4 ms·

Birth control fails. Approximately 8% of women still end up pregnant during their first year on birth control, and even after the first year the percentage doe

Birth control fails. Approximately 8% of women still end up pregnant during their first year on birth control, and even after the first year the percentage doesn't fall to 0. There are many reasons that it fails, although missing a dose is the largest reason. Other reasons can be improper storage, using certain drugs (prescription or otherwise), or even consuming an unusual amount of some foods or supplements. Even if you do everything right there's a small chance that it will happen anyway. Now, people like to claim that if you skip a dose or mess up taking it at the wrong time of the day it's your fault, but it can be complicated due to the different types of pills available, and if you get switched to a different brand, it can be easy to mess up. Typically pills come in a 28 pack. The first 21 or 24 of those will have the hormones used to prevent pregnancy, and then either 7 or 4 will be placebos. But some schemes only give you 21 pills and then you go a week without taking any before starting up the next set. There's also now larger packages and the hormone concentrations and days without taking them vary as well. Condoms have certain advantages, but they break. And other forms of birth control tend to be more expensive and out of the reach of people living in poverty.

rubidium 9y ago
Well, there is one form of birth control that's both free and 100% effective.
- gjm11 9y ago
  In the same way, although cooking doesn't always make food safe to eat, there is a form of cooking that's simple and 100% effective: not eating. And although the various safety measures rock climbers use sometimes fail, there is a method of rock-climbing safety that's 100% effective: not going rock-climbing in the first place. And I have a perfectly safe car: that is, I never leave my house. I take it you can see how ridiculous these are. The point (well, one point) of cooking is to be able to eat food and not get food poisoning. The point of all the ropes and things is to be able to climb rocks and not fall to your death. The point of seatbelts and crumple zones and antilock braking is to be able to drive from place to place and not get killed in a car crash. Not having sex -- which I assume is what you are referring to here -- isn't a form of birth control, because it doesn't accomplish the objective of having sex and not making babies. It might still be a good idea, of course. Just as it might be a good idea never to go rock climbing (maybe it's just too dangerous to be really worth it for anyone who's thinking clearly) or never to drive a car (it's bad for the environment in lots of ways, after all). But that's a separate argument, and the case needs to be made honestly (cost/benefit on failure rates, appeals to alleged rules handed down by alleged gods, etc.) rather than by snarky one-liners like the one above.
  - kmm 9y ago
    You need to eat. You need to leave the house. You need to use some form of motorized transport to partake in society. You don't need to have sex. Abstinence is a form of birth control as much as being bald is a hairstyle.
    - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
      So pleasure should only be for the wealthy? I know that this may sound strange, and I don't share this trait myself, but for many people sex is a critical part of forming a romantic bond with their partner. Without sex, they feel unloved and invalidated in the relationship. That's just part of their emotional needs. So for some people sex is indeed a psychological need.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      Speak for yourself.
    - gjm11 9y ago
      You don't need to do any of those things. You can subsist on liquid diet-drinks. Plenty of people never leave their homes, either by choice or because for some reason they can't. Plenty of people don't have cars. (I didn't until I was 36 years old.) But a large fraction of people would find their lives made much, much worse if they were unable to eat solid food, to leave their house, or to drive a car. Exactly the same goes for sex. Brief reminder of the context for this discussion: the person the OP is about had a child despite not having much money, various people here said you shouldn't be having children if you're too short of money, others pointed out that not having children is sometimes difficult, and that is when user rubidium suggested that total abstinence from sex might be the answer. So we're talking here about whether it's reasonable to say that poor people should just never have sex. I guess opinions on that might vary. My opinion is: duh, no, what an absolutely terrible idea. You don't literally have to have sex any more than you literally have to have friends or holidays or music, but just like any of those it's a hell of a thing to say whole classes of people should just do without.
- YouKnowBetter 9y ago
  Make that 99.9999999999% effective, according to "sources".
  - nasredin 9y ago
    "source". Just one, The Bible.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  Only the rich should be able to have the fulfilling romantic relationship they desire, right?
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  AD&D sourcebooks, 2nd edition, salvaged from the trash?
hycaria 9y ago
IUD anyone ?
- hyperpape 9y ago
  Very effective and a good choice, but I know someone who had a child after getting an IUD.
  - hycaria 9y ago
    IUD pregnancies are often extrauterine (which are mostly non viable, so that solves the unwanted pregnancy problem). And there's still abortion. I wonder to what point having a child was a choice in the case you evoked.
    - MandieD 9y ago
      As someone who had a very wanted (married, secure in our careers) pregnancy end up being “extrauterine” (tubal, if you must know) and therefore requiring emergency medical intervention to not kill me, I think you may want to reconsider that as a better or more economical outcome.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- tallanvor 9y ago
  They're more effective, yes, but carry more risks since you're keeping a foreign object in you for up to 10 years at a time. You can see the various options and pregnancy rates (both based on the typical use and the perfect use case) for the first year: http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Quick-Reference-Guide-for-Clinicians/choosing/failure-rates-table http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Quick-Referen... Personally, rates like these makes me glad to be a gay male.
  - hycaria 9y ago
    > carry more risks Citation needed, and good luck finding one considering the long list of pills side effects. Also all your previous objections to birth control are invalid in the case of IUD.

