Yet another barrier to pregnancy prevention

Sludge Factory wrote:

I'm just curious as to why you say they don't count as a reliable form of long term birth control. I've never really had someone discuss with me how birth control can be split into different categories like that.

In theory, a condom can be up to 98% effective at preventing pregnancy when used perfectly during a single sexual encounter, meaning there's about a 2% chance that it will break or come off. However, in reality, condoms are used imperfectly much of the time. Additionally, people who rely on them as a primary source of birth control can slip up over time and occasionally have sex without using a condom. So when you factor in human error, the real efficacy of condoms is closer to 85%.

On the other hand, there are many other forms of contraception that remove much of the human error. The pill, for example, is 99% effective in theory and closer to 92% effective in reality because, although inconsistency can be an issue, improper use is not. So using the pill is much more effective long-term than using a condom. (Frequently inconsistency is an issue because of barriers to access, by the way.)

The IUD, however, is not user-dependent so it doesn't really allow room for incorrect or inconsistent use. You just have it inserted by a doctor and it's good for 5-10 years. You don't have to put it on properly. You don't have to remember to take it. It's efficacy rate in theory & in practice is greater than 99% - about the same as (some have said higher than) permanent sterilization. Implanon, the new contraceptive implant, has similar efficacy rates.

So women who want to minimize (not just reduce) their chances of unintended pregnancy would be wiser to use something like the IUD or Implanon (neither of which have really caught on in popularity in the United States) than condoms or the pill. And they'd be much wiser to use the pill than to rely on condoms. (And, of course, there are many other methods of contraception as well, which have varying rates of efficacy and varying risks & benefits.)

It can be complicated. Though the pill is the most popular form of reversible contraception in the U.S., women not only face various access issues, but also many women can't use any form of hormonal contraception for medical reasons. This rules out the majority of the reliable forms of contraception, leaving them with few options. (Then there's the trail-and-error period while you're trying to find the right contraceptive method.) Use of the IUD is limited in part because people don't know about it, many insurance companies won't cover it, or doctors are still using outdated qualification guidelines. (Good article, by the way: Family planning American style: why it's so hard to control birth in the US. Espey, 2007.)

Anyway, I hope this kind of answers your question. Just the fact that you asked it give me hope.

cincybearcat wrote:

Starfall wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

No...you appear to be judging and hating on all men. It's kinda sad.

Whoa, all this piling on scb has got to stop. I don't see her as 'hating on all men'. In fact, nothing in what she has said could really be construed in that fashion, and pretty much all she wrote has been accurate. I know for a fact that condoms are not as reliable as people think they are - I believe thay have around 85% reliability. They break, they slip, they get put on incorrectly, the male does not pull out immediately, etc.

From what I can tell, we're all mostly on the same side anyway.

And last I checked, I was a man.

I was letting scb know they way I perceived her posts. Nothing wrong with that.

Well I'm sorry you have an inaccurate perception of me. I don't hate men; I hate willful ignorance & judgement of others. So now you're judging me for judging others for judging others? Why don't the original judgers just cut it out and we wouldn't have a problem?

cincybearcat wrote:

Haha...not my perception of you. But what your posts in this thread were making you seem like, in my opinion.

It wasn't helping the debate.

Anyhow, I know you are extremely passionate about this subject and I appreciate your viewpoint, even though I don't always agree with you.

Thanks. I appreciate your viewpoint too, and I don't hate you as much as I hate some of the other guys around here.

cincybearcat wrote:

Honestly, I don't think, for someone that has insurance that pays for BC, and has access to condoms as well, that the system was at fault in this case. The system isn't as easy as it potentially could be, but it wasn't very hard either for your friend.

I really wasn't trying to find "fault," but if that's what we're doing I think it can be broken down into components. I don't think it's the system's fault that she felt the need to take EC. I do think it's the systems fault that she had to pay $50 for it. Whether or not paying $50 is reasonable is debatable.

My point all along was that the system has room for improvement, so I guess we agree.

She borrowed the money and got the EC, by the way, in case anyone's interested.

cincybearcat wrote:

Now, for woman that do not have access to health benefits that provide for BC and their only "affordable and accessible" option for BC is a condom...while they can be used properly and prevent unintended pregnancies a great deal of the time, it is a bigger risk. And in reality a risk that our society can't really afford. It's an expensive mistake on our part not to have a simple BC pill available to all women for a reasonable cost.

Let's not forget the other forms of contraception too!

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

Let's not forget the other forms of contraception too!

Yeah, I typed BC all the way through then added "pill" that 1 time...you are like a BC spell checker.

Hey, man, we can't be too careful! What if it had ended up in a contract or grant or bill that way?! Always gotta read the fine print!

EDIT TO ADD: I'm actually a little bit serious. This is how bad legislation slips through. That's why I always notice these types of specifics.