to be getting more and more annoyed by the attitude that kids can be planned

[stitch10yearson]

Because if you dtd, then there is always a risk of pregnancy. condoms are only 98% effective, the pill and the coil 97%. This means basically that if you do the deed, then the only way of ensuring that you don't have a baby is terminating it.

And breathe.

IMO, NOT having kids is a lifestyle choice, not the other way around. If a man doesn't want kids, then he needs to always always wear a condom, even if she ison the pill and has a coil in, or have the snip. and probably still wear a condom. Or only have sex with someone who is post menopausal.

what aboit people whose religion prohibits contraceptio? having babies is not a choice for them
I am not religious but I regard a new and unique human life to have begun at the moment of conception and prevention of implantation to be abortion

Judge in that case you either abstain or probably end up having loads and loads and loads of kids

Yes having babies is a choice for them. As is not following this
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

So no, religion isn't a comeback. If you can pick and chose matters as people often do.

Used properly condoms and the pill have an effective rate of over 99.5% - that means that for 100 couples having regular sex for a year using this contraception, less than 1 will get pregnant.
On average, if you have sex for all your c.40 years of fertility using these contraceptives properly, only 1 in 5 women will become pregnant.
Therefore 80% of people can choose whether to have children.
You can use both as well to make things more secure.

^^ I don't want to have a go at this particular poster but this theory has been alluded to a few times during the thread.

The perfect usage vs actual usage figures are actually for first year of use. Actual usage efficiency figures improve the longer people use them. So after say 3 years of using a form of contraception and not getting pregnant (never mind 40!) your chances of accidental pregnancy are significantly diminished compared to the usage figures people are posting (which are largely accurate btw). This is thought to be as people sort of get better at using these chosen forms of contraception!

So someone is highly, highly unlikely to suddenly get pregnant after 20 or so years of effective contraception usage and so your suggestions 1 in 5 women would become pregnant over 40 years is not accurate. Luckily modern contraception is far more effective than that.

Transporter Mon 16-Feb-15 20:28:59

I'm a bit confused about the term 'super fertile' - I know loads of people, myself included, who were lucky enough to get pregnant during their very first non-contraception cycle. It why you can't take any chances.

___

I'm the person who upthread said I'd been sexually active for 17 years without getting pregnant. I've conceived, first time of wither trying or throwing caution to the wind, three times, all in my mid thirties, so past apparent peak fertility.

My youngest is almost 9 and, yes, I still noticeably ovulate at lest every other month.

I do know women who have unpredictable cycles but being naturally rather fertile does not make it impossible to protect yourself against pregnancy

TTC is pretty much like throwing a dice, six might come up the first time, or the tenth time, doesn't mean there is anything loaded about the dice. Even if you get 6 twice or three times in a row, if enough people are throwing a dice, that will happen to someone.

The morning after pill can fail. The fact that I'm pregnant now demonstrates that. We had an "accident" at new year, went the day after to get the morning after pill and, well here I am. We will love this baby no matter what and are able to take care of it, but didn't plan to have another.

Fondly remembering those days when sex was a biological urge.

Stupidly getting pregnant while changing pill thanks to inviting a down on his luck "friend" round who thanked me by viciously raping me. Never went to the police because I had obviously "asked for it" by offering to put him up for one night.

Having an abortion at 9 weeks which I paid for privately through a £400 bank loan (kind middle aged Midland Bank Branch Manager!) On the NHS in the mid 80s I'd have been 17 weeks thanks to the wait.

Feeling so happy for young women when the MAP became available at chemists.

28 years later, mum of a lovely DD (planned) - still wondering why these days, women go ahead with unplanned pregnancies. It's a mystery.

Ethelb your hypothesis assumes that the woman uses the same contraception her entire life. Who does that? No one I can think of.

Ime women use a selection of methods over their lifetime- implant/combined pill (maybe trying several of the 30 or so brands) and often condoms in her teens and 20s often changing after childbirth to mini pill (if breastfeeding), ius/d, then maybe sterilisation (m/f) later on.

I think you can plan for children. I imagine the average age of losing your virginity is a lot lower than the average age of people having their first baby.

" with the NHS material, specifically that the coil is a method of birth control, but NOT a contraceptive, it is in fact an abortifacient."

Where on earth is this from? Even the NHS website doesn't say the coil is an abortifacient, it says:

" Copper changes the make-up of the fluids in the womb and fallopian tubes, stopping sperm surviving there. IUDs may also stop fertilised eggs from implanting in the womb."

I've never read anything that describes it as an abortifacient except mad pro-lifer literature that also froths about the MAP, and I did a lot of reading on it because I was thinking of getting one.

(and given that even if it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting, which they're not sure it does, I think technically you're not actually pregnant until implantation ie preventing implantation is not "an abortion")

Oh, and another person who's been sexually active for 25 years or so with no unplanned pregnancies (and three planned ones - one miscarriage).

YABU....I suspect this is a TAAT (the one about if men don't want children they should wear condoms rather than trusting a woman who says she's on the pill).

wizard....TAAT and it's midterm break

But, king1982 first baby isn't the same as first pregnancy. 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage and 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

one in six pregnancies may be unplanned, but that does not mean they were unpreventable. Abstinence would have prevented them, and I don't see why people can't take this on board, it isn't complicated!

Also, I know this is not relevant to the conversation, but would just like to recognise that many pregnancies START OFF unplanned, that does not mean the baby is any less unwanted once it exists. it's not like we have two categories of babies being born , the wanted and the unplanned.

Abstinence would have prevented them, and I don't see why people can't take this on board, it isn't complicated!

And is that really the way for grown adults in a loving, long-term relationship to behave?

Society does seem a bit stuck on PIV sex being the only acceptable way to have a sexual relationship.

apparently one in 6 pregnancies is unplanned.

But how many of those one in six were using contraception correctly? I'm guessing that the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies come from not using contraception correctly or not using contraception at all and just relying on hope and good luck.

"But how many of those one in six were using contraception correctly?"

That's what I'm wondering as well. I just don't believe that I am freakishly lucky for never having had an unplanned pregnancy while still being able to get pregnant when I wanted to. I don't think the odds with contraception are "if you're sexually active you'll almost certainly have a contraceptive failure eventually, better be prepared for that", which is what the OP/some others seem to be suggesting. Not that they don't happen, but I think they're reasonably rare.

Back to the OP. I have a very dear friend who has got pregnant months into a new relationship 3 times, and who has 3 very dear children with 3 different dads, sadly none of the relationships have lasted. She's also got a degree in biology.

I find it a bit irritating that she still claims to have been astonished by her "surprise" pregnancies. I suspect she wasn't using any contraception. Not my business of course.

I'm sure she's not the only one.

hijk, the US Christian anti-abortion lobby agrees with you. That should be some consolation to a science teacher, right?

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/heres-why-hobby-lobby-thinks-iuds-are-like-abortions/284382/