Would a 100% effective contraceptive be a good solution?
Hello
There is – presumably – one point on which abortion opponents and abortion supporters agree, and that is that unplanned pregnancies do not occur in the first place.
If there were a contraceptive that was 100% safe and had no side effects, then this eternal argument would probably be off the table, or what do you think?
Everything has its disadvantages. Condoms sometimes break and take away some of the feeling. A vagina just feels better than a piece of rubber.
The pill is also not safe and causes unpleasant side effects for many girls/women (I don't know anything about this, but I hear that sometimes)
Then there are things like IUDs and things like that. If I were female, something like that wouldn't be an option for me either.
And yes, there is also the possibility of a surgical procedure for men to cut the vas deferens, but that is not ideal if you want to have children in 15 years but not at 20.
If there were a contraceptive that was completely safe and had no side effects, everyone could take it without any problems and then there would be no more unwanted pregnancies and no more abortions, or how do you see it?
If there were a pill for men that had no side effects but, for example, prevented the production of fertile sperm (or killed them outright), I would take it. I wouldn't have a problem with it.
(1 votes)
Loading...
Stand today is not a single contraceptive to 100% safe – except absentee.
And even if there was a 100% safe means that does not have any side effects yet, it would not be useful if it is not economically accessible.
A not small part of women does not prevent it with a pill or a spiral because they simply cannot afford it.
In addition, revenue and Application errors are excluded.
Moreover, it would have to be verifiable for the other gender partner whether the one or the one actually uses the contraceptive. Because people sometimes lie if they want to have sex – just like now.
This could probably greatly reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Moreover, I would like to say that “unplant” does not automatically mean “unintentional”. And also “unintentional” does not automatically mean an abortion.
Thank you. As always, it brings your answer to the point and also illuminates the topic quite comprehensively.
Thank you
"And in addition, it would have to be verifiable for the other gender partner whether the one or the one actually uses the contraceptive agent. Because people sometimes lie if they want to have sex – just like now."
That would, of course, be great if it were verifiable, but I do not think that is the main problem. Neither does a woman have any interest in getting pregnant with an ONS, nor do I have any interest in digging a woman with whom I am not fixed together and then having to pay maintenance.
"Of course, I would like to say that "unplant" does not automatically mean "unintentional". And also "unintentional" does not automatically mean an abortion."
I do not think absolutely anything about abortions, I do not think that a ban on abortion is a purpose, but I do not think that abortions are morally acceptable.
"And even if there was a 100% safe means that does not have any side effects, it would not be useful if it is not economically accessible."
Yes, that's true, but new inventions become normally cheaper and accessible for the broad mass.
"A not small part of women does not prevent the pill or spiral because they simply cannot afford it."
Yeah, that's right. But it's not much better with the condom. A condom costs about 2€.
If I say five times a week with my girlfriend, that's 30€ a month. With a budget of about 400€ that I have available as a student (if I work in summer) you can feel this approx. 30€ already.
It is now of course high-level whining, yet these costs are not completely irrelevant.
But it is a problem, mostly for the man who likes to believe that the woman takes the pill if he is allowed without condom. But there are also men who take off the condom during sex, because there is an extra kick for them (request Google for stealthing) or they just don’t care – for example because it is an ONS and no contact details have been exchanged.
I do not quite understand the connection with my statement that not every unplanned pregnancy is also unintentional.
The pill is not a new invention and costs only about 10-20€ per month (because I don’t take the pill anymore – mine cost 50€/6months). And yet there are people who cannot afford it.
The same applies, of course, to condoms, which are often released free of charge, for example in the health office, at AIDS counseling centres, etc.
Since the question was whether unwanted pregnancy could be completely avoided, this is a factor. If there was such a contraceptive, it would have to be cost-effective.
Again, it was about the question of what a contraceptive would have to do so that unintentional pregnancy is 100% exclusive.
If everyone would be decent and reliable and would simply apply the methods already available correctly, there would be hardly any unwanted pregnancy.
Somehow I find it funny that you want to defend your self-school argument now and call my argument polemical.
“Even guilt” cannot be applied in a factual discussion and I would like to explain why:
Zb badly paid professions: then in the future you have to accept that no one wants to practice this profession – no one wants to be “self-indebted” to old age poverty. So no more hairdressers, no more educators, no nurses, no more truck drivers. And then?
