Finally! Male Birth Control Pill in U.S.

[anthrogirl]

here's the story:




Since its introduction four decades ago, the birth control pill has not entirely lived up to its original hype: While it may have offered women sexual freedom, the pill has also introduced a number of hormone-related side effects and health issues—everything from intense mood swings to a possible risk of cancer. Though we're of course much better off than in the precarious days of the "rhythm" and "withdrawal" methods, birth control remains a stressful business: Should I stay with condoms, even though they're uncomfortable and fail 10 percent of the time? Should I risk the side effects and go on the pill? Should I resort to something as clumsy and dated as a diaphragm? But even with so many issues still on the table, one seems to have been long ago put to bed: Birth control is unquestionably a woman's responsibility.
Or is it? A remarkable new product is on its way that may make it possible to shift the burden of reproductive responsibility—gasp!— to men. Earlier this year, Dutch pharmaceutical giant Organon, along with Germany's Schering, announced that they expect their hormone-based contraceptive for men to hit the European market in as few as five years. Once that happens, it may only be another year or so before a U.S. debut. So, it will soon be possible for a man to avoid impregnating his partner by drastically lowering his sperm count. Unlike a vasectomy, the effect is temporary, completely reversible. And of course, the very notion is incredible: For over 30 years a "male pill" has been in various stages of development, but this is the first time serious drug money has backed it up.



please visit weblink for full story.

http://slate.com/id/2107558/



what do you think?

ag

[studyhound]

here's the story:




Since its introduction four decades ago, the birth control pill has not entirely lived up to its original hype: While it may have offered women sexual freedom, the pill has also introduced a number of hormone-related side effects and health issues—everything from intense mood swings to a possible risk of cancer. Though we're of course much better off than in the precarious days of the "rhythm" and "withdrawal" methods, birth control remains a stressful business: Should I stay with condoms, even though they're uncomfortable and fail 10 percent of the time? Should I risk the side effects and go on the pill? Should I resort to something as clumsy and dated as a diaphragm? But even with so many issues still on the table, one seems to have been long ago put to bed: Birth control is unquestionably a woman's responsibility.
Or is it? A remarkable new product is on its way that may make it possible to shift the burden of reproductive responsibility—gasp!— to men. Earlier this year, Dutch pharmaceutical giant Organon, along with Germany's Schering, announced that they expect their hormone-based contraceptive for men to hit the European market in as few as five years. Once that happens, it may only be another year or so before a U.S. debut. So, it will soon be possible for a man to avoid impregnating his partner by drastically lowering his sperm count. Unlike a vasectomy, the effect is temporary, completely reversible. And of course, the very notion is incredible: For over 30 years a "male pill" has been in various stages of development, but this is the first time serious drug money has backed it up.



please visit weblink for full story.

http://slate.com/id/2107558/



what do you think?

ag
Thats all we need!! A million guys with messed up hormones, you think were pathatic and winey when were sick just imagin us on a hormone swing :shutter:

:sh:

[themuzicman]

Vasectomy IS reversable, if you select the reversable option when you have it.

They install little valves that can be turned on and off with minor surgury.

Michael

[anthrogirl]

yes--vastectomy can be reversible--however, most young men are cautioned against the procedure. With the "male pill", younger people can enjoy the benefits of birth control--without the risk of surgery.

ag

[markporter]

hmm. Would be interested to see some stats on how effective it is

[mossrose]

Just think! This now offers the same sexual freedom to men as the original pill did for women 40 years ago!!

:woohoo:




















Please, give me a break. So called "sexual freedom" has brought us to the point in our society where STD's run rampant and unplanned pregnancies are terminated by the millions.

So, offering this pill to "younger people" will simply add to the problem. Maybe fewer pregnancies, if it works, but certainly more STD's, since the use of condoms would likely drop.

[anthrogirl]

don't be ridiculous, mossrose--many, many married couples have enjoyed enhanced sexual freedom since the introduction of the pill. if parents don't want younger people to have sex, then they should keep better track of their kids.

By "younger", I didn't mean children--I meant people in their 20s/30s.

sheesh.

ag

[mossrose]

I didn't think you meant children, ag. I knew you meant young adults. However, my thinking still stands.

This will only add to the promiscuity that is now rampant everywhere among unmarried people.

[anthrogirl]

birth control is not the source of promiscuity.

the shifting of cultural values is the source of promiscuity.



ag

[mossrose]

Birth control ADDS to promiscuity.

[themuzicman]

birth control is not the source of promiscuity.

the shifting of cultural values is the source of promiscuity.



ag

Birth control just removes one of the key deterrants.

Michael

[TCapp]

For a man, millions of sperm are produced per day. I can't imagine it would be good for his health to take chemicals that surpress that, in the long term.

[Esther]

Vasectomy IS reversable, if you select the reversable option when you have it.

They install little valves that can be turned on and off with minor surgury.

Michael

I seem to recall the urologist saying "irreversable". Maybe they only have on/off valves in G.R.

[themuzicman]

IT's a more recent development, I guess...although mine was done almost 10 years ago, and the doctor talked about it back then...

Michael

[anthrogirl]

Birth control ADDS to promiscuity.you're right. in fact, we should abolish contraception altogether. then most promiscuous sex would cease to exist.

good idea, moss.

ag

[Jimmy Higgins]

Birth control just removes one of the key deterrants.

MichaelI don't know. Getting HIV or The Clap still exists whether the sperm count is high or low. I don't think birth control helps too too much with the STD transmittal. Anyone that does shouldn't be intelligent enough to figure out to have sex in the first place.

Oh and Mossrose, could you please explain how birth control is related to STDs when say... Western Europe has drastically lower STD transmittal, abortion, teenage pregnancy rates than the US (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm)?

I mean, I don't want you to stop believing in your biased and wrong opinions, its just that, well... the numbers show a different story than you suggest.

[themuzicman]

Jimmy,

Go figure out what "one of" means.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy,

Go figure out what "one of" means.

MichaelOh good. Then you agree that the birth control for men isn't a bad thing then. Glad to see you on board. :smile:

[anthrogirl]

IMHO, Homone therapy is risky--whether it is for men or women.

ag

[themuzicman]

Oh good. Then you agree that the birth control for men isn't a bad thing then. Glad to see you on board. :smile:

In and of itself? No.

However the result of removing a deterrant to out-of-wedlock sex is bad thing, IMHO, especially when it's a guy saying, "Hey, I'm on the pill".

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

In and of itself? No.Glad you agree. I mean, it can't even be argued that its an abortion at any stage. The conception never happens! So it must be Christian Approved then. :thumb:


However the result of removing a deterrant to out-of-wedlock sex is bad thing,But it also removes a deterrant to wedlock sex as well!


...IMHO, especially when it's a guy saying, "Hey, I'm on the pill".

MichaelHmm. But STD transmittal still exists. That should be the controlling deterrant. And you say deterrant as if these things exist because of god to keep people from having sex.

[Jimmy Higgins]

IMHO, Homone therapy is risky--whether it is for men or women.

agSounds like its the guys' turn now for the therapy. :teeth:

[anthrogirl]

Glad you agree. I mean, it can't even be argued that its an abortion at any stage. The conception never happens! So it must be Christian Approved then. :thumb:.
jimmy,

chill out--this thread is not a "let's pick on christians" thread. and it's definitely not an abortion thread. please be more respectful--


ag

[themuzicman]

But it also removes a deterrant to wedlock sex as well!

You're kidding, right?


Hmm. But STD transmittal still exists. That should be the controlling deterrant. And you say deterrant as if these things exist because of god to keep people from having sex.

No, it's a deterrant because sex comes with the risk of pregnancy. In marriage, that's generally not a bad thing. Outside of marriage, it generally IS a bad thing.

Yes, the risk of STDs is another key deterrant. Never said it wasn't.

MIchael

[Jimmy Higgins]

jimmy,

chill out--this thread is not a "let's pick on christians" thread. and it's definitely not an abortion thread. please be more respectful--


agSorry anthrogirl, but birth control and abortion to many of these people are one and the same thing. And if I were going to pick on themuzicman, I'd call him a "Doo Doo Head." :wink:

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're kidding, right?

No, it's a deterrant because sex comes with the risk of pregnancy. In marriage, that's generally not a bad thing. Outside of marriage, it generally IS a bad thing.
No, no I'm not. What would I be kidding about. The pregnancy issue regarding a married couple still exists. Every time a married couple has sex doesn't mean they want to have a child and that if the wife becomes pregnant, that the pregnancy is a desired one.

So this treatment, if the hormonal side effects are neglible, will help married couples avoid undesired pregnancies. I mean this is why birth control was forced on America in the first by those radicals on the US Supreme Court in 1965 in Griswold v Connecticut, stating:Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.


Yes, the risk of STDs is another key deterrant. Never said it wasn't.

MIchaelThen why are you concentrating on the pregnancy issue? This treatment is not creating no danger sex. And if transmitting disease, that can kill ya, is not a strong enough deterrent, then do you really think pregnancy worries them that much?

[anthrogirl]

Sorry anthrogirl, but birth control and abortion to many of these people are one and the same thing. And if I were going to pick on themuzicman, I'd call him a "Doo Doo Head." :wink:
no prob.

some people do use abortion in a similiar way that others use contraception. the problem with the more militant pro-life groups is that they assume that this is the case with every woman who seeks an abortion.

at any rate, i am interested to hear male reactions to this new drug--

hey guys: would you consider taking the "male pill"?

ag

[Jimmy Higgins]

no prob.

some people do use abortion in a similiar way that others use contraception. the problem with the more militant pro-life groups is that they assume that this is the case with every woman who seeks an abortion.Actually I was speaking about treatments that inhibit the conceived zygote from implanting on the Uterean (sp?) wall such as the Day after pill, and the typical "birth control" pills. They consider that abortion... and thereby evil. However, with this new treatment, there is no conception at all. I'll be interested in seeing their reaction.


at any rate, i am interested to hear male reactions to this new drug--

hey guys: would you consider taking the "male pill"?

agWell, it depends on how the stuff works and what they mean by temporarily inhibits sperm production.

[anthrogirl]

well, that's a good project for you, jimmy: look into the biological pathways that cause this pill to work, then report back to us...

ag

[Patroclus]

hey guys: would you consider taking the "male pill"?

ag

Sure, in the right circumstances. I am one of those guys who just assumes staying chaste until marriage, but I cannot declare that my reasons are fully righteouss. I am deathly afraid of disease, and I would be embarrassed to bring a disease like that into a marriage. I want to limit the number of kids in my future and, at this point, hypothetical marriage. So, a pill sounds good to me. Will it clear up my complexion?

On another note, I am a firm believer in "stupid is as stupid breeds." Above all, stupid people should use contraception, married or not.

All joking aside, I think that if people are going to have sex and do not want kids, they should use any means of contraception at their disposal.

[themuzicman]

No, no I'm not. What would I be kidding about. The pregnancy issue regarding a married couple still exists. Every time a married couple has sex doesn't mean they want to have a child and that if the wife becomes pregnant, that the pregnancy is a desired one.

But the couple is at least relationally prepared to have a child.


So this treatment, if the hormonal side effects are neglible, will help married couples avoid undesired pregnancies. I mean this is why birth control was forced on America in the first by those radicals on the US Supreme Court in 1965 in Griswold v Connecticut, stating:Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The [381 U.S. 479, 486] very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

Other than the invention of the privacy "right", I don't have a problem with the 1965 ruling.


Then why are you concentrating on the pregnancy issue? This treatment is not creating no danger sex. And if transmitting disease, that can kill ya, is not a strong enough deterrent, then do you really think pregnancy worries them that much?

Yes.

Michael

[anthrogirl]

But the couple is at least relationally prepared to have a child.
are you sure about that? if "the couple is relationally prepared to have a child", then why is the divorce rate so high in the U.S.? i think you are speaking in unrealistic generalizations.

ag

[themuzicman]

are you sure about that? if "the couple is relationally prepared to have a child", then why is the divorce rate so high in the U.S.? i think you are speaking in unrealistic generalizations.

ag

The divorce rate is high because people in the US are into instant self-gratification, and don't really care who it hurts. It really IS sad.

What I meant by relationally prepared is that they have bonded legally and socially in marriage, which still is the best setting in which to raise a child.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

But the couple is at least relationally prepared to have a child.Since when did marriage ensure financial and emotional necessities required for raising a child?


Other than the invention of the privacy "right", I don't have a problem with the 1965 ruling.Um, you are aware that the "invention" didn't occur in Griswold v Connecticut right. You are aware that it was another Liberal Activist US Supreme Court back in 1891 with Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford. You knew that right?

[anthrogirl]

MM,

clearly you and i have differing social interactions with the world. You are happily married (with children), and I am a happily single 28 yr old.

i agree that the best environment for children is a stable one. however, i am not prepared to agree that all marriages provide a stable environment, simply because a marriage conforms to the logistics of a legal bond.

At any rate, most couples who are unprepared for children engage in birth control--and i'm very glad they do.

i'm not sure where you stand here--are you supportive of contraception (within/outside of marriage--of course, abstinance can also be a form of contraception)? if not, why?

ag

[themuzicman]

MM,

i agree that the best environment for children is a stable one. however, i am not prepared to agree that all marriages provide a stable environment, simply because a marriage conforms to the logistics of a legal bond.

I would agree that marriage isn't a guarentee of a stable environment, but I would say that it is a prerequisite.


At any rate, most couples who are unprepared for children engage in birth control--and i'm very glad they do.[quote]

I agree.

[quote]i'm not sure where you stand here--are you supportive of contraception (within/outside of marriage--of course, abstinance can also be a form of contraception)? if not, why?

ag

I believe that contraception in and of itself is a useful tool for those engaging in sex who do not wish to conceive.

However, just as any tool can be beneficial, it can also be abused.

Michael

[Jimmy Higgins]

Um, you are aware that the "invention" didn't occur in Griswold v Connecticut right. You are aware that it was another Liberal Activist US Supreme Court back in 1891 with Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford. You knew that right?
You did catch that right? This isn't the first time I had to correct you on the right to privacy issue. I just want to make sure you know it this time, lest you might accidentally mislead someone else in the future about Activist Judges and stuff regarding privacy. :smile:

[elysian]

Preventing conception is sometimes desirable in marriage- when couples aren't ready to have children, if they want to have intervals between pregnancies to protect the health of the mother and children, or if the woman's health is ill-suited for pregnancy- for whatever reason. Of course if there were a male "pill" that prevents the production of sperm, then he'd be shooting blanks which is the same effect as vasectomy. Conception wouldn't be taking place, so what's the problem?

As to sex outside of marriage, I think AG said it, but if the threat of killer STD's isn't going to keep you from it, the fear of pregnancy won't either. While I don't condone sex outside of marriage, why have them both spreading killer STD's and fathering children?

In all practicality for me as a woman whose health is not conducive to a good outcome in pregnancy I am NOT going to trust any man to take contraceptive measures when it is my health in danger. I can hear it now- "I'm from the government I'm here to help you, " "Oh, it's OK, I'm on that male pill..." Riiiight. Thankfully I am not engaging in sex with men I'm not married to, so I don't have to substantiate any such claims. I hate to admit it but I know I wouldn't trust my husband to use such a method- he would forget or not care. I had my tubes tied not long after my son was born on medical advice. I am more comfortable in that decision, but I think couples do need more options for preventing conception. It's a good thing but personally I am more comfortable handling it for myself, because I would be the one to suffer the implications.

[The Bard's Song]

at any rate, i am interested to hear male reactions to this new drug--

hey guys: would you consider taking the "male pill"?

ag

Certainly--I'm not selfish when it comes to sharing the responsibilities of a sexual relationship.

Of course, should I have a vasectomy (something I'm considering having done in college) it won't be an issue.

[rach12]

Is promiscuity really worse now than in the past??? I find that hard to believe - human nature being what it is...


I asked my husband if he would give it a try and he said yes. He'd like to know more about the side effects, but he's willing.

[anthrogirl]

Is promescuity really worse now than in the past??? I find that hard to believe - human nature being what it is...
good point, rach--incidences of promiscuity haven't really changed that much--it's merely more visible now with the advent of new forms of media.

Those who read literature from all eras will be quite familiar with this idea. Although cultural attitudes have changed regarding sexuality and promiscuity, the incidence has not changed much (it's merely packaged differently depending on the cultural climate)



I asked my husband if he would give it a try and he said yes. He'd like to know more about the side effects, but he's willing.
that's very reasonable of him.

but i'm still skeptical of hormone therapies.

ag

[rach12]

that's very reasonable of him.

but i'm still skeptical of hormone therapies.

ag
Me, too, actually. In fact, I don't like to take drugs at all unless it just can't be helped. Too many instances of serious side effects AFTER the fact.

[BeHereNow]

On another note, I am a firm believer in "stupid is as stupid breeds." Above all, stupid people should use contraception, married or not.

But if they do end up having kids anyway, they could sell the babies to rich people as delicacies. :lol:




Anthrogirl, I wouldn't take a pill like that until it had been researched extensively. I don't trust pharmaceutical companies, and it was probably their press release that was used to inform this story, so I'd have to wait and see what legitimate medical research says.

After seeing the effects that anti-depressants had on me, I'd be leery of taking something that could rearrange my hormones or nerves at all. Ick.