rubidium 9y ago

Well, there is one form of birth control that's both free and 100% effective.

gjm11 9y ago
In the same way, although cooking doesn't always make food safe to eat, there is a form of cooking that's simple and 100% effective: not eating. And although the various safety measures rock climbers use sometimes fail, there is a method of rock-climbing safety that's 100% effective: not going rock-climbing in the first place. And I have a perfectly safe car: that is, I never leave my house. I take it you can see how ridiculous these are. The point (well, one point) of cooking is to be able to eat food and not get food poisoning. The point of all the ropes and things is to be able to climb rocks and not fall to your death. The point of seatbelts and crumple zones and antilock braking is to be able to drive from place to place and not get killed in a car crash. Not having sex -- which I assume is what you are referring to here -- isn't a form of birth control, because it doesn't accomplish the objective of having sex and not making babies. It might still be a good idea, of course. Just as it might be a good idea never to go rock climbing (maybe it's just too dangerous to be really worth it for anyone who's thinking clearly) or never to drive a car (it's bad for the environment in lots of ways, after all). But that's a separate argument, and the case needs to be made honestly (cost/benefit on failure rates, appeals to alleged rules handed down by alleged gods, etc.) rather than by snarky one-liners like the one above.
- kmm 9y ago
  You need to eat. You need to leave the house. You need to use some form of motorized transport to partake in society. You don't need to have sex. Abstinence is a form of birth control as much as being bald is a hairstyle.
  - SolaceQuantum 9y ago
    So pleasure should only be for the wealthy? I know that this may sound strange, and I don't share this trait myself, but for many people sex is a critical part of forming a romantic bond with their partner. Without sex, they feel unloved and invalidated in the relationship. That's just part of their emotional needs. So for some people sex is indeed a psychological need.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Speak for yourself.
  - gjm11 9y ago
    You don't need to do any of those things. You can subsist on liquid diet-drinks. Plenty of people never leave their homes, either by choice or because for some reason they can't. Plenty of people don't have cars. (I didn't until I was 36 years old.) But a large fraction of people would find their lives made much, much worse if they were unable to eat solid food, to leave their house, or to drive a car. Exactly the same goes for sex. Brief reminder of the context for this discussion: the person the OP is about had a child despite not having much money, various people here said you shouldn't be having children if you're too short of money, others pointed out that not having children is sometimes difficult, and that is when user rubidium suggested that total abstinence from sex might be the answer. So we're talking here about whether it's reasonable to say that poor people should just never have sex. I guess opinions on that might vary. My opinion is: duh, no, what an absolutely terrible idea. You don't literally have to have sex any more than you literally have to have friends or holidays or music, but just like any of those it's a hell of a thing to say whole classes of people should just do without.
YouKnowBetter 9y ago
Make that 99.9999999999% effective, according to "sources".
- nasredin 9y ago
  "source". Just one, The Bible.
nkrisc 9y ago
Only the rich should be able to have the fulfilling romantic relationship they desire, right?
logfromblammo 9y ago
AD&D sourcebooks, 2nd edition, salvaged from the trash?

hycaria 9y ago

IUD anyone ?

hyperpape 9y ago
Very effective and a good choice, but I know someone who had a child after getting an IUD.
- hycaria 9y ago
  IUD pregnancies are often extrauterine (which are mostly non viable, so that solves the unwanted pregnancy problem). And there's still abortion. I wonder to what point having a child was a choice in the case you evoked.
  - MandieD 9y ago
    As someone who had a very wanted (married, secure in our careers) pregnancy end up being “extrauterine” (tubal, if you must know) and therefore requiring emergency medical intervention to not kill me, I think you may want to reconsider that as a better or more economical outcome.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
tallanvor 9y ago
They're more effective, yes, but carry more risks since you're keeping a foreign object in you for up to 10 years at a time. You can see the various options and pregnancy rates (both based on the typical use and the perfect use case) for the first year: http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Quick-Reference-Guide-for-Clinicians/choosing/failure-rates-table http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Quick-Referen... Personally, rates like these makes me glad to be a gay male.
- hycaria 9y ago
  > carry more risks Citation needed, and good luck finding one considering the long list of pills side effects. Also all your previous objections to birth control are invalid in the case of IUD.