How would pro-choicers respond to this?

[Roy]

Yep - those are both examples of death by misadventure. Jumping intentionally from lethal heights is necessarily not an accident. It is a misadventure, however.

Contraceptive failure, given its ridiculously high failure rates, is not a good comparison, however.

Do you happen to have comparative data? Or are you basing this on the total number of incidents rather than the precentages?

A quick browse finds that parachute injury/fatality rates are usually given per jump, but pregnancy rates are given per year, making comparison difficult. However, harmonising them by assuming usage twice per week for both suggests that a regular contraceptive and parachute user* would have between 0.1% and 10% chance of getting pregnant per year, depending on method; a 10% chance of injury while parachuting and a 0.1% chance of death.

Thus it may be a good comparison.

Those misadventures you named are relatively rare; contraceptive failure is a daily occurrence...

Again this suggests you aren't taking relative frequency of use into account, otherwise no-one would bother using them.

Roy

*Not at the same time!

[Teallaura]

Do you happen to have comparative data? Or are you basing this on the total number of incidents rather than the precentages?

A quick browse finds that parachute injury/fatality rates are usually given per jump, but pregnancy rates are given per year, making comparison difficult. However, harmonising them by assuming usage twice per week for both suggests that a regular contraceptive and parachute user* would have between 0.1% and 10% chance of getting pregnant per year, depending on method; a 10% chance of injury while parachuting and a 0.1% chance of death.

Thus it may be a good comparison.

As I said, I looked at failure rates - not prevalence/incidence.

If bungee cords had similar rates to condoms (21%), no one would ever jump - it would be a really stupid version of Russian Roulette - which is really stupid itself.

Rhythm based methods do work - because of the morphology of human conception. It's therefore ill advised to use incidence - you have no way to know if you're looking at contraceptive failure or an infertile period of time - from the rates alone, obviously (a study could get around this - and that's done in studying failure rates, I'm certain, but it's tricky work).

The other problem is that each contraceptive has its own failure rate. Without knowing what contraceptive is in use you can't make good assessments of the efficacy - making prevalence comparisons extremely difficult. Most women don't use intrauterine devices which have the lowest failure rates; many do use barrier methods (diaphragm / condom) which have high failure rates. I'm not even counting natural methods that are easy to mess up and therefore fail.

Also, did you really mean 'pregnancy rates' and not 'unintentional pregnancy rates'? If so, there's no point in the comparison at all - you're (general) assuming contraception where there will be none.

Again this suggests you aren't taking relative frequency of use into account, otherwise no-one would bother using them.

Roy

*Not at the same time!

No, I think failure rate (number of failures divided by number of uses, presumably) is a better comparison. Frequency is accounted for. Still imperfect, granted - real world and lab rates vary - a lot. But most contraceptives (other than implants/intrauterine) aren't in the upper 90 percentile - and some are as low as 70 (spermicides). The Pill fails about nine percent of the time - would you use a bungee cord with a similar rate of failure to hop off a cliff?




**You're taking all the fun out of this.

[Teallaura]

(I was trying to find a "Popcorn" smilie (unsuccessfully) when I noticed the screen was dim. So not daring to "escape" or "go back" I just pushed "submit"--and my reply VANISHED! Moral:don't ever try to add smilies.)
Teal,
I would think his preferred choice would be 1B.
And why did you make it so easy for him by high-lighting (blue) the key word "Chance"?
And as I tried to put in symbolic notation,
POPCORN, I'm following with interest.

: popcorn:

It still doesn't work - pregnancy would be a calculated risk, not a matter of chance.

It's a hyperlink - I just didn't delete it.

[Roy]

As I said, I looked at failure rates - not prevalence/incidence.

If bungee cords had similar rates to condoms (21%), no one would ever jump - it would be a really stupid version of Russian Roulette - which is really stupid itself.

If condoms had a 21% failure rate per use no-one would ever use them because they'd actually be increasing your chances of getting pregnant.

No, I think failure rate (number of failures divided by number of uses, presumably) is a better comparison.

I still think your presumption is incorrect. Contraceptive failure rates of 20% are based on continued use over an entire year (see e.g. here), not per usage.

Roy

***Don't let me stop you

[rogue06]

Anyone ever notice that condom manufacturers never claim that they're for use as a contraceptive? They advertise their usefulness in the prevention of spreading disease.

[Teallaura]

Anyone ever notice that condom manufacturers never claim that they're for use as a contraceptive? They advertise their usefulness in the prevention of spreading disease.

Unfortunately, no one reads the tiny print. Great against GC/CT; good against HIV; crap shoot against syphilis; useless against HPV/herpes

[Teallaura]

If condoms had a 21% failure rate per use no-one would ever use them because they'd actually be increasing your chances of getting pregnant.

