So, I came accross this essay, where the guy who wrote it state that the fellowing:
A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that women relying on male condoms as their method of contraception actually had an elevated chance of obtaining an abortion compared with the population of women at risk of unintended pregnancy as a whole. 6 That result is not surprising, given that the true failure rate of condoms is 99 percent. That figure may sound high, but it can be supported with reliable data. To derive that figure, I started with the annual typical-use failure rate of condoms given by the Alan Guttmacher Institute- 15 percent. 7 I then extrapolated that annual failure rate across the thirty years that the typical American woman spends trying to thwart the natural workings of her reproductive system. 8 That process may not yield very precise estimates, but it makes more sense than basing failure rates on a single year of use. 9 The following table gives the failure rates of different forms of contraception derived using the process just described."
Here he is saying that, based on his calculations, a woman who used a condom had a 99% failure rates or had a 99% chance of getting pregnant thoughout her life time. I was always bad at math, so anyone here can please explain to me how there is a 99% failure rates of condom use?
Anyways, he is saying that using a condom do not work because you have a 99% chance of getting pregnant. Therefore the government should not advocate condom use based on sound science, or his science anyways.
I just did the calculation and using his method, it said that a woman who used a condom thoughout 30 years of her fertile life is have had a 22.5 chance of pregnancy. Here is how I got my answer: 15% (condom failure rates based on the Guttmaher insitute) + 30 (a woman sexually active life) = 45 / 2 = 22.5. I think that this is the correct way to do the math?
Can some here please used his math to get the proper equation for a failure rates for a woman relies on only condoms thoughout the first 30 years of her sexual life? I think that the author is inaccurate here. The website encourage the readers to report any inaccuracy in their reporting, so if you want, you can response. But I would really appriciate a mathatician here to get the proper data of condom failure rates based on the author data.
"What is very apparent from this table is that the long-acting methods of contraception- implants, IUDs, and sterilization- are far more effective than spermicides, withdrawal, periodic abstinence, condoms, and diaphragms at preventing unintended pregnancies. Not surprisingly, the study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute that I mentioned earlier found that women using long-acting methods were underrepresented among women obtaining abortions. So if we want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, we should encourage the use of implants, IUDs, and sterilization while discouraging the use of spermicides, withdrawal, condoms, and diaphragms."
Here is he is saying that condom should not be used at all but only IUD, implants, and sterilization. So, in sex education, a teenager should not be taught about condom used because she had a 99% chance of getting pregnant but she should be encorage to practice abstinince only, or go to the clinic to get implants, IUD, or sterilizate herself.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/01/28/or38.pdf
http://www.religioustolerance.org/northstar01.htm
Well, here's the results from some other studies:
Ninety-two monogamous heterosexual couples (aged 18 to 40 for women, 18-50 for men) were enrolled in a prospective study of Durex Ramses condoms [1]. At each sexual encounter a diary was completed which included information on condom use, and breaks and slips.
There were 4,637 attempts to use condoms. On six occasions the condoms broke before intercourse, leaving 4,631 condoms used for intercourse. Thirteen breaks occurred during intercourse (0.28%), and the total breakage rate was 0.41%. Complete slips were recorded on 29 occasions (0.63%) and 21 of these were recorded by the same couple. The overall failure rate of 0.91%, or an effectiveness rate of 99.1%. The total failure rate was 1.04%.
In France a random telephone survey [2] of 20,000 individuals drew on 4,500 sexually active people, of whom 731 had used a condom in the previous year and 707 provided information on difficulties of use.
The rate of breakage at last use in heterosexual intercourse was 3.4% and the rate of slippage was 1.1%, for a total failure rate of 4.5%, or an effectiveness rate of 95.5%.
Source:
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band64/b64-4.html
In Thailand, the promotion by the government of 100% condom use by commercial sex workers led to a dramatic increase in the use of condoms (from 14% in 1990 to 94% in 1994); an equally dramatic decline in the nation-wide numbers of bacterial STD cases (from 410,406 cases in 1990 to 27,362 cases in 1994); and reduced HIV prevalence in Thai soldiers.
Source:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
It is a great idea that other foreign countries are promoting conctraceptives.
It seem so backward here in america. the right said that condom do not work (but they fail to cite the reason why it do not work, like incorrect used or not used all the times) therefore it should not be taught in the classroom.
If you keep kids ignorant about condom and how it is suppose to be use than kid are less likely to use a condom if they had sex because when they do had sex with a condom, than they had a 99% of getting pregnant so it is logical to not use a condom when you are having teenage sex.
They said that sterilization, UDI, and abstinince only work therefore that should be taught in the classroom.
But they said that it is too expansive to provide sterilization and UDI to all teenagers so just teach about abstinince only in the classroom.
