condom split, whats the chances

Bufger

I'm now struggling to see how any of this past page 4 is of any help to the OP.

Now its covered cervical smear tests for Nuns, the rights and wrongs on parents applying pressure and just about everything else under the sun.

Will any of this tangential information help the OP save money in any way?
Will any of it now help her with her original quandry?

Nope. Seperate threads should be opened if these topics are being discussed further (although i still fail to see why any of us want to know if Nuns have smears or not).

a8amg

kindofagilr wrote: »

Then why is the legal age for sex 16?

Because the law is WRONG... and needs to change

digitalphase

Blimey, this thread has gone off onto a Hell of a tangent! :rotfl:

Shelldean

right I've NOT yet read the full thread just the first OP.

I have an 11 yr old, he was concieved on xmas night 1997. This was the night the condom split. I really didn't want any more kids, already had three, who at that time were just 5 and twins of just over 2. I'd also suffered badly with PND after the birth of the twins, the thought of another baby filled me with dread. So much so that we spent several hours in A & E on boxing day waiting for the morning after pill. When they give you the pill they advice you that it is NOT 100% effective. My son is the proof it isn't.

Shelldean

To the orignal OP
I have now read it and I think you've done the right thing.
I've got three boys and I'd have done the same thing. We've already discussed "things" with my twins who are almost 15. And by things I mean that every action has a consquence, and unwanted babies etc. Not because I believe they;re active but because I want them to be prepared. I also made the first move in case they didn;t want to approach me or their dad. I've also told them that if for any reason they dont feel comfy talking to me thats fine but to PLEASE speak to someone any adult they are comfy with. This is for everything in life, and it works well ( they're VERY close to their aunt my sis)

I really hope everything works out for everyone concerned xx

miss_independent

clairec79 wrote: »

Nuns are still offered smear tests unless they specifically ask to the taken off the list if you have a cervix you are offered the smear tests regardless
HPV may be the most common cause of cervical cancer it isn't the only cause

I know it is off topic and not of much help to the OP but nuns are offered smear tests because some nuns have been sexually active before they enter orders. Some nuns are even mothers of grown up children! So they are probably still offered smear tests because it would be wrong to assume that all nuns are virgins as, if they are not, they could still develop cervical cancer.

OP, I'm sorry you and your family were in this situation. I hope things are now resolved. Luckily, despite what I was fed about contraception at school, I realised as a teen that the only 100% effective form of avoiding pregnancy was to not have sex until I was ready to have children - my cousin fell pregnant as a teenager after a condom split and we knew people for whom the pill didn't work. The way I dealt with things may seem old-fashioned and I did fear what people my own age would think of me but I knew that I didn't believe in abortion and I also knew I wasn't ready to be a mum, so despite it not being easy, it was the route I took. If it was my daughter I'd be heartbroken to know she was going through this, especially if she would rather discuss it with someone elses mother.

CelticStar

I agree with the posters who said earlier that there is an unpleasant smell of coercion approval on this thread. It is just not on to threaten to tell a girl's parents if she doesn't take the morning after pill, just because it doesn't suit you to have your son 'lumbered' with a child.

The girl in question needed impartial advice, not her boyfriend telling her that if she did not attend an appointment for a MAP then his mother would be informing her parents. This was an abuse of trust on both your parts TBH, there are more decent ways to go about things than putting pressure on someone who is in quite a vulnerable position.

Some of the posts on this this thread are quite shocking, particularly as they come from women. It seems the right for a woman to choose what to do with regard to her own body is ok - until she is the girlfriend of your son. If this is how women think about other women and treat other women we will never achieve equality, it's pretty depressing.

SugarSpun

Torry_Quine wrote: »

An abortifacient ends a life and yes people can disagree as to when life begins but that doesn't change the simple fact that for many people it is an abortifacient.

Can't we at least agree that we take different but equally sincere viewpoints?

I understand that you believe that life begins at the point fertilisation occurs, and I'm not arguing that point with you. My problem is purely that you're using medical terminology incorrectly. A pregnancy is established in medical terms when the fertilised egg implants in the uterine wall. Before then no abortion can take place because no pregnancy has been established.

You can say that you don't believe in the use of the MAP because you believe that life begins before the medical definition, but I'm sure you understand just how emotive the terms abortion and abortifacient are, and how they might mislead people who don't understand the mechanics of how it all works.

Imp

SugarSpun wrote: »

I understand that you believe that life begins at the point fertilisation occurs, and I'm not arguing that point with you. My problem is purely that you're using medical terminology incorrectly. A pregnancy is established in medical terms when the fertilised egg implants in the uterine wall. Before then no abortion can take place because no pregnancy has been established.

You can say that you don't believe in the use of the MAP because you believe that life begins before the medical definition, but I'm sure you understand just how emotive the terms abortion and abortifacient are, and how they might mislead people who don't understand the mechanics of how it all works.

People who work in specialisations, such as science, medicine, history, finance etc. take words from the English language and, to improve the communication within the specialisation, narrow the meaning of the word to a very specific thing. They are then at risk of criticizing the use of the word in its original, more general context. In this case there seems to be some argument about the meaning of "abortion" when it is either used in the medical sense or the theological sense. Both, I am sure, are 100% correct.

SugarSpun

Imp wrote: »

People who work in specialisations, such as science, medicine, history, finance etc. take words from the English language and, to improve the communication within the specialisation, narrow the meaning of the word to a very specific thing. They are then at risk of criticizing the use of the word in its original, more general context. In this case there seems to be some argument about the meaning of "abortion" when it is either used in the medical sense or the theological sense. Both, I am sure, are 100% correct.

I would agree, of course.

The problem arises when someone from one specialised area tries to impose the specific meaning of a word from that area onto another. A theological abortion, meaning the forcible evacuation of a blastocyte that had not implanted into the uterine wall (and hence had not begun a medical pregnancy but had begun a theological life), is not the same as a medical abortion, being the ending of a pregnancy (an implanted blastocyte). But if someone talks about the medical side using the theological term, confusion arises and people who maybe don't understand that the word "abortion" might be being used in a non-medical way might be misled into doing - or more to the point not doing - something that if they had the full facts they wouldn't be opposed to.

For the record, I'm not necessarily in favour of abortion, but I find lack of clarity to be a far more pervasive problem.