I didn't say anything about per use. A 21% failure rate overall - that's about two out of every eight tries. Pretty sure bungee cords do better than that.

I still think your presumption is incorrect. Contraceptive failure rates of 20% are based on continued use over an entire year (see e.g. here), not per usage.

Roy

No, I was looking at overall rates of failure, not single use (although a given instance of use would have a 2 in 8 chance of failing - still pretty crappy if you ask me).

***Don't let me stop you

****That's okay - I was hoping to talk you into it.

[Jichard]

As I said, I looked at failure rates - not prevalence/incidence.

If bungee cords had similar rates to condoms (21%), no one would ever jump - it would be a really stupid version of Russian Roulette - which is really stupid itself.

No, I was looking at overall rates of failure, not single use (although a given instance of use would have a 2 in 8 chance of failing - still pretty crappy if you ask me).

False analogy.


First, you're comparing

failure rates for bungee cords, when bungee cords are used properly

to

failure rates for condoms, when condoms are used improperly

Of course, condoms, as with anything else (like bungee cords or televisions) will have a higher failure rate when used improperly. So if you want to do an accurate comparison, then you need to compare the devices when the devices are both used properly.


Second, your "21%" and "2 in 8" figures are off:

"Condom use errors and problems: a global view"
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=vie...id=SH11095.pdf

"However, condom effectiveness is compromised by user errors and lack of use.2 For example, the World Health Organisation reported that condoms have a 2% perfect use failure rate for pregnancy, but the typical failure rate is 15% (81)."

Please do better. Thanks.

[Sam]

Anyone ever notice that condom manufacturers never claim that they're for use as a contraceptive? They advertise their usefulness in the prevention of spreading disease.

Um, if they don't, they're not complying with FDA regulations, which clearly state that condom information labels should include such information:

Source: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Labeling for Natural Rubber Latex Condoms Classified Under 21 CFR 884.5300

Labeling should indicate that latex condoms are intended to prevent pregnancy. Labeling should indicate that condom use does not eliminate the risk of pregnancy and also indicate the importance of correct and consistent use.
Labeling should indicate that consumers should consult a health care provider if they have questions about birth control options, particularly because of health reasons for avoiding pregnancy.


Labeling should include information comparing the percentage of women experiencing unintended pregnancy during one year of use of latex condoms with rates experienced during one year of use of other contraceptive methods available in the U.S., including drugs, devices, and methods of permanent sterilization . The information should address, at minimum, typical use rates.

© Copyright Original Source

A jaunt over to Trojan's website confirmed that it does indeed state:

Source: How To Use A Condom. Trojancondoms.com

Latex condoms are intended to prevent pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted infections. Latex condoms reduce the risk of transmitting STIs by providing a barrier against the source of the infection. However, they do not completely eliminate the risks of pregnancy and STIs. For additional information on condoms, STI and pregnancy protection, or if you believe you have an STI, contact a health care provider or public health agency.

© Copyright Original Source

Bolding added.

[Jichard]

Anyone ever notice that condom manufacturers never claim that they're for use as a contraceptive? They advertise their usefulness in the prevention of spreading disease.

Unfortunately, no one reads the tiny print. Great against GC/CT; good against HIV; crap shoot against syphilis; useless against HPV/herpes

Ok, this is like the second time you've made false claims regarding the effectiveness of condoms. I'm beginning to suspect that you're not very informed on this subject. I get why you're making these false claims: you want to make condom use look as bad / unreliable as possible, so people will instead go for the alternatives you want. But is your goal really worth pursuing, if it involves misleading other people?

Anyway, I've seen some other conservative Christians (including some Catholics) make the same false claim as you: that condoms are useless against HPV. So I checked out the evidence on the subject a few months ago. And, what do you knw, you guys are wrong. For example:

"Condom Use and the Risk of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Women"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa053284

"Among newly sexually active women, consistent condom use by their partners appears to reduce the risk of cervical and vulvovaginal HPV infection."

"Condom use in prevention of Human Papillomavirus infections and cervical neoplasia: systematic review of longitudinal studies"
http://msc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/38.full.pdf+html

"Consistent condom use appears to offer a relatively good protection from HPV infections and associated cervical neoplasia. Advice to use condoms might be used as an additional instrument to prevent unnecessary colposcopies and neoplasia treatments in cervical screening, and to reduce the risk of cervical cancer."

"Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../ijc.11474/pdf

"Condom use promotes regression of CIN lesions and clearance of HPV."

