If you think men should help decide if a woman gets an abortion, just shut up.

Ok, so it was your belief that you were being sarcastic. I will totally accept that, as that is your statement.

To me, and at least one other person, it was absolutley not obvious you were being anything other than serious, since he posted about your statement also. Perhaps others totally got your intended sarcasm, but since none of that have acknowledged they did, I can't say that they understood that with any confidence. I can, at the time I'm writing this post, state that 100% of the people who addressed your post did not understand this to be sarcasm.

That said, I still don't understand what the sarcasm was aimed towards. It wasn't aimed at any one particular post, as I think it was a "reply all" statment. I also don't see where it was a general sarcastic statement, as so far people (not me, as my post to you was my first post on the thread) have been talking about abortion and birthcontrol, along with child support issues. So, yes, bringing mentruation into the mix, not even related to how birth control affects menstruation, was simply too subtle for me, and at least one other person.

You don't need to explain your thinking to me. You stated you meant this as sarcasm. I accept that.

In fact, my initial comment to you had a much more sarcastic tone, so I don't see why you should feel negatively about my comment, as you apparantly didn't see my sarcasm either. Kinda cancels each other out.

This isn't an argument, but an explanation. Accept it or not, I've nothing more to say on that particular thing.

As far as Orally points and remarks, since I haven't posted anything else here as pertaining to the subject matter, I'm neither ignoring, agreeing with, or disagreeing with any remarks made by anyone.

The reason I havn't responded to his points is that (1) from what I can see, he doesn't understand condoms are a stand alone form of birth control, unless he is being sarcastic as well. He has reached false (read not necessarily true) conclusions because he leap frogs over points that would show up the problems, choosing to go directly from a to d, skipping c altoghether, and skewing b, to further his agenda, which I can only guess at.

I can't speak rationally with someone who does that, because they will pick and choose what is convenient to their argument, ignoring questions and evidence placed in front of them. I'm not going to waste my time.

Also, and more important to me, when someone's first take on a thread is showing a gross misunderstanding of a word (feminism), and leads with that misunderstanding as the basis for all futher posts, I feel it's a lost cause.

As an aside to this feminism comment made. I was talking to a friend the other day, and he was telling me a story about the comments of some misogynist. I said that women must indeed must be very powerful if it takes the efforts of so many to even attempt to bring them down. Right up front Ollary wished for failure in womens wanting to be treated equally, and I'm not interested in bringing myself down to that level by arguing.

Ok, moving on from specific posters, to general comments.

Why isn't there a men's birth control pill? Because as has been stated, it's apparantly much more complicated to develop a pill that will effectively destroy sperm production, as opposed to developing a pill that fools a womens body into thinking it is pregnant. Because there isn't a male bc pill at this time, doesn't mean there won't be one. I don't believe whoever may be working on this is doing so on our particular time table.

In fact, when I googled "how long have they been developing a male birth control pill" this was the first hit, from a cnn story from March of 2018. Very recently....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/health/male-birth-control-pill-study/index.html<br />

I only wish they had done as much testing on bc pills for women. When it first came out in the 1960's, they had 150 micrograms of estrogen. Today's bc pills have 35 micrograms or less. That's more than 25% of what was being fed into womens body, who were willing to risk blood clots, stroke, heart attacks etc.
The thing is, women were totally willing to accept this risk as opposed to having an unwanted pregancy. We wanted, and still want, control over our bodies that much.

I'm not familiar with the history of the male birth control pill, but it seems that research on it started in the 1970's. It seems logical to me that a version of the research has not been put on the market yet because they want to eliminate as many side effects and contraindications as possible before rolling it out. Would that scientists have realized that 25% of the dosage of female bc pills would have worked just as well, we'd have a lot more women around that didn't die of complications of trying to avoid an unwanted pregancy....leaving a man to raise any existing children alone....unless of course he got a new wife. I'm not saying this with any animosity to any man. If my mate died and left me with kids to raise and support, I'd be looking for a replacement to help. Someone who wanted to help of course. As would a man want any new mate to be on board to helping raise his kids.


I'm reminded of that quote that has been attributed to various people, but that I like to believe was orignally said by a female cab driver. "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement."

Would this thread even be conceived (pun intended) if men were the vessels for babies?

Personal comments....
I really have to wonder at the thought process of men who are unwilling to use the only available (besides a permanent solution as vasectomy) male bc avail, a condom.

I guess loss of sensation trumps blood clots, stroke, heart attacks, even simple weight gain.

I have to wonder at the thought process of women who accept these types of risks because their sexual partner won't give up even that much sensation, although it literally might kill them.

In 1970 my cousin, my Dad’s oldest niece had a massive stroke while taking a basket of laundry outside. She husband found her hen he got home from work. I was still pretty young, but listening to the adults at that time it appears the stroke was brought on by her birth control pills. Chai is correct about the dangerously high levels of estrogen in the pills of that era...my Dad said that her doctor advised her to stop taking the pills and apparently she didn’t. Back in the early 70’s women could get a six month supply at one time, it was cheap and Catherine wasn’t ready to figure out another way to prevent conception.

I can’t check out the absolute validity since all the adults from that time are now long gone. However, my doctor during the 80’s and 90’s would always caution me about birth control pills and smoking....one of his patients a young woman about ‘26 had a crippling stroke that rendered her helpless....it left him shaken. By that time the pill had much less estrogen than the earlier versions, but they are still risky.

I read the first paragraph of the article and then stopped when it said it's ok for men to "yammer" on. To me, the sheer intent is to bait a reader into judging men as unimportant and useless when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. Then it went on to the standard rhetoric that women have the right to choose, blah, blah, blah. Key inflammatory words like abuse, rape and "men's supposed rights."

I reject the men versus women argument. Too much fighting and absurdity creates nothing but choas. Instead of casting stones about who does what to whom, there is absolutely NO discussion on how to fix certain issues.

Not that I necessarily agree 100% with Oralloy, he does represent a more logical representation of how the debate about abortion keeps us at each other's throats. Fighting absurdity with absurdity gives us ....more absurdity.

This article is nothing but propaganda against equality. I don't take it seriously. Maybe if more people rejected chaos and worked to actually fixing the issue, maybe, just maybe we would achieve the equality between men and women.

Today is not that day.

Yeah.

Sometime in the late 1970's, I had a part time job at a dept store. I would have been in my late teens.

I got to know this woman who I guess was in here late 30's, early 40's. She seemed a lot older. You know how it is when you're a kid. I was amazed at the prospect she could still make babies. In addition, she smoked like a chimmey, so she must have looked older.

It was the first conversation I ever had with someone who was on bc pills. I knew little about it, but I do remember asking her wasn't she not supposed to smoke while taking them?

She said yeah she wasn't, and she was afraid of getting blood clots, etc. At the time, I remember wondering why in the world she was taking them. It seemed so frightening (still does). Now I understand she was working her life as best she knew how. No idea what her life situation was beyond I know she was married. She for reasons good enough for her was willing to take some pretty big risks.

At some time in the early 1990's I was living through the tail end of a very brief 1st marriage. It wasn't until we were married that I realized he had hidden many things from me, including but not limited to mental health issues. It was during that time that I realized how wrong I was whenever I had thought or said about someone (always a woman) "Why don't they just leave"?" Sometimes, at that moment, it's not an option. The best I could do at that moment was bide my time until I could escape the situation. I say this stuff as a setup to the subject at hand.

While I had already decided I was going to leave as soon as it was possible, during that time he suddenly decided he was going to stop using condoms. During a brief time, leaving, total refusal of sex, and other things were simply not an option.

Now, I have huge respect for PP. I don't know if it was just because of the time, or simply this one employee of theirs was out of touch.

I managed to get to PP, stating I needed bc pills. It was something I really didn't want to do, but...no other options. He would have known if I were using a diaphram, wasn't going to get an IUD, couldn't afford either anyway. At that time, those were the options. So, pills it was.

I had purposefully put down an incorrect address, and left phone numbers off the paperwork (cell phones did not exist as a regular thing back then...couldn't have afforded that either) Long story longer, this counselor at PP badgered me that I "had to" discuss this with husband first, that I "had to" provide a phone number (I was working shift work at a factory, through a temp agency, so work numbers were not an option). She "assured" me they wouldn't use the phone number and she would mark my file not to call. I asked her "so if you're not going to call me, why do you need a number"? She started getting really even more insistant, and I finally, even though it was none of her business, told her I was in a situation I was going to get out of as soon as I could, and there was no way I was going to end up pregnant over all this. Unbelieveably, her suggestion was to see if I "could work this out".

I am still stunned writing this, all these years later.

Anyway....got the pills on my terms. Vomited my guts up the first month, was horribly nauseated the second month, merely bady queasy the third month. Eventually got out of the situation, and was never so glad to stop putting those things in my body. In another situation I would have stopped that first month, but it was what had to be done under the circumstances.

Fast forward to, I don't know, 10 years ago? I had to be put on bc pills for a few months for an ovarian cyst. Funny since I had already gone through menapause. I remember dreading the coming sickness, but amazingly I felt nothing. whew.
Not sure if it was because the estrogen had been lowered yet again since the 1990's or if it was because I no longer produced much in the way of hormones on my own.

I apologize, am I missing something?

Here is a cut and paste of the article I linked to. Can you show me where it says in the first paragraph or anywhere something close to what you say it does?

For decades, birth control pills have exclusively been used by women. But a male birth control pill that is both safe and effective may be on the horizon, according to a new study.

The results of the study were presented Sunday at the annual Endocrine Society meeting in Chicago. The researchers found that the proposed hormone pill, called dimethandrolone undecanoate or DMAU, effectively reduced testosterone and other hormone levels responsible for sperm production without any serious side effects, according to Dr. Stephanie Page, an endocrinologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine and a lead author of the study.
"Our goal -- and everyone's goal in this field -- is to develop a method for men that has minimal side effects, and the holy grail would be to develop something that also has a health benefit for men," Page said.

There are a number of birth control options for women, including hormone-based pills, injections and intrauterine devices. However, the menu of options is much smaller for men.
"The only options currently available for men are vasectomy, condoms and coitus interruptus," Page said. "Forty percent of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned, so there's clearly an unmet need for novel contraceptives, and men have very few options."
A vasectomy is a surgical procedure that prevents the transmission of sperm by cutting the vas deferens, a structure that transports sperm from the testes to the urethra. "Coitus interruptus" refers to the withdrawal or pullout method, which is significantly less effective than most other methods of contraception, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Lowering testosterone levels

The new study relied on 83 men between the ages of 18 and 50 who were randomly assigned to either a control group or one of three treatment groups. Each treatment group received a different dosage of the drug: 100, 200 or 400 milligrams.
The researchers found that, after taking the drug for 28 days, testosterone in the blood dropped to castrate levels for all three doses. "Castrate levels" refers to the target range of testosterone in the blood after chemical or surgical castration and is usually defined as 50 nanograms per deciliter.
The group given 400 milligrams also saw a significant reduction in LH and FSH, two hormones that help regulate testosterone and sperm production by the testes.

"Normal testosterone in a man is anywhere from 350 to 1,100 nanograms per deciliter," said Dr. Seth Cohen, an assistant professor of urology at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the study. "And they got these guys down to 13 nanograms per deciliter."

How the 'male pill' could actually work
A testosterone level this low would typically be found only in prepubescent boys and girls, not adult men, according to the Mayo Clinic.
But due to the study's small sample size, more research is needed to evaluate the potential side effects of the drug in the general population, Cohen said.
"Nine participants had decreased libido, which is not small," he said. "When you put that on a large, multimillion-person basis, you have a huge portion of men running around with very low libido."

Tricking the body
Finding a male birth control pill has been a medical goal since at least the 1950s, when scientists first began developing hormonal birth control options. Though "the pill" eventually gained popularity among women, hormonal birth control options for men never really took off, according to Page.
"People have been working on male hormonal contraception for 40 to 50 years," she said. "There are ways of delivering male contraceptives with long-acting implants and injections, but men are interested in having an oral pill available, and the work we presented here is a step forward."

Male contraceptive gel effective in monkeys, but will it work in humans?
The substance used in the study, DMAU, has properties similar to both androgens, such as testosterone, and progestins, such as progesterone. Consequently, it can "trick" the body into thinking that testosterone levels are adequate, inhibiting the hormonal pathways that ultimately lead to the production of sperm, according to he drug's androgen-like properties are also supposed to prevent side effects typically associated with low testosterone levels, Page said.
"If you simply took the men's testosterone down to these low levels, they would absolutely have side effects. They would have hot flashes just like women do when they go through menopause, and they would have marked changes in sexual desire and function," she said.
"The very important point here is that despite having those low levels of testosterone, the steroid that is given in this prototyped male pill provides the androgen activity in the man in all the other parts of their body," Page added.
Successes and limitations
This is not the first time a hormonal contraceptive has been tested in men. In 2016, a study looked at the effectiveness of a hormone injection given every eight weeks. Although the drug was effective in reducing pregnancies, it was associated with a number of adverse side effects including depression, acne and altered libido.
Due to these side effects, 20 out of 320 participants dropped out of that study.

