Hopefully it less hormonal side affects than the female pill. But yeah having an extra level of protection will be nice.
“Extra Level”? It’s more about taking the burden off the women for me. Why do they, and only they, always have to mess up their bodies?
You can already do that with condoms and no one is messing up their body…
Exactly.
Condoms would be 99% effective if they could be made idiot-proof.
The hippocratic oath, in this case. Medicine is all about risk management, the worse the “disease,” the more tolerant we are of side effects for the cure. Pregnancy and birth are still pretty traumatic events that, while much safer than they used to be, are still dangerous. Female BC just has to be less risky than that. Male BC on the other hand, has to be as low the risk for a man impregnating a woman, which is to say, almost zero. Pretty much any negative side effect is worse than that, so it’s very difficult to pass. I would gladly take one with comparable side effects to female BC, but sometimes unflinching ethics are inconvenient. Better than the alternative, but still.
It’s medical ethics, not the Hippocratic Oath. Most doctors swear to an ethical standard. Besides, “first, do no harm” is a bit unhelpful if you’re a surgeon.
Otherwise you’re right, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the side effects of birth control, which is why birth control for women doesn’t have as high a standard for mitigating other consequences.
The Hippocratic oath is not a thing in most countries and not applicable anyway. If it was, kidney transplants would be done without a doctor present (in the US that is, don’t overestimate your little made up oath ritual internationally)
we can finally share the load and mess up everyone because of not affording babies!
yeah, not wanting 10 children is a matter of cost, of course. It’s baffling to me how unreflected and naive opinions regarding reproduction still are…
What do you mean by always? The birth control makes sense because it’s much harder to do it for men because sperm is constantly being produced and women only release 1 egg per month. What other ways do women have to mess up their bodies?
Oh, wow, do you come off as uninformed! Birth control for women has tons and tons of side effects, and it’s in no way easier to prevent successful ovulation than it is to prevent fertile sperm production. In fact, birth control drugs for men have been repeatedly blocked by regulators for having too many side effects, while those side effects pretty closely mirror those of the pill for women. So, interfering with everything from blood pressure to appetite is acceptable when women are affected, but can’t be burdened upon men?
Interrupting the ovulation cycle comes at great cost for the body. All the “non-hormonal” ways of birth control we have (except the condom) require either poisonous metals and foreign objects to be pushed inside the uterus, increasing the risk for cysts, causing pain, and regular checkups and painful procedures to be applied or fitted (diaphragm). Or toxins to be applied straight into a woman’s private parts (spermicides). Calendar-based methods and “pulling out” have large margins of error, as have condoms.
This is a really dumb take. The onus of birth control should not be only on the women.
Forgetting about pregnancy and childbirth perhaps? I take it that they meant those things fuck up women’s bodies pretty severely sometimes. It’s a tough struggle to recover from pregnancy and childbirth, and some never do.
But apart from that, birth control should be an equal burden, IMO.
