My educated guess would be not a lot.
1 in 10 Americans takes antidepressants. Something like 30% of sexually active women use hormonal birth control. Those don't seem like small numbers to me.
And 44% of Americans eat fast food at least once a week. I'm not saying there aren't people whose obesity was strongly influenced by medication, merely that there are so many other, more powerful influences in the US contributing to obesity that side effects of medication are likely a small factor.
I wonder if that was scripted or if Adam West just went for it.
This has been making me giggle for the last 10 minutes.
"Oh I'm sorry... I thought you were Robin."
As someone who's been off his medication for years and STILL can't lose the weight, I'm really getting a kick out of this. Short of exercising myself until I collapse or cutting my portions drastically enough that I'm angry and irritable 24/7, I can't seem to make a dent in my weight.
See, two doctors have told me that birth control weight gain is so negligible that it doesn't make a difference and really doesn't affect most women. And if it does, it's temporary...not that it isn't a tempting excuse.
Maybe not most women, but for those who it does affect, thyroid problems and a lot of weight gain. Not worth it when there are much better alternatives that aren't well known because companies can't make money off of something that you only need once every 10 years.
To the best of my knowledge, hormonal birth control (at least "The Pill") also works by preventing implantation (it fools the body into thinking it is pregnant, thereby thickening the uterine wall and discouraging implantation of any Johnny-come-lately zygotes), so I'm not sure there's much of a distinction.
From the comments thread:
It's primary function is to prevent ovulation, so that there is nothing to fertilize. Secondary is to in fact prevent implantation. Really none of them work if you have a moral objection to it, except maybe condoms.PatrThom said:To the best of my knowledge, hormonal birth control (at least "The Pill") also works by preventing implantation (it fools the body into thinking it is pregnant, thereby thickening the uterine wall and discouraging implantation of any Johnny-come-lately zygotes), so I'm not sure there's much of a distinction. Sorry.
It's not the loss of eggs which is the debated issue, but rather the loss of zygotes.
Well, even if the Roman Catholic Church isn't, there are still the protestant groups that follow the "quiver full" theology. Referencing a scripture passage that says, roughly, "children are a gift from God, blessed are those with a quiver full of them", these groups claim that any attempts to avoid pregnancy, within a marriage, are a sin. For them it's not just about viewing a fertilized egg as a human life, they view every pregnancy as a miraculous work of God, the refusal of which is tantamount to rejecting God himself. No rhythm method, no condoms, no sterilization, etc., etc. I've seen some even argue that women who are at high risk of dying from a pregnancy are sinning by having their tubes tied because they don't trust God to keep them alive despite imminent risk of kidney failure. There are some real fanatical whackos out there when it comes to sex and reproduction.
stienman: *sneezes*
Catholics technically are only allowed to use the rhythm method. I had to sit through the Pre-Cana classes to get married in a Catholic Church and I definitely spent 75% of the time elbowing my husband in the ribs.Ravenpoe said:
dude shoots ecto-sperm if he doesnt take his allegra...
Fascinating, in the worst way. I'm sorry to hear that :\
That stink you smell is actually a powerful mind-controlling agent he secretes through his skin.
Not that I could tell.
Does he kind of sound like Brent Spiner trying to be an asshole?
