• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Male birth control

new question:

how does it coat the inside of the vas deferens if it is injected into the penis, since the vas deferens is not in the penis? ****ty article with very little useful information. I know I'd want to see some significant test data from "field studies" before I would trust it.
 
I would not get an injection into my penis as a form of male contraception :shrug:
 
OscarB63 said:
new question:

how does it coat the inside of the vas deferens if it is injected into the penis, since the vas deferens is not in the penis? ****ty article with very little useful information. I know I'd want to see some significant test data from "field studies" before I would trust it.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in this thread someone posted an article related to it on a scientific level which goes more in depth - yes, the op article is crap.
 
Oh ****... I realized if I ever worked in retail/community pharmacy I may have to give these injections to patients that don't want to inject themselves.
 
Aberration said:
When all the power of choice is with you, so then should all the responsibility.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. If the men have no say in the matter...why should they bear any of the responsibility?

I guess it is one of those things that fall under the umbrela of "life isn't fair...deal with it" ;)

with great power comes great responsibility
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Somewhere in this thread someone posted an article related to it on a scientific level which goes more in depth - yes, the op article is crap.
Click to expand...

from the posted article

It involves a minor surgical procedure in which the vas deferens is exposed and pulled outside the scrotum by the same techniques used for a vasectomy.
Click to expand...

so, contrary to the ****ty article in the OP...it is not "injected into the penis". it's a surgical procedure most likely performed under general anasthesia. so, in addtiton to being ****ty and containing little useful information, the information given in the OP article is also incorrect.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Women who want to avoid having kids go through extreme and bizarre measures to see to it - why do you think some men wouldn't be the same way?

Some people will do anything to avoid having kids - anything. Women, for centuries, have altered their diets, had abortions, and inserted odd objects and chemicals into their bodies to prevent or end pregnancy.

Why wouldn't some men be willing to do the same? To me it just seems natural that they would be willing to do so.

If I was a man not wanting kids I'd imagine that having to trust the other to take the pill or go in for the shot routinely to be very nerve wracking - a lack of knowledge and control. Just blind trust. I know that a lot of men end up being fathers in that exact way - if it was up to them they would have taken the pill, I'm sure.

I'm a woman and because of complications during pregnancy/childbirth in the past the idea of getting pregnant again is terrifying. . .I don't find it hard to imagine that some men are the same way.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'd hate to be a man for that reason. No control.

It isn't that it's a man's responsibility to take on birth control. That is up to the couple to decide.

Rather, it's that I can't imagine why a man wouldn't take responsibility for his own desire not to have children, especially knowing that once that process has begun, he has no control. I sure as hell wouldn't leave that to chance if I were a man.

It has nothing to do with the man being obligated. I just don't know why a man wouldn't, if he feels strongly about not having kids.
 
OscarB63 said:
statistically speaking...you are more likely to get an STD than to create an unwanted pregnancy. I don't like this thing. seems like all it will do is promote even more promiscuity, which is the primary reason there are so damn many STDs floating around in the first place.
Click to expand...

False. Having sex in a stupid way is the reason we have STD's floating around.

Your logic doesn't follow. The developed world is the most promiscuous, yet it has the lowest rate of STD's.

Furthermore, America is not especially promiscuous among developed nations. Most of Europe is more promiscuous. And yet, the US has the highest rate of STD's in the developed world.

Promiscuous sex doesn't cause STD's. Stupid sex does.

If you are tested and make sure your partners are too, you could have sex with 1,000 people and never catch a thing.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
It has nothing to do with the man being obligated. I just don't know why a man wouldn't, if he feels strongly about not having kids.
Click to expand...

He's only obligated because the law makes him obligated. If the law didn't, then men could afford to trust when women said they were infertile.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
He's only obligated because the law makes him obligated. If the law didn't, then men could afford to trust when women said they were infertile.
Click to expand...

True, and I wish that weren't the case.

But even then, imagining myself as a man who is as childfree as I am as a woman, I would still feel a strong urge to prevent pregnancy as much as possible just to have some sort of control over the circumstances of my reproduction, because I know that the woman has all the power after the fact, and I would have no intention of trying to coerce that away from her.

I would still want to see her paperwork. :shrug:
 
The old theory of why the man has to pay regardless is because someone has to pay and if the man doesn't, then society has to and why should society pay for a man making a child? It isn't about the man OR the woman, it is about the child.

I heard a family judge once furiously tells both bitterly arguing over money bio-parents in regards to child financial issues: "I absolutely don't care about either of you financially, I only care about the children."
 
joko104 said:
The old theory of why the man has to pay regardless is because someone has to pay and if the man doesn't, then society has to and why should society pay for a man making a child? It isn't about the man OR the woman, it is about the child.
Click to expand...

In other words, society infringes upon a man's reproductive rights in order to save itself money on welfare benefits. Except it doesn't work, and the system itself encourages more paternity fraud and out-of-wedlock births, thus costing it money in welfare.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
In other words, society infringes upon a man's reproductive rights in order to save itself money on welfare benefits. Except it doesn't work, and the system itself encourages more paternity fraud and out-of-wedlock births, thus costing it money in welfare.
Click to expand...

That is what happens when you let emotion dictate policies.
 
jambalaya said:
I am really surprised it has taken this long to develop a reliable male birth control treatment.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about...abstinence has been around since forever.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's in phase-II . . . but still highly experimental. Science-Based Medicine » RISUG: Birth Control for Men

With a claimed longevity human-trials are going to take quite a bit of time to work through.




The average male's response to anything other than condoms being used by a male is - interesting . . . all burden falls to the female. Why is it ok to tinker with her hormones, estrogen and ovaries but men are off limits?

Too precious :)

Too valuable :)

LOL - oh please. . . the coins go into the coin purse and are deposited in to the bank . . . it's all the same in the end.
Click to expand...
It's her body, is why. She takes the most risk, so she bears the most responsibility.
 
Jerry said:
It's her body, is why. She takes the most risk, so she bears the most responsibility.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Oh there you go! I knew it was in you - how long did it take you to finally admit that you feel the man has much less responsibility even though it's his sticky spunk that makes it happen?

Do you think that also divides parental responsibilities - since she carried it and she birthed it it's all mostly her responsibility?

I plead the 5th on the rest of my thoughts. . . but I knew that's exactly how you thought about it all and never wanted to say it until now.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
:rofl:

Oh there you go! I knew it was in you - how long did it take you to finally admit that you feel the man has much less responsibility even though it's his sticky spunk that makes it happen?

Do you think that also divides parental responsibilities - since she carried it and she birthed it it's all mostly her responsibility?

I plead the 5th on the rest of my thoughts. . . but I knew that's exactly how you thought about it all and never wanted to say it until now.
Click to expand...
Well I've been saying it on this forum for years.
 
Jerry said:
Well I've been saying it on this forum for years.
Click to expand...

Apparently I get a thrill out of you telling me explicitly and directly and not by means of some textual tango with tigger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom