2
IUD with progestogen[ref 1] Mirena 0.2 0.2
Tubal ligation[ref 1] "female sterilization" 0.5 0.5
IUD with copper[ref 1] Paragard, Copper T 0.8 0.6
Depo Provera[ref 1] "the shot" 3 0.3

All with better results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I always find it very interesting that the Religious right is Anti abortion but they're also mostly pro death penalty and against spending extra to care for special needs children and the poor.

I wasn't aware that the religious right was against charity? I guess you should let these sites know so they can split them out appropriately.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

http://www.nps.gov/partnerships/fundraising_individuals_statistics.htm

I should have clarified, boi. I meant government spending.

There is a difference between not believing in charity versus believing that charity is not the government's job.

The Right Wingers want to abolish abortion. That means that no matter how screwed up a kid is, the Right wingers will tell that women "you must have this child".
Even if she is at risk of death. They wish to mandate that she have that child.

It will then be up to the parents to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in medical bills.

The Right is against 'unfunded mandates' to the states. Why are they FOR unfunded mandates to a family?

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


The Right Wingers want to abolish abortion. That means that no matter how screwed up a kid is, the Right wingers will tell that women "you must have this child".
Even if she is at risk of death. They wish to mandate that she have that child.

It will then be up to the parents to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in medical bills.

The Right is against 'unfunded mandates' to the states. Why are they FOR unfunded mandates to a family?

The Right sees the mother and child as equally human and do not believe that convenience is a reason to kill someone. We also do not believe a child should ever pay for the crimes of their parents with their life (in the cases of rape/incest). We also never say she must KEEP the child.

With a 2+ year waiting list for adoption, why do we need to kill people?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ghostraven

All established steps and proceedures in a pregnency. I am not a doctor. As for health insurance and a lack of funding I must say if you can't pay, don't play. The same as buying a car in that instance. A fact of life my friends.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
I think that it was fairly plain to others that I was not comparing the DARE program to all sex education, I was pointing out the fact of abstinence-only sex ed and DARE both showing statistical results that ran counter to their stated objectives.

quote:

My classes at the Gianna Fertility Center at St. Peter's Hospital in New Brunswick, NJ were $25 a session every two weeks for two months then once a quarter after that.

However, if we are talking about the government paying for it, does it not make sense for them to pay for something that has no health risks over one that does? Additionally, the Creighton model can be used to help diagnose reproductive health issues earlier because it teaches a person to be more in tune with their body and they are more likely to notice issues sooner. Early detection usually means early treatment, which is usually cheaper as well.