131–140 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy
not sure why this is downvoted. It highlights something very important.
The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
I can imagine the early adopters: male actors, athletes and other men of high social value as a way to enjoy sex without the chance of unwanted offspring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same could be said of female contraception, yet I don't see many people complaining about that. Why do you think that is?
Maybe because the side effects for female contraceptive pill are 99% lower than the ones for the male contraceptive "pill"? http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/30/health/male-birth-control/ I mean, one would think that anyone with the minimum sense of logical thinking would understand that it is way easier to prevent 1 (as one, singular) single egg to get fixated in the uterus during the course of 28 days, than to prevent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, there are a ton of people complaining that female contraception encourages people to have sex they shouldn't be having. It's not usually framed in terms of STDs, but I'm pretty sure the STD argument here is just a cover for a moralistic argument anyway.
How sad that arguing virtue for its own sake is now politically incorrect.
It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
Should I have children, I see myself walking my teenage son to the clinic to get this done. A rite of passage of sorts. It is difficult to understate the importance of bringing only wanted children into this world, and that both parents agree on it. The cultural importance of this invention will be revealed in time, I hope.
It's probably difficult because you don't have children and therefore lack the experience necessary to develop a comprehensive understanding of the topic. That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete. Not only am I adopted (thus not "wanted"), but neither of my children were planned and my wife and I initially couldn't agree. From my real world experience, and not speculation, it on…
No one is attempting to cast aside unwanted children. We're trying to prevent conception from happening in the first place for people who are not ready. In this sense, there would be no need for adoption (optimistically speaking), because the only children conceived were done so with intent. It takes out the whole, "Oh crap, I'm not ready aspect," (again, optimistically speaking), because both parties would have had to agree that they were attempting to have children.
To reiterate, this is optimistically speaking. There are always instances where parties agreed but then realize mid- or post-pregnancy that having a child isn't for them for any number of reasons. Contraceptives won't fix that. I'm not trying to trivialize your experience nor your feelings. I just think that you're addressing something completely different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy
Children are worse than the worst STD. You can live a pretty normal life with HIV, Syphilis, herpes, etc.
That said, you may be surprised to learn you can live a pretty normal life with a child.
- I'm not paying money to have needle injecting chemicals with unexplored potential (longterm) side effects into my private parts when the potential success rate is that of a condom. Condoms kind of work. - "The pill" is a bit more than just a contraceptive. A variety of issues, ranging from skin problems to hormonal imabalances are regulated through the pill, which quite efficiently normalizes outliers in female hor…
I have taken the pill for years I feel like I am ruining my body. I have side effects. I switched brands, I switched to the shot (that was much worse), every one is awful. I put up with it because I won't risk unwanted pregnancy. It's the less of two very evil evils.
You're also ignoring the large population of women who the pill is contraindicated for. It also requires regular doctor visits and requires you to to remember to take it.
I'm not saying it's great for some women, it certainly is. People also take it for non contraceptive reason. Not great for everyone and not for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the cultural "importance" will be revealed in time. However, I fear not in the way you intend. There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more. What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions. To divorce sex from children is to mi…
Marie Stopes would like a word with you from beyond the grave. Seriously, we've had modern birth control for a century. Not only has society not collapsed but a whole number of hidden evils have been abolished (Tuam passim), and needless poverty avoided. It's our perfect anti-Malthusian weapon. This is Hacker News in the 21st century. Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do things. I'm astonished that your comment…
Sex, just like fast food, television, any other diversion, is objectively a waste of time; or at very least an unproductive use of it when not intended for procreation. (I'm not preaching austerity here, not saying it's shameful or bad)
Additionally, the traditional family unit is on the decline of course and while I disagree with the anti-lgbt sentiment(among others) below this is a conversation that we need to be able to have as a society.
Demonstrably children in a single parent household have lower success rates academically and are at much higher risk for a variety of mental disorders.
Also demonstrably men and women who have had more sexual partners have higher rates of divorce and(of course) also lower marriage rates.
Historically we've evolved under the constraints of long-term single partner relationships in a stable home as the foundation for raising a child. We're changing that a lot, very fast on an evolutionary scale, I do think there are productivity and general well-being concerns about raising the next and current generation that should be talked about.
Anyway, this is all largely an aside; I think male contraceptives are a good thing, but I likely won't partake myself nor would I have my child do so unless he wanted to of his own volition.
Edit: By the way, I think you're a bit off because you've completely brushed his statement aside as esoteric and irrational, many people really do feel that way about sex/relationships and their opinion is just as valid as yours. I think he's a bit off for a few probably obvious things from his follow up.
I thought it was going to be a pill, we already have vasectomies.
They will not give you a vasectomy in the US as a young childless man. Something about 'changing your mind later'. It's very patronizing.
Though this was in a major urban area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you going to miss in life if you have children?
Ability to take risks (like starting a business or moving to a new city or country) is the biggest one. Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel