How is a heart attack better than having a baby?

[ Serious as well as minor side effects have been reported with the use of oral contraceptives. Serious risks, which can be life threatening, include blood clots, stroke and heart attacks. Some women should not use the Pill, including women who have blood clots, certain cancers, a history of heart attack or stroke, as well as those who are or may be pregnant. The Pill does not protect against HIV or sexually transmitted diseases. ]

First question: don't people realize that pills are actually usually more life threatening than condoms?

Second: They don't actually offer any sexual protection at all, and completely open up your immune system. Why not an abortion instead? It's SAFER!

Third: Some brands are known to cause CANCER. How is cancer better than having a baby?

Fourth: What is so bad about periods that you would rather have blood clots than a normal cycle?
I was being sarcastic with the "Safer" thing.
I would worry more about hamburgers, but even children understand that hamburgers are bad for you. Most women ignore the side effects of a pill.

Written By Evie Neumann

{ 1 comment… add one }
  • Riveting Rosie January 19, 2009, 12:13 am

    This question is so full of crazy I don't even know where to start. For one thing, you are much, much more likely to die from complications of pregnancy than hormonal birth control.

    Furthermore, hormonal birth control does not cause cancer. In fact, it is linked to an overall *lower* risk of cancer. Oral contraceptives have been proven to reduce rates of endometrial and ovarian cancer by 50% or more. This benefit increases with duration of use and persists for up to 20 years after oral contraceptives are stopped.

    Hormonal birth control has no effect on the immune system.

    It is true that condoms have less risk of serious side-effects, but they are also less effective at preventing pregnancy.