Originally Posted by Flubflow

It does rather amaze me, considering the 99% annual effectiveness of the pill, how so many more than 1% of women on the pill seem to have these "surprise" babies (based on a lot of couples that I know of). Someone must be lying and it's not the pharmacutical companies.

Originally Posted by greencreeper

I guess it's easy done though - you're half-asleep and instead of the pill you take one of the dog's worming tablets without knowing :shrug: Or you just "forget" and the next thing you know, triplets - are you likely to mention to your partner/husband that it's all your fault? :no:

Originally Posted by punky

AFAIK from what my ex told me, If you miss one day, you can take it as soon as you remember, continute with your dose and and you should be OK.

Originally Posted by punky

AFAIK from what my ex told me, If you miss one day, you can take it as soon as you remember, continute with your dose and and you should be OK.

Originally Posted by greencreeper

One of the many, many advantages of being gay is that you don't have to worry about female anatomy, including pregnancy :p:

Originally Posted by punky

True... but don't you have like a 50 times increased disk of contracting HIV? :erm:

I can't remember the exact figure but something like that. Condoms aren't totally infallible either :erm:

Originally Posted by andyl

From today's Guardian Legal pages:

"This item comes with a warning. It is legally fascinating and full of human emotion but not without its distasteful elements. It's about a new way of becoming a father, US-style. Here it is. Two doctors in Illinois have oral sex. Afterwards, Dr Sharon Irons, without telling Dr Richard Phillips, keeps the semen she took in orally and uses it to get pregnant. Two years later she brings a paternity suit against the unwitting sap, and wins a court order that he's the father; he now has to pay $800 a month upkeep for the child. (At least Bill Clinton escaped that.)

Phillips, understandably miffed at having to support the kid without even the pleasure of having been laid, returned to court with a wheeze of his own - accusing Irons of stealing his sperm and of causing him emotional distress, for which he demanded compensation. Her secret keeping of the semen was, Phillips said, a "calculated, profound personal betrayal"; he had trouble eating and sleeping and had "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare". His case was based on the premise that she had "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use the plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences".

Last week, an Illinois appeal court turned down his accusation of theft on her part and agreed with Irons's argument that, when he "delivered" his sperm to her, "it was a gift, an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee. There was no agreement that the original deposit [sic] would be returned upon request." (Is that "gift" tax-deductible, I wonder?) But the court did give him the go-ahead to pursue his claim for emotional distress."