Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

scitechdaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 173 posts

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#161

Post by throwaway00893 »

timmg wrote: post #4

In Western countries and in Asia, fertility rates are pretty (edit: low) these days. I fear they would collapse with the introduction of a male fertility pill. In some sense, maybe that's not bad. The world is probably overpopulated. But if fertility drops too fast it creates real demographics problems in that few young people need to support many old people.

Good! One of our collective goals as a species should be to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies to 0. Nobody should be a parent unless they want to be. Every child deserves loving parents who made the choice to have kids.

We will get there eventually. Nothing will stop scientific progress.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#162

Post by throwaway00893 »

ada1981 wrote: post #142
cik2e wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "expected" is the right word when a) it's the only option and b) women suffer most of the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. I guess there are child support for males wrt to (b), which could very well incentivize the use of a male pill.

Men can get vasectomies. But the basic point is that, it’s only even considered a possible option for men if there are no side effects. Yet all forms of birth control for women have side effects.

Men can get a vasectomy, if they are 100% sure they don't want kids, ever.

Women can get a copper IUD with no hormonal side effects inserted in a few minutes and will be protected against pregnancy for up to 10 years (or can opt to have it removed at any time).

If pregnancy occurs, women can just order pills online [0] that will stop it (as long as they detect it in the early stages). Men have no control in the matter. If a woman decides to go forth with a pregnancy against the man's will, he can either abandon his child and have his wages garnished for 18 years, or accept his new situation and become a father.

To be clear, I think the idea that a woman's partner should have any control over whether she gets an abortion is absurd. But women clearly have the advantage when it comes to reproductive choices right now. I hope male birth control pills can help change that.

[0] https://www.plancpills.org/

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#163

Post by jtc331 »

XorNot wrote: post #19
jtc331 wrote: post #15

Interesting that they don’t mention vasalgel.

Probably because I've been hearing about it for a decade and it's gone nowhere? Conspiracy whatever, given the normal effects of vasectony (sensitization of the immune system to sperm) I suspect that's been the problem with it.

My understanding is that RISUG (similar) is in late phase human clinical trials in India. Lack of that issue (sensitization of immune system) was supposed to be one of the benefits of RISUG, right?

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#164

Post by motohagiography »

darkerfire wrote: post #132
motohagiography wrote: post #124

Birth control pills for men are great and all, but there is an aspect to it where having kids would require both parents' stated preferences and revealed preferences to align, and that sounds like some interesting relationship game theory.

Sounds more like the game was and is no more. Let's be honest, not a lot of men try to trick their partners into unexpected pregnancies. Edit: oh I guess you mean that men will pretend they're not taking the pill while they are. I agree with you then.

Given both sexes have multiple options for reliable birth control, there is no serendipidy, accidents, or "fate," which previously means at least one of them has to own the decision of being open to the likelihood of conception. Adding a male birth control pill means both have to actively decide to forego birth control to concieve. From a probability perspective, one person "forgetting," can happen, but both? In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, "not bloody likely."

I would forsee the impact of a male pill as, at absolute minumum, a decimation of replacement level fertility, if not a total evolutionalry select-out of cultures and populations that adopted it. Males who inevitably moralize not propagating will necessarily die off from a genetic perspective. Nice to have the option as a teenager, but in aggregate, as a strategy it seems unwise.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#165

Post by CodeShmode »

recuter wrote: post #144
burnoutgal wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever read about what it's like to get an IUD inserted? I would recommend checking that out and then asking whether a small injection to the genitals is really the worst possibility.

I'm sure nothing could be worse. You're welcome to volunteer to get either procedure, both, or neither. I would recommend elective medical procedures stay optional.

I've heard someone say the pain from inserting an IUD was so great they backed out halfway through the procedure.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#166

Post by recuter »

CodeShmode wrote: post #165
recuter wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure nothing could be worse. You're welcome to volunteer to get either procedure, both, or neither. I would recommend elective medical procedures stay optional.

I've heard someone say the pain from inserting an IUD was so great they backed out halfway through the procedure.

An ex-gf of mine gently flicked my gonads once without warning, that was no picnic either. Luckily, just like an IUD, it isn't mandatory. Horses for courses.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#167

Post by ada1981 »

throwaway00893 wrote: post #162
ada1981 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men can get vasectomies. But the basic point is that, it’s only even considered a possible option for men if there are no side effects. Yet all forms of birth control for women have side effects.

Men can get a vasectomy, if they are 100% sure they don't want kids, ever. Women can get a copper IUD with no hormonal side effects inserted in a few minutes and will be protected against pregnancy for up to 10 years (or can opt to have it removed at any time). If pregnancy occurs, women can just order pills online [0] that will stop it (as long as they detect it in the early stages). Men have no control in the matte…

IUDs arent without side effects and I’ve heard horror stories from women.

Also, morning after pills are also not without side effects.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#168

Post by plasticchris »

pessimizer wrote: post #88
plasticchris wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read an article about how immigrants (to the us) working in elder care were more culturally suited than Americans to the work, having more respect for old age. So it might be just the opposite, or perhaps respect for elders is a consequence of the demographic shift over time? Or just correlated?

> I just read an article about how immigrants (to the us) working in elder care were more culturally suited than Americans to the work Immigrants to the US are more financially suited than Americans to the work. Same goes for immigrants in almost any country, or women, or minorities, or anyone who is willing to take a small amount of money for a lot of work. They have various and diverse cultures, just like native-bo…

There is certainly a dystopian angle there, but my point was about the implication that having kids is necessary for this specific need.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#169

Post by slothtrop »

GekkePrutser wrote: post #152
slothtrop wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read this - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on...

The "if we don't have many kids the bad guys become a bigger group" is precisely the attitude with which we will never solve these problems. We have to stop this thinking of it being a race where we have to keep ahead of others. We have to work together or we will never solve our environmental issues. And the thing about a kid emitting 1 ton CO2 per year is nonsense. Just bringing your kid on one international roundt…

This was barely coherent and mostly doesn't touch on what the article purports.

The growth rate in your western country is pegged, as a matter of policy. It's met through immigration. Whether you have kids or not is neither here nor there; they will meet their target (note that carbon footprints are high in the West, and low in 3rd world countries, to the extent that marginal differences in growth in the 3rd world are irrelevant). This will subside when the global growth rate falters, which is already projected to happen. This can be accelerated by a) improving universal access to contraceptives, and b) improving 3rd world economies through trade and just regulation. In the interim we still need to improve efficiencies in the short-run to curb carbon emissions immediately. Obviously, not having kids has zero impact on this either. Innovations like renewables, seaweed-infused animal feed, etc are entering the market and will help bridge the gap, made possible through political will and investment from the financial sector in the order of trillions.

Don't have kids if you don't want them, surely. But don't pretend it makes a dent in the environmental crusade, and by extension, don't judge parents for a natural desire to start a family.

Re: New Male Birth Control Pill Effectively Prevents Pregnancy Without Side Effects

#170

Post by Mirioron »

everdrive wrote: post #27
Mirioron wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other strategies are clearly not working though. Birth rates have at best stayed steady or declined.

The rough transition aside, would it be so bad to return to lower population levels? The only thing I'm sad about is that I won't live to see the population decline rather than increase.

As a species on the planet? No, there's nothing bad about it. But it's going to be bad politically. It will shake up the power of countries when population numbers change and no country wants to give to power.
Post reply on HN