"But they said that it is too expansive to provide sterilization and UDI to all teenagers so just teach about abstinince only in the classroom."
If the primary concern here was population control, then these solutions would be perfect; Sterilization and UDI cover those bases, while, when coupled with the neglected use of condoms, increase the risk of infection enormously, allowing the spread of HIV, Hepatitis B etc, effectively ensuring less children are born and a greater number die from sexually transmitted infections.
Abstinence would be a great cover for a depopulation program to hide behind, it gives off the appearance of taking a moral stance on the problems of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but in effect such advice is just laughed out of credibility by teenagers and young adults, who will engage in sexual activity regardless of what some zero-tolerance campaign says.
If I had some depopulation agenda up my sleeve and wanted to work out a strategy by where I could limit births and raise the death toll, I too would be advocating an abstinence only sex-ed program for schools, while spreading misinformation about the relevance and effectiveness of condoms.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
TUFFGONG
Senior Executive Administrator™
Not to ignore most of your post but What on earth does "underrepresented among women obtaining abortions" mean? To say they are underrepresented sounds like they NEED more representation in abortions, this can not be right.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
I think that what the author meant when he said, “women using long acting methods were underrepresented among women obtaining abortions,” means that when a woman chose to terminate her pregnancy, the person who performing the abortion to not take into account the birth control method she used or more likely, her pregnancy/abortion came from the result of a failed used of contraceptives.
The physician who do performed the abortion and the women who chose to terminate her pregnancy often cited the reasons is because of financial, rape, incest, to save the life of the mother, et al but they do not cited that the woman chose to had an abortion because she did not used a condom or birth control method correctly. I think that is what he meant, but I am not sure.
I think that he means that women who gets abortions because they do not used birth control correctly is not included in the list of why a woman had an abortion? From what I can get.
It means that women using long-term birth control methods (such as sterilization) had fewer incidences of abortion than women using other birth control methods, compared to their population size. To give you more a more numerical idea... say 50% of women in the population use these long-term birth control methods, and the other 50% use other birth control methods. If these women only account for 10% of the number of abortion cases, they are underrepresented--they aren't getting abortions in proportion to their presence in the general population.
To which I say... duh. Women who get their tubes tied like... don't get pregnant in the first place, or very very rarely do. Women who are on the pill and miss it a day are much more likely to get pregnant, and thus much more likely to have an abortion. Duh.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You source cited http://www.fpwa.org.au/ as the source for the 99% figure, but in fact that statistic does not appear anywhere on the FPWA website. In fact, this website promotes the use of condoms as an effective form of birth control. Basically, the author of the essay you cited used some pretty creative "math" to arrive at the figure you cited...
That just about the most blatant case of "spin" I can remember in a debate about contraception. A more relible source (i.e. the CDC) states that...
As I have said many times, if you have to lie in order to make your point, then there's something wrong with your position.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I know, I had been doing the math over and over again, and I cannot get the 99% failure rates that he had.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control-4211.htm
Here is what Planned Parenthood said about condoms:
• Each year, 2 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they always use condoms correctly.
• Each year, 15 out of 100 women whose partners use condoms will become pregnant if they don't always use condoms correctly.
Here is my answers compare to His;
This is how I do my math: X (failure rates) times Y (number of years sexually active) =
His “scientific data” on birth control my “scientific data” on birth control
Spermicides 99.997% Correct Used (4.50) Incorrect used (8.705)
Withdrawal 99.99% correct used (1.2%) Incorrect Used (8.80)
Male condom 99% Correct used (4.50%) Incorrect used (22.5 or 4.50%)
Pill 92% Correct Used (0.3%) Incorrect Used (2.40%)
He states the following:
“So if we want to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, we should encourage the use of implants, IUDs, and sterilization while discouraging the use of spermicides, withdrawal, condoms, and diaphragms. We can do so by selectively subsidizing the long-acting forms of contraception, educating women and men about the advantages of these forms of contraception, restricting abortion, and tort reform.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/northstar01.htm
Since Condoms, birth control pills, et all had such a large failure rates, than the federal government or the states should not included how to use a condom correctly since the women had a 99% chance of getting pregnant. He also believes that the federal government should spend more time emphasizing on the failure of condom since teaching how a condom should be use or its effectiveness is waste of time given that there is a 99% failure rates.
By funding selective forms of birth control, like abstinence only (since funding birth control and promoting condom used lead to more abortion because of their 99% failure rates) than we can lower the rates of abortion; we should also not fund effective birth control methods like IUD or sterilization (for the poor only) because there is a chance that she will get an abortion and because we cannot afford the money to get the courtroom drama that will ensure.
This is what I can get from his logic. Is my math incorrect or is his?