"Consistent Condom Use Reduces the Genital Human Papillomavirus Burden Among High-Risk Men: The HPV Infection in Men Study"
http://hcpportalco20140430.pfizer.ed...en%20Study.pdf

"Condoms should be promoted in combination with HPV vaccination to prevent HPV infection in men."

Your claims about herpes are off-base as well, though I haven't previously seen conservative Christians claim that condoms were useless against HSV. Maybe that claim is a new innovation for your side of the debate, or maybe more people on your side know better than to make that sort of claim? Anyway, here's some introductory evidence showing that condoms are not "useless" when it comes to dealing with HSV:

"A Pooled Analysis of the Effect of Condoms in Preventing HSV-2 Acquisition"
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...a12d000000.pdf

"To our knowledge, this is the largest analysis using prospective data to assess the effect of condom use in preventing HSV-2 acquisition. Although the magnitude of protection was not as large as has been observed with other STIs, we found that condoms offer moderate protection against HSV-2 acquisition in men and women"

"Case-Crossover Analysis of Condom Use and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Acquisition"
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/F...Herpes.17.aspx

"This analysis suggests that condoms offer significant protection against HSV-2 transmission."

"Condom use and the prevention of genital herpes acquisition"
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/11916494

"While many studies have examined the degree of protection offered through the use of condoms against HSV-2 acquisition, findings have been either difficult to interpret or inconsistent. However, the body of evidence supports the efficacy of condoms in preventing HSV-2 infection among women. More data are required for HSV-2 prevention in men. The infrequent use of condoms during pregnancy, coupled with the high incidence of complications associated with HSV-2 acquisition at this time, warrants efforts to improve condom use among male partners of pregnant women at risk of HSV-2 infection."

Hopefully you all will stop spreading misinformation and put people's health first. Because it's a really bad idea to tell people that condoms are useless against HPV, when that is actually not the case.

[Yay! I knew one day my training in immunology would pay off.]

[Teallaura]

False analogy.


First, you're comparing

failure rates for bungee cords, when bungee cords are used properly

to

failure rates for condoms, when condoms are used improperly

Of course, condoms, as with anything else (like bungee cords or televisions) will have a higher failure rate when used improperly. So if you want to do an accurate comparison, then you need to compare the devices when the devices are both used properly.


Second, your "21%" and "2 in 8" figures are off:

"Condom use errors and problems: a global view"
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=vie...id=SH11095.pdf

"However, condom effectiveness is compromised by user errors and lack of use.2 For example, the World Health Organisation reported that condoms have a 2% perfect use failure rate for pregnancy, but the typical failure rate is 15% (81)."

Please do better. Thanks.

Talk to Roy - it was his. And the real problem is that both were misadventures, not accidents.

Properly used condoms are presumed - the figure is from the CDC. And since 'perfect use' is only achieved in the lab, it's a stupid figure to use. So, real world would be 15% using WHO figures, 21% using CDC. Bungee cords would be done professionally in the real world so there should not be any significant variance for those figures.

So, other than trying to undermine Roy's argument and having no idea what is being argued, thanks ever so for the contribution.

Nice try - but do better in the future.

[Darth Ovious]

Just because I get in my car doesn't mean I consent to being in a car crash. How can you take legal responsibility by accident? That makes no sense. If that were a contract it would be thrown out of court.

Except when you run over someone in your car and kill them. Then you are responsible.

It almost seems like you think when a woman gets pregnant against her wishes she's "getting what she deserves". I hope I'm wrong, because that's a pretty twisted viewpoint.

I have the feeling that you would like to be to "accidentally run people over" and not be responsible in any way for it.

[Darth Ovious]

Driving doesn't result in running someone over 100% of the time or even, if proper use of driving is involved, most of the time. For your average person in a first-world country, running someone over is an abnormal result. Also, the fact that people drive without the goal of running people over shows that there are other things that act was "designed" to do.

So? If you run someone over you are still responsible for it.

[Darth Ovious]

I think you're misunderstanding the discussion. Running someone over is a possible result of driving, but it is not an expected result since it is an uncommon occurrence for a driver with a license.

I understand the discussion perfectly well and so do others as far as I can see.

[Psychic Missile]

Since pregnancy results from sex, like travel results from driving, it cannot be argued to be 'unplanned' - the act carries the necessary result.

Car accidents result from driving a car, therefore a car accident cannot be argues to be unplanned? You are not making sense.

Pregnancy is one possible result of sex. The other possible result, which is the most common by far, is no pregnancy. Most of the times people have sex, they plan for the latter result. That's what people expect to happen. If you don't define something happening that isn't what is expected or planned for an accident, then that's you're problem, and you can just mentally substitute whatever word you think carries my intended meaning.

You know, if you had the correct position on the issue, you wouldn't have to resort to these bizarre arguments.