But the newest drug, DMAU, showed a marked reduction in many of these unwanted effects. It also did not appear to damage the liver, a known consequence of testosterone use, according to Page.
"We looked at markers of liver inflammation very closely and didn't see anything concerning, so that's very important," she said.
But the short study period of only 28 days makes it difficult to know whether liver damage could have occurred with long-term use of the drug, Cohen cautioned.
The study also did not measure sperm count, one of the study's main limitations.
But according to Page, the research team succeeded in achieving its primary objective: identifying an effective and potentially safe dose of DMAU.
"The original study was really designed to find a dose to move forward with, and we were able to accomplish that and demonstrate that there were no acute safety concerns."

It also opened the door for future research that is already in the works, she said.
"The important next step is to show that this does in fact suppress the production of sperm, and that requires at least a three-month study, which we're going to be undertaking starting next month," Page added.
"After that, we'll need longer-term studies to look in detail about fine-tuning any potential side effects and ultimately doing a study in couples that actually demonstrates that it works in a real-world use."

I think neptuneblue is talking about something from the OP, not the articles you and I posted.

Oh wait....I see......

You weren't referencing the article I posted, even though you replied directly to me, so I assumed you were taking about something I actually said or posted.

Instead, you were using my post to reference back to the very first post, which I in no way have discussed, referenced, or even brought up. I was understandedly confused as you replied to me, and I had provided an article.

Anyway, how do you know what the rest of the article said, to have an opinion on it, if you didn't read past the first paragraph?

I mean, don't let the information provided by another poster, that you don't want to read, get in the way of your having a fully fleshed out opinion or anything.

How about if others read only your first few words of a post, and respond as if they know everything you said?

Yeah, I finally got that.

I'm not that bright.

I read the article, formed an opinion about its intent and posted my response.

If an colloquialism turns you into a "right" fighter, then there's no way an actual discussion can take place. Again, absurdity isn't my forte.

I bid you Good Evening.

Warming up to the subject of a male birth control pill.....

My take on that.

Starting with the fact that I as the woman am the only one who would get impregnanted, go through a pregnancy, give birth to and other, I need to be responsible for either direct birth control for myself, or through observation that the man is using a condom, or is taking a birth control pill

While I can trust that my partner, either committed or casual does not want a child, or for me to get pregnant, since that requires no evidence, I have no faith any person would take a pill to prevent it, unless I actually see them doing it.

In the case of a more casual, or totally casual sexual experience, I would have no way to observe this, so need to be accountable myself.

By the time my now husband and I got to the point of having sex, we both knew we wanted no children, I think that conversation was had prior to even being that interested in each other. Before the deed, he informed me he had had a vasectomy years before, shortly after his one daughter was born.

The first words out of my mouth were "Let me see the scars"

He showed me the scars, and we were good to go as far as I was concerned.

People have laughed when I've related that. In a way I can see where it's funny. Honestly though, why would I have sex with someone who told me something like that, without showing proof?

I can really really trust that a partner, especially a long term one I have lots of shared experience with, has the same deep felt desires and beliefs.

I have faith in nothing.

neptune blue

you're not listening....

You responded to me, by clicking reply by my name, then talking about something that an entirely different person said, and an article they had supplied.

You read someone elses article and replied to me. I haven't said a word about anyone's rights.

I too had supplied an article, so I understandably thought you were talking about what I linked.

I then said I was mistaken.
Please be more careful between your options on clicking "reply" on a specific persons post, which means you are replying to them, and clicking "reply all", which would have made everyone aware you were talking about an unspecified article. Better yet, it would have been good if you had clicked "reply" to the actual person you were replying to.

I can't read minds.

Please don't jump on my ass for something I didn't write.


I swear, I (more than half) believe I'm talking to Lash.

If you don't want people to respond what you consider absurdly, get your players straight. I did not post the article you were refering to.



what colloquialism?
what is a "right fighter"?
I wasn't trying to discuss anything with you, not in any post here.

"Please be more careful between your options on clicking "reply" on a specific persons post, which means you are replying to them, and clicking "reply all", which would have made everyone aware you were talking about an unspecified article. Better yet, it would have been good if you had clicked "reply" to the actual person you were replying to."

Right back at ya. Please be more careful... Right fighter.

But...I was reply directly to you, and clicked reply appropriately, as I was addressing you.

In any event, in a prior post I stated I accepted that you meant that as sarcasm. That's done business.

Seriously neptune, I think you are confusing me with someone else.

I haven't fought for anyone's rights on this thread.
I haven't attempted to discuss anything with you.

"right back at you" what? I addressed you when I meant to address you....I acknowledged that you were being sarcastic in another post, although I still didn't understand why.

What in the world are you arguing with me for? I'm not arguing with you about the subject matter of the thread. Just confused as to why you are involving me in things other posters, not me, said.

What exactly are you thinking I'm saying to you about the subject matter of the thread? If you go back and look, you would see I've said nothing to you except what I now understand to be a proclaimed sarcastic post.

Good lord. Stop confusing me with someone else.

Do you somehow think I'm the one who started this thread? That's all I can imagine.

I think you are meaning to address your arguments to real music, not me.

If condoms alone are enough, why is there any need for other birth control options?

My agenda is that it might be nice if men had some semblance of rights too.

What conclusion of mine is not necessarily true?

If there are any points that might illustrate problems with my conclusions, people are free to point out these problems.

If I do not address a point, that is because I do not perceive it as contradicting my agenda.

I may even regard a point as true if I do not address it. However, I sometimes also pass on correcting an untrue statement if I perceive no threat to the position that I'm defending.

I find that if I relentlessly correct every untrue point in a post, sometimes the point that I am hoping to defend gets lost in all the arguments over unrelated trivia. Much better to just focus my reply on the key issues.

But if anyone feels that I am not addressing a point that damages my position, they are welcome to present a case to that effect. I'll certainly read it and assess the argument.

Just think if the federal government put some serious money behind such research.

The point of male birth control isn't that women start relying on men for birth control. If a woman wishes to ensure that she does not become pregnant, she very much should continue to take birth control for herself.

The point of male birth control is so that a man can also make those decisions for himself instead of relying on someone else.

If both partners wish to avoid parenthood it would be perfectly reasonable for both of them to take birth control. That way neither would have to be dependent on the other.

That's fine and dandy if a man wants to make decisions for himself, and not rely on someone else. I couldn't care less if he takes a bc bill or not.

He's not the one who gets pregnant, carries, gives birth and ruins his body.

A man can rely on himself as much as he wants....while I rely on myself and understand getting pregnant only happens to me, and if I don't want to, it's ultimately up to me. I have no faith in anything except what I do, or what I personally observe a sexual partner doing. If I didn't see it, it didn't happen.

I have no interest in other women who choose to have faith in anyone else in the subject at hand. My only concern is me.

I know everyone is now thinking "Oh thank goodness. McG is here to share the common-sense answers."

Why can't men and women have a discussion about abortion? I think single women have and married women and women in relationships have different responsibilities in terms of such things as abortion.

Single women should be completely in charge of whether they get abortions or not. I wish it would not be used as a form of birth control though. That seems to cheapen life in my opinion. I think there is an order of such things. Abstinence, birth control pills, condoms, morning after... I am no prude though. I understand the sex drive and I am a big fan.

Women in a relationship, but not married, should be somewhat considerate of the person they are in a relationship with. I'm not suggesting that the man should have any absolute say in anything, but they should at least be part of the conversation before any final decisions are made in regards to abortion. Morning after? nah. That is the same as taking a vitamin in my opinion. However the rush of hormones and such should be a concern if taken too often. Again, condoms, birth control pill or other such things should be taken into consideration as well.

Married women have even more responsibilities when things such as abortion are being considered. A mated pair, facing the world together. I think the husband should have equal say in regards to getting an abortion. I think that 2 people, in love and married, are an equal pair and should have equal opinions. I'm willing to concede extenuating circumstances, but secrets as big as abortion could devastate a marriage. I also think a wife should have an opinion on a vasectomy should a man decide to do that.

Let the yelling begin and I guess continue really.

All the points you made are good points.

That’s called abstinence, much heralded and a complete fairy tale.

Appart from incels who can't do otherwise, people don't tend to keep their pants zipped. It'd be a problem when peeing, too.

What's your beef with the pills?