Should men take a birth contraceptive instead of women once it's available?
It may be coming to the US soon. Women are beginning to talk up a male contraceptive pill that to their husbands and OB-GYNs. The pill was developed in England in 2006 and inhibits sperm release. Women the world over are excited about the development, but an overwhelming number of men are nervous about the effects.
Is it time for men to be the ones on the reproductive leash?
Hell yes
Side Score: 25
|
 |
Absolutely not
Side Score: 22
|
|
|
|
|
In modern society it seems that all of the responsibility is able to put upon the women in the relationship for contraceptives other than condoms. Making a pill that is available to men could help relieve some of the pressure upon women to have to use the pill. Men may be afraid of side effects, but women have had to deal with the side effects of birth control since 1960 in the united states. If women are already having to deal with these, we men are hypocrites to say that we can't share the burden of responsibility. Side: Men's turn
3
points
For responsible men in permanent relationships and in a perfect world YES. But that leaves alot of room for error. If maried men, who feel the desire to relieve some of the burden of their wives during the reproductive years, my hats off to them and I say go for it. It would be a wonderful thing. But if it is a decision taken lightly, say, he hates condoms or for some other trivial reason, no way. This is more important than "opps, I forgot to take out the trash, or I lost the remote again". With so many unwanted pregnancies and children born out of wedlock already, this new development could have serious problems. Can women trust men to continue to take something that may make them fat, give them mood swings or headaches? If he loves her maybe? I sure would hope so. Side: Work Together Not Seperately
Short of having a vasectomy, there are virtually no answers for male safe sex other than the condom. The pill can be given in weekly or monthly doses and men can take it hours before performing. It's been more than forty years since birth control for women came out and the health side-effects are nothing short of frightening. Why shouldn't men take the bulk of conception responsibility if options become available? Male birth control
Side: Men's turn
I would be thrilled if men could and would take a contraceptive pill, as long as it is proved safe and there are no significant side effects. I do not, however, believe this pill should encourage men to carry a greater portion of responsibility for birth control. Family planning is a shared responsibility. This option is a welcomed advancement for women who are tired of shouldering the birth control burden alone, and gives men another, possibly more effective, option of protecting themselves from fathering any unwanted children. The male contraceptive pill has real potential benefits for men and women! Side: Men's turn
Yes, men can and should take more responsibility when it comes to birth control. Women have complained for decades about the side effects of the Pill; men can now take some of that load off their sexual partners and help everyone. Even now, women purchase more condoms than men. This is easy to understand since it is women who will carry the developing fetus for nine months and usually becomes as the primary care giver for the child. If raising children is to be a genuine partnership between men and women, let's work together. Side: Work Together Not Seperately
I think this would have to be a personal decision for men like it is for women now. However, the science I've seen says that controlling a man's sperm count could be safer and more effective than hormonal alternatives for women. A lot of women suffer serious side effects due to the changes in hormones. If men could take a pill that didn't offer similar side effects then I think it would behoove them to do so, but again, this would have to be a personal choice. Nobody likes having health care forced upon them. Side: Hell yes
2
points
Yes. We will do so more regularly than women because it will become a status symbol among us starting in middle school. Whereas the cultural infrastructure still stigmatizes women to some extent for promiscuity, men continue to thrive on perceived promiscuity, with the exception of certain fundamentalist types who choose to remain virgins for purposes of something-or-other. Massive lol @ such poor, misguided males. Wagner Performance Included for No Particular Reason
Side: Health
|
3
points
I was kind of unsure where to put my point. So I'm going to say that it should be in the "maybe" area. Below I posted some information about the Male Contraceptive from the BBC News. Through extensive testing they did say that the contraceptive, because of the increase of testosterone and progestin, these hormones would cause a decrease in sexual drive and the male would have to undergo further injections of testosterone to keep him healthy. So could it be said that the pill itself could be counterproductive? Further more, I wanted to pose this question as well, if this pill were to be marketed, this pill could only stop reproduction from happening and not stop the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, could men think that just because this pill stops reproduction that they still would not have to protect themselves or their partners from the spread of STD’s? Would they still opt to use condoms? Side: The Maybe Area
