4 ms·
This depends a lot on the phrasing of the question, because there can be a big difference between "unplanned" and "undesired." When people actively want not to
by smeej 4y ago
This depends a lot on the phrasing of the question, because there can be a big difference between "unplanned" and "undesired."
When people actively want not to have children, they tend to be fastidious about using their contraceptives as intended, but they're less careful when they are less opposed to the idea.
Even if someone gets pregnant earlier than they had actually "planned," many are quickly delighted after the first bout of surprise and the slight stress of moving up the related plans, though this is not always captured in surveys.
- bombcar 4y agoYeah, the questions have to be carefully designed to avoid questioner's bias, and to get at the root of what you're trying to determine. There's a vast range from "we cannot have children at all" to "we are intentionally doing every single thing possible to conceive" and many people end up in the "eh if it happens it happens" middle somewhere.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoYes, but my point was that the set of 25 year old couples who ended up working from home and having sex more often because of it probably will not end up with a baby because they will not have forgone birth control. Or a couple who has already had their desired amount of kids would not end up with more kids even though they are having more sex due to them using birth control. Whereas a 30 to 35 year old couple who was already planning on babies in the next couple years would have opted out of birth control to take advantage of the increased time being spent at home.
- smeej 4y agoEvery birth control method has a failure rate, even for perfect use, never mind for average use. If all else stays the same but the amount of sex goes up, the number of babies will also go up. Are the 25yo couples who are having more sex making other changes to decrease likelihood of pregnancy? Realistically? Probably not. They probably use their birth control the same way they always have, since it previously worked fine for the amount of sex they were having before. They don't necessarily think, "Oh, I'm increasing the odds that I'll get hit by the failure rate," especially if the way they've been using it has been "successful" for years.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoIs it possible the failure rates get so low with modern birth control that it is almost impossible to offset with increased amount of sex? Specifically, IUDs. https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/birth-control-pills-patches-and-devices/birth-control-failure/ https://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/birth-cont... Even the pill is listed at 9%, which is low, and of course, abortion is the last resort to completely prevent a birth. For couples who are finished having children, a vasectomy also basically has a 0% failure rate.
- alocasia-1 4y agoThose are annual rates, so 9% is not low. (Planned Parenthood puts it at 7% annually, which is still 48% failure over ten years!) https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/how-effective-is-the-birth-control-pill https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-...
- smeej 4y agoThis is an important point. The failure rate measures, "If 100 people otherwise capable of becoming pregnant have an average amount of otherwise potentially procreative sex for a year, how many of them will get pregnant?" Nine out of every hundred is a LOT to start out with. And if the "average amount of otherwise potentially procreative sex" part increases by, say, 11%, you get one new pregnancy out of every hundred.