• 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 Contraception News

Erectile dysfunction is a possible side effect. Kinda counter-productive.
 
Erectile dysfunction is a possible side effect. Kinda counter-productive.

Seems to me that just helps keeping you from impregnating someone
 
As is, however, for any man who wants to avoid pregnancy, this could be a fairly inexpensive option.

The problem is that the effect isn't reversible as far as we know. So it's not a good temporary option. And if you're looking for a permanent option, a vasectomy is more certain to work, has fewer side effects, and is possibly cheaper in the long run.
 
Maybe with all the unwanted births, we should add something to the water supply that dramatically decreases the sex drive in both men and women, and you get a free prescription that counteracts it if you want a child.
 
The problem is that the effect isn't reversible as far as we know. So it's not a good temporary option. And if you're looking for a permanent option, a vasectomy is more certain to work, has fewer side effects, and is possibly cheaper in the long run.

I paid a $10 copay when I had my vasectomy in 1999. I really wish more men and women would have their tubes tied.
 
Maybe with all the unwanted births, we should add something to the water supply that dramatically decreases the sex drive in both men and women, and you get a free prescription that counteracts it if you want a child.

... and demonstrate having the means to care and provide for those who are born
 
I paid a $10 copay when I had my vasectomy in 1999. I really wish more men and women would have their tubes tied.

I didn't even pay that much. My plan treats it as "Preventative care" so it's covered 100%.

After my wife and I had an unplanned pregnancy, we decided one of us was getting permanently sterilized. It was going to be her if she had a c-section, and me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Maybe with all the unwanted births, we should add something to the water supply that dramatically decreases the sex drive in both men and women, and you get a free prescription that counteracts it if you want a child.


Uhhhh....no. Why should only those who want a child be allowed to have sex?
 
Uhhhh....no. Why should only those who want a child be allowed to have sex?

With today's rate of unwanted births to those who cannot afford it, modify it to those who can as well like in post 9. The free prescription can apply to those who can afford to have a child, should birth control fail.

Society gets to place rules on citizens based on various factors. The more people who are irresponsible, costing the rest of society money to pay for their mistakes, the more credibility there is to place safety measures to protect us as a society from more tax revenue needed.

Just look at how many irresponsible people are sucking off the taxpayers to pay for their irresponsibility, who could not afford to bring children into the world. Birth control is not 100%, and too many who even use birth control properly have children. Birth control has a failure rate, and as you have more and more sex the more and more likely it fails... once... which then can result in a pregnancy.

I am sick and tired of paying as much as I do in taxes, just to see irresponsible people live of of my hard earned mony. Enough is enough. I am expecting to pay well over $25k this year in taxes. My 2017 tax liability is $25,377.

Enough is enough!

I am f'n sick of the people dragging down the economy our society through irresponsibility.
 
With today's rate of unwanted births to those who cannot afford it, modify it to those who can as well like in post 9. The free prescription can apply to those who can afford to have a child, should birth control fail.

Society gets to place rules on citizens based on various factors. The more people who are irresponsible, costing the rest of society money to pay for their mistakes, the more credibility there is to place safety measures to protect us as a society from more tax revenue needed.

Just look at how many irresponsible people are sucking off the taxpayers to pay for their irresponsibility, who could not afford to bring children into the world. Birth control is not 100%, and too many who even use birth control properly have children. Birth control has a failure rate, and as you have more and more sex the more and more likely it fails... once... which then can result in a pregnancy.

I am sick and tired of paying as much as I do in taxes, just to see irresponsible people live of of my hard earned mony. Enough is enough. I am expecting to pay well over $25k this year in taxes. My 2017 tax liability is $25,377.

Enough is enough!

I am f'n sick of the people dragging down the economy our society through irresponsibility.

So that $12.19 that came out taxes to pay for all of your grievances and criticisms are real ball busters, huh?
 
With today's rate of unwanted births to those who cannot afford it, modify it to those who can as well like in post 9. The free prescription can apply to those who can afford to have a child, should birth control fail.

How do you reconcile this with being libertarian?
 
Whether or not this research will be verified remains to be seen. As is, however, for any man who wants to avoid pregnancy, this could be a fairly inexpensive option. And don't complain about the side-effects (the Pill for women has known side-effects, too).

A future in coming from FutureInComing!
 
With today's rate of unwanted births to those who cannot afford it, modify it to those who can as well like in post 9. The free prescription can apply to those who can afford to have a child, should birth control fail.

Society gets to place rules on citizens based on various factors. The more people who are irresponsible, costing the rest of society money to pay for their mistakes, the more credibility there is to place safety measures to protect us as a society from more tax revenue needed.

Just look at how many irresponsible people are sucking off the taxpayers to pay for their irresponsibility, who could not afford to bring children into the world. Birth control is not 100%, and too many who even use birth control properly have children. Birth control has a failure rate, and as you have more and more sex the more and more likely it fails... once... which then can result in a pregnancy.

I am sick and tired of paying as much as I do in taxes, just to see irresponsible people live of of my hard earned mony. Enough is enough. I am expecting to pay well over $25k this year in taxes. My 2017 tax liability is $25,377.

Enough is enough!

I am f'n sick of the people dragging down the economy our society through irresponsibility.

If you're going to do that, why not start deciding who should be a parent and who shouldnt?

Because the root of many many social ills in the US IMO is irresponsible parenting.

So if we're going down your road, why not require people to get govt permission to have kids? Licensing.
 
If you're going to do that, why not start deciding who should be a parent and who shouldnt?
One is financial, the other is subjective to opinion.

Because the root of many many social ills in the US IMO is irresponsible parenting.
Absolutely. And I wold say 90% or more of the irresponsible parents were the ones irresponsible enough to have an unwanted child.

So if we're going down your road, why not require people to get govt permission to have kids? Licensing.
We went away from that. It used to be scandalous to have a child outside of marriage, and a marriage license in the past required blood screening. It had some good points, but mostly bad.
 
FALSE. It is only long-term use that appears to pose a problem. Quoting the article I linked in the Original Post: "the disorder was mild and temporary in the volunteers"

You missed the rest of that quote.

Doctors in Copenhagen who led the study said that while the disorder was mild and temporary in the volunteers, they feared it could become permanent in long-term ibuprofen users. This would lead to continuously low levels of testosterone, because the body could no longer compensate for the fall.

Presumably most men looking for a contraceptive method are looking for one they can use for longer than two weeks without risking permanent harm.

There's also the issue, which you completely ignored, that there are no indications whatsoever of how effective this is as a contraceptive.
 
You missed the rest of that quote.
DID NOT. My response was directly related to your Stupid Lie that the effects were not reversible. And the reason it was a Stupid Lie is: you failed to place any boundaries on your claim of irreversibility, even though there was a boundary (temporary use) explicitly stated in the article. FEARMONGERING! Take one pill and become sterile forever! Oh, my! Which is why idiot abortion opponents will ultimately lose the Overall Abortion Debate: they seem incapable of accepting any Fact that does not fit their agenda. Tsk, tsk!

Presumably most men looking for a contraceptive method are looking for one they can use for longer than two weeks without risking permanent harm.
ALSO SOMETHING YOU PREVIOUSLY FAILED TO MENTION. On the other hand, ibuprofen has been over-the-counter available for a long time, and the word "harm" allows for a wide range of magnitude. Here's some OLD news/fearmongering about that. Nevertheless, Even if the painkiller is the cause, at this time all the "permanent harm" so far caused is not preventing global human population from growing by maybe 80 million every year. Are you not aware that a man's fertility can be reduced by 50% (by, say, losing a testicle in an accident) and still be plenty for spawning offspring? If a guy really wants major-long-term contraception, he should see about getting something moderately drastic but reversible (maybe this, or this).

There's also the issue, which you completely ignored, that there are no indications whatsoever of how effective this is as a contraceptive.
THE ARTICLE WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS A DOSAGE RELATIONSHIP. Anyone reading it should have seen it, and therefore I didn't need to mention it.
 
A future in coming from FutureInComing!
I picked my handle over 10 years ago, because various futures are always incoming, and often at different rates. One future most relevant to the Overall Abortion Debate will include the development of True Artificial Intelligences, and the formal widespread recognition that the word "human" has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of "person". The phrase "human rights", so dear to abortion opponents, is all about Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, and fails to promote or accept or even recognize equivalent rights for any entity in the Universe that is equivalent to a human person, but just happens to be nonhuman. Like an average dolphin, perhaps.

Related to that is another incoming future, which should (supported by this bit of news) eventually involve contact between humans and extraterrestrial intelligences. I'm ever-more confident that abortion opponents have ZERO chance of winning the Debate in the long term.

Another and different incoming future will be about wide recognition that There Is No Such Thing As A Right To Breed. There are a lot of cultures out there acting like breeding is not only a "right" (instead of a privilege that needs to be earned), but it is a duty, too. NOPE!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom