Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One study found that nearly 50% of women that had abortions used some form of protection. Hardly and exception.
I've not seen the study you're referencing, but I'll take for granted that it's accurate. That doesn't change the fact that proper use of optimal birth control confers at (at best) single-digit risk of pregnancy, and even less if both parties are using birth control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Most people don't both male and female don't just randomly test for something that may possibly happen when there are no symptoms present.
That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that such is representative of a failure of personal responsibility. There is no rationale for not seeking to detect potential pregnancy if one has reservations about becoming pregnant. You can test weekly for less than the price of a cup of coffee.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this by the way, I'm just pointing out the obvious. I'm sensitive to the edge cases that the left is perhaps right to be worried about regarding overzealous conservative legislation. But there's a huge distance between outright abolition and criminalization of abortion, and, thoughtfully reasoned restriction. I also understand the 'my body, my choice' sentiment. The idea that society relegate women to the status of broodmares is beyond the pale to my way of thinking. On the other hand, the wholesale denial of that which is developing inside the womb is at least as bad, if not worse, and that becomes manifestly more true as the development proceeds.
There's an obvious distinction between a three-day-old embryo—a spherical collection of perhaps a few hundred cells, a 10-12-week old fetus that's capable of manifesting a primitive pain response (and thus measurably suffer), and a 6-month-old pre-born infant that's ostensibly capable of not only surviving—but indeed thriving—with the aid of modern, readily available medical care.
I guess I just want the conversation to be dialed down emotionally... on all sides, to be fair. One thing is clear as it pertains to abortion: An objective solution is not to be found within an all-or-nothing dichotomy.
Nobody is moving goal posts. Irregular cycles affect more women than you realize. Why should a woman test once or twice a week on the off chance her BC failed?
And as Mikala mentioned the pregnancy test doesn't work until 4+ weeks following conception. That would allow 2 weeks or less to get a doctor appointment for abortion if you insist on a 6 week time limit. There is no immediate pregnancy test like for COVID.
QUOTE=Mikala43;63378635]You can use a test AFTER 4 WEEKS, and if you don't have enough of a specific hormone you could be pregnant and test negative. PLUS, you don't always know if your BC failed.
False.
My pregnancy test was positive 4 days after we had sex. Knew I was pregnant, no need to wait till I missed a period.
Stop spreading LIES.
You are the 2nd most uninformed person I've ever seen when it come to reproductive biology.
Because that is the earliest you can test, and it may show negative that early even if you are pregnant, and some women are not regular.
A six week window does not help anyone.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
My pregnancy test was positive 4 days after we had sex. Knew I was pregnant, no need to wait till I missed a period.
Stop spreading LIES.
You are the 2nd most uninformed person I've ever seen when it come to reproductive biology.
Good for you. Just remember, everybody is not you.
Evidently most pregnancy tests recommend to be used after a missed period (which irregular woman may not know for 2 months or so) I did find an "Early" test but it warns of false negative results.
I've not seen the study you're referencing, but I'll take for granted that it's accurate. That doesn't change the fact that proper use of optimal birth control confers at (at best) single-digit risk of pregnancy, and even less if both parties are using birth control.
That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that such is representative of a failure of personal responsibility. There is no rationale for not seeking to detect potential pregnancy if one has reservations about becoming pregnant. You can test weekly for less than the price of a cup of coffee.
I'm not trying to be a jerk about this by the way, I'm just pointing out the obvious. I'm sensitive to the edge cases that the left is perhaps right to be worried about regarding overzealous conservative legislation. But there's a huge distance between outright abolition and criminalization of abortion, and, thoughtfully reasoned restriction. I also understand the 'my body, my choice' sentiment. The idea that society relegate women to the status of broodmares is beyond the pale to my way of thinking. On the other hand, the wholesale denial of that which is developing inside the womb is at least as bad, if not worse, and that becomes manifestly more true as the development proceeds.
There's an obvious distinction between a three-day-old embryo—a spherical collection of perhaps a few hundred cells, a 10-12-week old fetus that's capable of manifesting a primitive pain response (and thus measurably suffer), and a 6-month-old pre-born infant that's ostensibly capable of not only surviving—but indeed thriving—with the aid of modern, readily available medical care.
I guess I just want the conversation to be dialed down emotionally... on all sides, to be fair. One thing is clear as it pertains to abortion: An objective solution is not to be found within an all-or-nothing dichotomy.
"Use" includes used improperly. It does not mean that it was used properly by a responsible adult so it could be effective.
There cannot be a real dialogue when pro abortioners refuse to acknowledge that the baby is killed during an abortion.
They pretend like biology isn't real. They talk about, well, it's better if kids aren't born ... and then in the next breath say abortion does not kill babies.
Which is it?
Is it a clump of cells that would NEVER grow into a child so there is no baby during pregnancy that is killed? In which case ... why would an abortion be needed? Since pregnancy apparently has nothing to do with babies.
Or is it a baby that they DON'T want as a child? In which case yes, a baby is killed to prevent it from developing any further.
Some intellectual honesty about biology is sorely needed. And for carp's sake, men cannot have babies.
Your statement was that no pregnancy test works until 4+ weeks.
That is a false statement.
I am an example, yes. But what you stated was WRONG. Please go educate yourself.
Evidently most pregnancy tests recommend to be used after a missed period (which irregular woman may not know for 2 months or so) I did find an "Early" test but it warns of false negative results.
My pregnancy test was positive 4 days after we had sex. Knew I was pregnant, no need to wait till I missed a period.
Stop spreading LIES.
You are the 2nd most uninformed person I've ever seen when it come to reproductive biology.
Pregnancy tests react to HCG. HCG is not found before implantation. Implantation happens at 7 to 10 days after fertilization. There is no way that an over the counter test picked up HCG before it was present, so either you were pregnant for about a week before you had sex the time you tested after, or you are making up a story.
Your statement was that no pregnancy test works until 4+ weeks.
That is a false statement.
I am an example, yes. But what you stated was WRONG. Please go educate yourself.
I googled the earliest pregnancy test you can get:
But some at-home pregnancy tests say they can detect if you’re pregnant or not up to five days before your period is due to start.
So if you knew 4 days after sex apparently you had access to science from the future.
They don't even test you that soon when you do in vitro, and they are literally putting eggs and sperm directly in you. Hormone levels vary and not everyone will have the same detectable hormones level at 4 weeks it's common.
I was at a state of the art facility, and THEY couldn't test for pregnancy at 4 days.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Again, reducing pregnancy to just another medical condition is absurd.
In many disability insurance plans, pregnancy is considered the same as any other disability.
"Maternity would qualify for benefits under short term disability plans, if you are unable to work due to the pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery, with the certification of a physician. "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