...if the number you are looking for is a statistical rate of failure. If the statistical rate of failure over one years is 2% (or 15%), then the statistical rate of failure over a period of years is STILL 2% (or 15%), assuming that the condoms continue to fail for 2 (or 15) out of 100 women.
1 year: 100 women + 2 failures = 2% rate of failure
2 years: 200 women + 4 failures = 2% rate of failure
3 years: 300 women + 6 failures = 2% rate of failure
etc...
Now, here's where the spin comes in. If you assume that ONE woman is having sex 100 times a year, the that woman will probably experience 2 condom failures (though not necessarily pregnancies, I might add). If she continues to have sex 100 times a year, over the course of many years, there is a high statistical probability (not 99%, but significant) that the woman will almost certainly experience at least ONE condom failure during her lifetime. If that same woman and her partners always use the condoms incorrectly (the least favorable scenario, and the one that the author had to use to arrive at the 99% figure, even with the questionable math), that still only equates to a 99% percent that the woman will experience ONE failure (not pregnancy) over that period.
The author of the article gets an "F" in statistical analysis. The comparison is invalid because the author is not comparing women in similar situations. If that same woman was having sex 100 times per year, but did not wear a condom at all, she would be experiencing a 100% failure for her "method" of birth control. That same failure rate would be in play even if she only had sex ONCE during the same period of measurement. The comparison only works if one assumes that the only two scenarios are A) a woman who has sex 100 times a year with condoms, but doesn't even use them correctly, and B) a woman who never has sex at all during the same period.
We can illustrate the author's assumption, thus...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think that I sort of got your math. Here is what I got:
100 (individuals) * 30 (years of sexual activity) = 3,000 * 2%
= (correct used) 60.00 (failures)
= 3,000 * 15%
= (Incorrect used) 450.00(failures)
Which means that 60 women out of 3,000 would had experience a failure of condoms if they used it correctly over a period of 30 years but if they used it incorrectly, than 450 couple out of 3,000 would had experience a failure of condom used over a period of 30 years.
"...across the thirty years that the typical American woman spends trying to thwart the natural workings of her reproductive system."
i bet this guy's diction would be different if he were the one trying to do the "thwarting."
...or if he were the one who had to undergo the invasive surgical sterilization technique he's promoting (if you're a woman without any children who can even FIND a doctor willing to perform the procedure). what about male sterlization?
I for one am sick of the double birth-control standard. eggs don't fertilize themselves.
the author is against that too because it do not work. Or so he said. So, women should not be taught about birth control at all, they should be ignorant because if they are informed about birth control that they will get an abortion given that there is a 99% failure rates.
This has been bugging the heck out of me. That's not how he did the math, and is an absolutely horrible way for you to do the math. What he did was as follows...
1 - 0.15 = 0.85
That is, take 15% from 1. You get 85% or 0.85. You then, by his method, raise this to the thirtieth POWER.
0.85^30 = 0.0076
Essentially, he's claiming that condoms are effective 85% of the time, and over 30 years, there would only be a total effectiveness of 0.76%, which is where he comes up with the 99% failure rate. This, as Blackout mentions, is an absolutely horrible statistical analysis.
Of course, we have to remember that even though the condom may break, that doesn't necessarily mean that the girl will get pregnant. There's a lovely little thing called cycles, and a woman is only fertile for a couple days each month. If you're lucky and the condom breaks during that time, yes, she may end up pregnant (again, may... she could self-abort before she even knows she was pregnant, as many pregnancies end this way).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Thanks for the equation. I did not get how he got his statistic about the math but I do think that 99% failure rates is a little to high.
In other words, he got his "statistic" correct only because of the creative math that he used.
I agree, just because the condom fail do not means that:
1. she will get an abortion
2. become pregnant
3. could of naturally aborted the fetilized egg
4. choose to keep the child.
So, I wrote to the website telling them that I question that math of the author who said that condom and birth control had a failure rate of 99% and they respond by saying this:
"In my 18 years of education -- Kindergarten through graduating as an
Engineering Physicist, I only failed three topics. One of them was
Statistics in University.
But it seems to me that the appropriate method of computing the failure
rate of condoms is to take the probability of *avoiding* pregnancy
during the first year (0.85 according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute),
multiply it by probability of *avoiding* pregnancy during the second
year (0.85 according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute), and continuing
for a total of thirty years. That is the chance of avoiding pregnancy is
0.85 raised to the 30th power. This is something like 0.008
The failure rate is then 100.0 - 0.008 = 99%
I think that his number is approximately correct."
Wow, will I am applying back to the website that they should also apply other scenario to the math or try a better forms of math.
I think if you don't want a pregnancy, you don't have sex...
I do not want a pregnancy... My husband would be pissed and very sad if he could never have sex again.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out.
~T