301–310 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To minimize the risk of failure. Same reason why you'd have a backup parachute when you jump out of a plane even though you strictly only need one.
Sure, I get that. Grandparent mentioned fairness as driving factor though.
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…
Check out the CDC stats. Teenagers today are actually abstaining from sex at higher rates then ever before and the teen pregnancy rate has dropped by HALF over the course of the last 25 years. So tell me about the other magical time where there was more "self-control, discipline, and tradition" among teenagers than now? By the way, we've been controlling our fertility since the sexual revolution which started around…
Personally I consider immediately after having second child vasectomy, though if wife would agree I would do it already now (one child is more than enough for me) plus store sperm in bank just in case if changing mind, since I heard reversing vasectomy ain't that successful. Seem safer with 0.15-1% failure rate than this method.
I thought it was going to be a pill, we already have vasectomies.
1) Vasectomies are a surgical procedure, this is an injection. Opening up the male contraceptive market to those unwilling to undergo surgery but willing to get an injection is HUGE. 2) Surgery requires healing time, this doesn't. 3) The risk of injection is significantly less than the risk of surgery. 4) LARCs - Long Acting Reversible Contraception, those that work for an extended period of time without user action…
> 2) Surgery requires healing time, this doesn't.
> 3) The risk of injection is significantly less than the risk of surgery.
> 4) LARCs - Long Acting Reversible Contraception, those that work for an extended period of time without user action but are reversible when pregnancy is desired, are pretty much the holy grail of contraception. Currently we have IUDs and implants as the only LARCs. The Depo Provera shot is sorta-kinda LARC-ish, it requires user action 4 times a year. This is intended to be reversible with a second injection, eventually.
> 5) Adding more contraceptive options, especially for men, is pretty much never a bad idea. Choice is good. Even with all the options there are my spouse and I have not found not a single option that is ideal for us. THIS would be absolutely ideal for us and I'm stoked to hear about it.
> 6) Its much cheaper!
2) it's not like you would have that much sex after children it could not wait for healing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Definitely patronizing! Not only that, but even when a woman is in obvious pain and having issues which only a hysterectomy will solve (ovarian cysts) - if she is under 30 or so, they won't give it to her. My wife and I made the decision not to have children a long time ago. In the meantime, she's had times where she went into the hospital ER for pain caused by ovarian cysts. She attempted to inquire about a hysterec…
and yes i am aware you could sue such doctor or hospital, bit it's just too much have to force someone to do something they don't wanna do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Really? I went to a clinic that specialized in it, and there was no problem at all. No patronizing, very comfortable, made sure I was aware of the difficulty of reversal, but made no effort to dissuade me. The operation itself was very professional and fast and other than a few days of soreness during recovery, there were no adverse effects after a week. Though this was in a major urban area.
i am more worried about cost of freezing sperm since i am relatively young and you never know
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A problem in the US is that the company that wants to sell this is the company that needs to pay for the studies required to make it legal. However because it is so cheap, it's difficult for the company to make a profit. The same thing can be found with many supplements. For example, N-acetylcysteine has shown to be helpful in several forms of addiction and mood disorders, but because it is so cheap, no company will…
> However because it is so cheap, it's difficult for the company to make a profit. Why does it have to be cheap for the consumer? They can charge $5k for this (honestly a bargain) even if the gel and syringe cost $5 to make. Isn't that what patents are for?
It shames me to think that we have a for-profit healthcare system.
This is big. This is the future of contraception, because it works, it's incredibly cheap, it has (almost?) no side effects. All current solutions are a joke. Hormone-based contraception feels like something from the middle ages. It has serious side effects, it has "harmless" side effects that aren't even related to the pill anymore after years of intake, but still an annoyance (migraine, headaches, yeast infections,…
That's only if you have some outdated religious beliefs (to put it kindly).
If you look at nature ~50% (various research points to 40% to 60%) of fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's menstruation cycle. So half are lost without attaching to the uterine wall and anybody noticing it.
There is also IVF that fertilizes many more eggs then end up being used / viable.
So the whole ethical concern about copper IUDs and preventing nidation is a misguided at best. And more realistically, it is a harmful and outdated belief clocked in arbitrary religious rules ... meant to exert control over women and families.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thinking may be adversarial but it's equally valid. That you think you are in a trusting relationship doesn't mean that trust is well-placed or even mutual. It's not an either-or question. Both statements about male contraception are true: it relieves women of the responsibility (by allowing couples to decide to place the burden on the man) but it also gives control to men that previously only women had.
Giving men power of their own birth control does not lessen the power women have, except in the case of coerced trust (i.e., "trust that I have birth control since it's now possible, even though I really don't"), or in the case of wanting the power to deny contraception, which I think many would agree seems unethical, given the legal responsibilities men have to their offspring.
Yes, lying about contraception in order to trick a man into getting you pregnant is unethical, but it's not unheard of. Women are humans (duh), some humans do unethical things, some of those humans are women, using pregnancy as leverage.
Personally I wouldn't think this behaviour is very widespread (although I have heard women joke about it being an option -- not implying any of them would actually consider it) but considering the significance of the consequences, I think it's understandable why some men might value this risk far greater than its actual prevalence would suggest, regardless of whether this risk assessment is rational or not. The tired meme of the poisoned M&M springs to mind.
Sounds like interesting option, but 98% efficiency seem pretty unreliable, so I will still be at risk 2 times out of 100 intercourses when not counting other factors. Personally I consider immediately after having second child vasectomy, though if wife would agree I would do it already now (one child is more than enough for me) plus store sperm in bank just in case if changing mind, since I heard reversing vasectomy…
Efficacy for contraceptives is almost always measured per year. That is, of every 100 couples using this method for a year, two will become pregnant. As the article says, this is about the same level as (perfect use of) condoms.