The point is: if you come to someone who has a problem, whatever kind, simply with “self-defence”, then you’re pushing all responsibility to the victim (in a nutshell: “you were raped and had a short skirt? ), completely without the appreciation of the circumstances. In a factual discussion, this is wrong at the place whether it is about unwanted pregnancy or something else. Because even on unintentional pregnancy is never one alone “to blame”, it always takes two.
(Only on the edge, it’s not a subject: self-determination, heard before? Rent increase? Luxury renovation? There are plenty of reasons for an apartment announcement)
“Self guilt” is not a good argument, never. After all, everyone is always “to blame yourself”. The old nurse deserves too little? Even to blame, she could have become IT technicians. A woman is dissatisfied with the mother role? Even to blame, she didn’t have to get a child. A family is canceling the apartment? They could have bought property.”
I have no desire to discuss here at such a polemic level. Your examples are also very questionable:
But in general:
If you don’t have a bit of caution, you often fall on your nose, I also have to learn this in the painful way, but you’re stupid when you always trust blind people you hardly know.
Unfortunately, our world is everything but perfect, it’s full of people with no need and sense for reliability. It is necessary to adapt to this world and to have a certain mistrust towards others.
“Yes, it’s not like that. Therefore, a contraceptive that prevents unwanted pregnancy from 100% would have to be verifiable to the sexual partner.”
I think that in the interest of the woman, it can be impossible to risk a pregnancy.
As a man just as little because you don’t want to pay for 18 years alng.
And if you don’t at least exchange the contact data – you should be drunk and get it – then you’re your own fault.
I don’t even understand what your point is, that it would be beneficial if it were verifiable for the partner if you were really prevented, so I agree with you as I have already said.
“Even guilt” is not a good argument, never. After all, everyone is always “to blame yourself”. The old nurse deserves too little? Even to blame, she could have become IT technicians. A woman is dissatisfied with the mother role? Even to blame, she didn’t have to get a child. A family is canceling the apartment? I’m sorry they could have bought property.
It’s not like that. Therefore, a contraceptive, which prevents unwanted pregnancy from 100%, should also be verifiable for the gender partner.
“But it’s a problem, mostly for the man who likes to believe that the woman takes the pill if he is allowed without condom. But there are also men who take off the condom during sex because there is an extra kick for them (for example, ask Google to stealthing) or they just don’t care about it – for example because it is an ONS and no contact details have been exchanged.”
I don’t want to say that this problem doesn’t exist. You’re right there is all this.
Still, you’re still owed somewhere if you’re so stupid to have an ONS with a person you don’t know.
I’d never let the condom go if I’m sleeping with a girl I’m not stuck with.
A bit of healthy distrust and self-responsibility should everyone bring along.
Other example: If I borrow someone I don’t know 100€ and can’t get it anymore, I’m also at least partly due to it or I have to make the accusation so easy to believe.
“Since the question was whether unwanted pregnancy could be completely avoided, this is a factor. If there was such a contraceptive, it would have to be cost-effective.”
Yes, so that there is really no unplanned pregnancy anymore, this should definitely be accessible to all people, we agree.
A vasectomy is now possible to reverse. But men still feel cast in the idea and that’s why it’s not done more often.
And no, there is just no 100% safe contraceptive without side effects out of abstinence. But no one wants to.
That’s why the whole “what if” discusion is due.
Vasectomies were “always” reversible, but it is now an intervention and there is still a risk that it cannot be reversed. Is it not different for us women with a separation of the egg guides.
The ovary disease separation and is already a greater intervention than vasectomy. Quite simply because the two points are anatomically different and the one is a bit more difficult to achieve than the other.
A few years ago, a vasectomy was considered irreversible because the chances of reconstruction were much lower. However, fine vascular surgery has developed very well and therefore the chances are now much higher. Therefore it can already be expressed as a reversible.
This would certainly be a good solution and should be pursued.
It is important that there is no risk of an error (as in the pill). Therefore, the pill for the man is also susceptible to errors.
If we assume that there is really something like this, although I feel that it is not possible in person, then there are still the following problems:
“It should be free for everyone”
You can argue about whether it’s free “must” or whether you have to pay yourself if you want to have sex and don’t want children yet.
On the one hand, it would be accessible to everyone if you get it paid by the taxpayer, on the other hand you can also critically see why someone who has no sex (deficient partner zB) to others who have sex should pay with taxes. In the end, it remains the point of view of all social issues.