Loudacris hit the nail on the head. Had the author omitted the words "instead of women," then it would be more reasonable to have a favorable opinion. There is little reason initiate gender warfare and transfer all of the burdens from women to men. Such an action would not be a case of gender equaility, but rather a reversal in the polarity of gender inequality. Futher, one might want to split hairs and look at the word "should." Are we talking about a legal imperative or a moral one? From a legal perspective, there is no way to force a free citizen to ingest or have injected in him or her some drug against his or her will. The more likely scenario - if there is one - would be to outlaw contraceptives for women and legalize the men's contraceptives, leaving this new drug the only viable option. But such action is unlikely, as current medication has been approved by the FDA - despite the side-effects. If we are coming at this action from an utilitarian perspective, then it seems more obvious that men should be taking the medication instead of women. If this pill is as effective and harmless as reported, and current medication is as detrimental to women as BlueStar mentions to the left, then men should be the ones taking the pill - because it would be no burden to men at all. Yet it should be said that moral considerations do not necessarily lead to corresponding moral actions. Enforcing this policy will depend on how the pill performs under real circumstances (i.e. after the pill has been proven to have no side-effects outside of lab conditions) and the complexities of the law. The authors of the article even mention (and brush aside) the fact that the sample size of the study was only 55 men. To be sure you don't want to enact public policy on such a small sample size and a treatment whose long term effects have not been established. Side: Absolutely not
I think you are taking this out of the context the debate creator intended to convey, as well as the message that Loudacris was trying to make that this should be a shared burden. When the ball was put on women to go out and use the pill, they did it and without knowing the long term side effects. No one did. Why? Because it can take decades for long term side effects to be discovered. That is why they are long term side effects. Not everyone is going to use this new birth control, and saying it can be "enforced" is extremely shortsighted. Enforcing birth control would require making everyone in the United States okay with this type of birth control. There are multiple religious sects within this country that don't condone any form of birth control but abstinence. This is also more than just a pill. All forms of male hormonal contraceptive are being researched, from the pill to injects, to a device similar to an IUD. We also need to look at the fact that Positive side effects may be discovered. There are always going to be things that, no matter how deeply we research something, that we will not discover until said things implementation. The point is that soon, I will have a choice to take the pill myself. I can be responsible about the fact that I don't want to have kids anymore. I don't have to worry about having a child and becoming a burden on society as deeply. Condoms can have goals. Your partner can forget to take the pill. With both partners taking the pill you would be able to ensure further that you would not be having a child. This sounds like equality for men. I can understand not wanting to use it, but you shouldn't actively try to find excuses to bar its option from America altogether by listing the only bunk scenarios you could discern. Side: Men's turn
There was a reason I said "should". Consider the health effects of both medications (or lack thereof). There's nothing black or white about this issue. Just something to consider, lots of hidden corners. Side: Health
Good point. But then what defines "shared" burden? The difficulties with female birth control (blood clots, stroke, heart issues) are not pertinent when men use condoms. This presents a problem for women who want to have sex without the risk of getting pregnant. Conversely, men must go through a painful and invasive surgery in order to have intercourse without risking pregnancy. Don't you think that having an alternate solution (monthly contraceptive for men) that will act the same way as the female temporary contraceptive is a way to "share the burden"? I agree that it must be shared equally, so are you saying that, even if the birth control for men presents less of a health risk to them than it does to women, both men and women should take contraceptives? . Side: Health
3
points
I agree as well that it should be a shared burden. I agree further that female birth control posses more serious effects. Many of these affects young women are unaware of when they are presented with the option of taking birth control as either a method to preventing pregnancy or to regulate their period. I have even read that some women experience sterilization due to long term use of birth control pills as well as the cause of other unbalances with their body. Not to mention, mental health issues such as depression some have found that after long use of birth control that women experience depression. Check Out the link below! Side: Absolutely not
2
points
Amen Loudacris! It is a shared burden and it's not about "shooting blanks." That's the ego speaking! When they do come up with a birth contraceptive for men it won't be irreversible. It will be just like the pill for women. If you don't take it, you'll be able to procreate and/or conceive. Side: Share and share alike
2
points
How is looking at a question, seeing what it's really asking, and then answering the question based on those observations not debating the issue? The question sets the domain of discourse. Is it not ironic that you yourself are talking about the question and not, as you are pleading, debating the question at hand? I implore you to validly critique my argument. Yes, that means reading it first and supporting your position with reasons. Side: Have a real debate
The good old saying goes like this- what is goose, ... Procreation is not a sole duty of the women, it actively involve the participation of the man. When it comes to controlling unwanted births which is what birth contraceptives are for, the men are not expected to be left out just because they are men. The reason being that they may be discriminate in spreading about babies that they and unsuspecting females are not ready for. Very soon, according to medical researchers, the male birth contraceptive would be available. Side: Men's turn
|
