Good way of debating, let's try, your opinion on abortion.

[TheOgreMan]

I would never recommend or rely on the pull-out method. Merely pointing out, contrary to the implication a child leaving a sex education class is likely to have been given (that means you, fellows) pre-come does not contain viable sperm. Problems arrise from having sex multiple times in succession, of course failing to pull out, etc. Of course if you can back up your condescension with some sources that's another matter entirely.

...

This sort of well-meaning regurgitation of inferior sex education is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Is it really better to err on the side of caution than simply not err at all?

First, I've read the sources that Wikipedia there refers to. They aren't very good and are rather old, for journal articles. Also, you should include a waiver that the page isn't safe for work. Thanks for that surprise. :doh:

To your credit, however, I could not find any studies supporting my information. All I can say is that even your studies admit there are sperm cells in pre-ejaculate fluid, although most say they aren't as motile. I would argue, however, that their patients also aren't all healthy individuals as most of them are being tested for other "impurities" and the sperm counting was unplanned.

As for "inferior sex education"...well, most of what I say isn't from high school. Even college professors, two of which are MDs, that I have taken for anatomy and physiology teach that the pull out method isn't effective. I don't take the word of a high school coach teaching health/sex education on too much merit but I do trust those who know the field a good bit better.

TL;DR: I will concede the point as a draw as there is no hard evidence either way (unless you can show me something other than wikipedia).

 

[SaroDarksbane]

I'm actually going off of an old study that shows that natural latex is a porous material and there can be pores in intact condoms/gloves big enough for sperm to pass through. I checked up on it and the study has been shown to be untrue.

Obviously untrue. If they can stop the HIV virus, they can stop our little armies. :thumbup:

Not quite. 95% just means 1 in 20 women have a chance to become pregnant in a year's time.

Birth Control Methods

The index for the pill (with perfect use) is 0.3%, which as I understand it means that 0.3% of pill users will get pregnant over the course of the first year of use (we can assume this will get even lower in following years for a variety of reasons).

And on another note, the index for perfecting the pullout method is only 4%, which is much less dire than some would have you believe, although a 1 in 25 chance over the course of a year is still too high for my comfort. Plus, you know, it's not any fun at all. :whistling:

Women are only fertile for like 3-4 days out of the month and even then the chances are pretty small.

The pill (ostensibly) prevents ovulation, among other things.

No egg, no baby.

 

[Dondrei]

Doesn't matter if it's human, if it's inside a woman it can't override her rights. You don't have a right to free room and board.

I've never once seen a reason for not banning partial birth abortions, except that it would place a restriction on abortion.

You do realise that the ban on partial birth abortions has not stopped one single abortion? The very legal principle on which that ban was passed was that it would not do so.

Or when we debated the age of the earth. The bible says that the earth is 5000 years old and he believes that because it's you know. From the bible.

The really funny thing is that it doesn't.

You are vastly misinformed. For one: no birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective.

I guess celibate people murder the most babies then.