“It should not be possible to make any mistakes for taking”
Yes, that’s true, but that’s what kind of contraceptive is.
If it were a kind of other pill then it would certainly be the main problem with the pill now that is the problem.
“One should be sure that the other is honest (because just as the woman can lie in the pill, that could also be the man)”
You’re right, too, but in the end both sides probably don’t have any interest in lying there. It is in the interest of both that it is prevented.
You can argue about whether it’s free “must” or whether you have to pay yourself if you want to have sex and don’t want children yet.
Well, having the idea of having sex for children only a few times in life is more unrealistic nowadays, and if abortions are paid for mediumless, it should be contraceptive to find ðŸ ̃‰
Joa, for example, I don’t want children, but I don’t want to finance big children and families. I think I’m okay in a social state.
Well, you have to worry, in this scenario, abortions should not be a topic anymore.
But that would mean that a man could trick a woman, and violate her will and put her on MUST.
If a man already pays maintenance for several children, there is no extra cost to him, and there are guys who secretly dismiss the condom to deliberately violate women against their will. Most of them take off today, but if that didn’t happen… a horror show…
(Women, of course, manipulate condoms, but after all no child grows 9 months in man)
If you’d have to give a quick test if the other one is really safe.
The most secure would be implants that can be scanned from each other to the cell phone, such as the registration chips in animals 😆
It's hard for people who think normally to understand how they're on it, I think. Find it hard for someone to do this deliberately and against his will.
The whole thing is called stealthing, and there are whole forums full of it, here is an excerpt from another article as an example:
https://www.rundschau-online.de/ratgeber/gesundheit/heimlich-das-kondom-abzieh-stealthing-ist-kein-sex-trend-sonder-s-straftat-30030668
That's exactly how it is, the border is called "self-retaining", and is already higher than the minimum, but if someone with 2 or 3 children is already at this dent, more children don't cost him a cent more extra, which is above the border, it's just divided into more children.
This is what I think, however, more generally, men with little money and perspectives, hardly think of one of the things he wants to make of his life (and is mentally healthy) would make such a stupid thing.
And what do you want to take away Resiner?
Perhaps they also form a will to as many children as possible with as many women as possible. 😕
“Naja, having the idea of having sex for children only a few times in life is more unrealistic nowadays, and if abortions are paid for medium-less, it should be the contraceptives that I find right.”
If this is financed and abortions no longer, I could live with it.
“Joa, for example, I don’t want children, but I don’t want children and families. I think I’m okay in a social state.”
Yes, we can now have a fundamental debate on the welfare state. You’re right.
“and there are guys like this today who secretly make up the condom”
So that they do this because it is more pleasant without condoms, they believe you, but that they do this to squat the woman against her wimps that would seem strange to me.
“The safest thing would be implants that can be scraped from my cell phone, like the registration chips in animals “
That would be……. a bit objective as I find, but objectively it would be useful.
“If a man already pays maintenance for several children, no more cost him extra”
Sure? Would be surprised if it were. According to my knowledge, he must always pay the maintenance as long as he remains more money than the minimum existential.
but what would indeed be useful would be such a quickest for the woman if she had just the fruitful phase. Say whether the ovulation is or whether it takes place in the next days.
Would there be a contraceptive that is 100% safe and has no side effects then this eternal dispute would probably be off the table, or how do you see that?
From there on, I don’t need to read more.
there is the spiral. some do not wear it, but this is rare. there are also diaphragms or if you use two contraceptives at the same time, such as pill and condom. then you are already very safe.
such unplanned pregnancy usually have other reasons. Pill forgot and also drunk Alk. OR didn’t even think of contraception.. 90% of unplanned pregnancies come from irresponsible or better immature girls/women (yes also men carry a part with guilt) and not because there is no good contraceptive.
The statistics say, however, that about one third of the women who were unintentionally pregnant have been contravened in some way – albeit obviously wrong.
I’ve expressed a misunderstanding. but I didn’t say anything else. that was meant irresponsible. Forgot pill etc were only small examples of VIELEN
What 100% would of course be a fine thing, especially side effect-free.
There will still be enough stupidity, which will then use it wrong or not at all…
Sex within marriage is a divine gift. In the past, people would have done everything to get children. How the world has changed.