Non-hormonal birth control pill for men slated for take-off in Indonesia.

Discussion in 'Discussions' started by lccorp2, Apr 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Loswaith

    Loswaith Member

    The major downside I see to this is that its liekly to cause an increase in STIs/STDs (atleast for the short term). As most people concern themselves with the pregnancy factor of safe sex as opposed to the infection side of things.

    Though that said I would be willing to use it if it did come out, so it is definatly an interesting turn for contraception, and given the 72 day recovery on the male side of things makes it somewhat safer than the female version in the occurance of forgetting to take them.

    It does sadden me that people look at the profit margin though for determining whether its an option, rather than the effect on quality of life for people as a whole.
    Though to be honest I can only see it creating greater profits on contraception because while some women may stop taking theirs, their male counterpart will likely take it instead (the bigger hit will happen on condoms). Then added to that will be the overlap of men and women both taking them as well.

    All in all an interesting tidbit, thanks for sharing it
  2. Haldurson

    Haldurson Member

    That's a really good point. I never thought of that. Clearly, condoms are more desirable for actual health reasons. It never occurred to me that offering an alternative to the condom could actually turn out to be a bad thing (unfortunately to find out, would require a huge social experiment -- actually selling the pills to the public).

    That actually reminds me of an argument that was made on the Science Based Medicine website, that sometimes, double-blind experiments can be a bad idea. For example, you'd never do double-blind testing on parachutes (even with monkeys as test subjects, it would probably be immoral).
  3. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Call me a jerk if you want to, if you are dumb enough to shove your unsheathed *Expletive Deleted* into a bee-hive, you deserve to be stung many many times.

    Condoms are cheap and readily available. Anyone who chooses not to use one does so at their own risk.

    The gene pool needs to thin out those dumb enough to do such things.
  4. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    I think such a pill is more for thing like couples. Indeed, when you've been married with someone since years, and you know she/he is safe, using a condom becomes just a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

    So such a pill would be handy for those couples, I guess.
  5. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    I know for a fact that quite a few Catholic couples use condoms regularly, but they would never admit that in their respective groups. Their religion forbids that explicitly, but they do so because it is not always a good thing to make more children.

    This plant may allow them another option that would be easier and can be used infrequently for full results.

    There are more than six billion people on this Earth. We do not need more from the common people. I suggest selective breeding. It works in so simple a way that it cannot be discounted. Those who are free from any genetic ailments, and have reasonable or good intelligence *Should* breed and make as many copies of that genetic material as possible. Those who are like myself and have genetic diseases should not ever breed, nor should those who are frankly dumb.

    I am Bipolar, I have Insulin Dependant Diabetes, and I have a Seizure Disorder. That is two, if not three reasons I should not breed. The first two are known to be genetic. The seizures however are not understood. They could also be a disease that can carry over to any offspring I could produce, or it could have been the result of getting knocked in the head at some point as a child. Or even a pesticide or some other issue not known. That is why I say "Seizure Disorder" and not Epilepsy. Epilepsy is something that has a known cause. I am not epileptic.

    If not for the corruption and disenfranchisement that would happen, I would say people should be required to prove they are smart and disease free to reproduce. This plant may offer hope for those willing to wait a few days before engaging in sexual acts to ensure they do not have an unwanted impregnation.
  6. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    I hope it's a troll. I seriously hope.

    Eugenics is quite unacceptable today.
  7. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    I think when you say Eugenics you are only thinking of the wrongful application of it.

    I never once said I think *ANYONE* should be banned from procreation. I said the words "Should Breed". I never said anything about vasectomies for the stupid or diseased people.

    I also specified that corruption and disenfranchisement make it impossible to do at current.

    Now *Who* is trolling? :)
  8. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    The usage of "should breed" along with "selective breeding" is quite strange. Anyway, that's not the topic here, let's not start a flamewar over this.

    So yeah, this pill may be handy for married couples who do not want to use a condom, and yet do not want more children. But I fear, as it was said, that it lowers the usage of condoms for young people who sleep with anybody.
  9. Haldurson

    Haldurson Member

    You really believe in selective breeding for humans? It's fine for farm animals and produce, but I think that's a REALLY bad idea for just so many reasons (And I guarantee it has nothing to do with me being Jewish). And in any case How exactly would that work in such a way so as to not cause the immediate overthrow of the government?

    A more sensible approach, and one which may be possible within some of our own lifetimes (maybe not mine specifically), is genetic engineering -- removing genetic disorders, the same way as we do in agriculture. Not only is it less draconian (because people could and probably would choose it for themselves without any legal or government intervention -- something that could only become a nightmare). But it also is more focused, which is why it is replacing the more haphazard selective breeding in agriculture. In the future, you might not have to worry about passing on diabetes or Huntington's disease, or Taysachs, or even a propensity for addiction. I know that there's also room for abuse. There's always room for abuse with any new technology. But if people actually let that stop them, even the invention of fire would have been suppressed.

    I'd be willing to bet that that's actually coming. I can't say when or what form it will take initially, or if insurance would cover it. But if I had to lay money on it, I'd say 25 years is a good bet.
  10. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Alright. You are now saying you have nothing against Eugenics because you are Jewish. That should not have even been mentioned, so I will ignore that trivial detail. You are still saying Eugenics is bad. Not just bad, but "REALLY" bad. On what criteria?

    I think genetic engineering is a bad idea. I am speaking of selective breeding. If I were married, I would insist in my wife and I interviewing those men who have strong genetic code free of weaknesses that our children would suffer from. I do not care one bit what race, creed, color, or nationality those men are. I would simply want what seems best for a child. THIS is what I think selective breeding is.

    Genetic engineering is very very double edged. We could flip one tiny speck of chromosome and think it was a purely beneficial change, yet by so doing we could cause a susceptibility to diseases that may not even exist at this time. Animals choose a mate. They usually choose those that are strongest and smartest. According to the Wikipedia definition, this *IS* Eugenics. (AKA Social Darwinism)

    Please do not make me defend the mistakes of idiotic governments and societies of the past due to an abstract interpretation of Eugenics that makes it the literal Nazi social program. That is not what it is. There are some who absolutely would repeat the mistakes of the past with Eugenics. That does not in any way make Eugenics as a concept responsible for that any more than voting for someone who later commits crimes against Humanity.

    I hate being so defensive, but I feel you are placing the crimes of untold millions on my head for suggesting natural selection should be intelligent rather than everyone just putting masks on and bumping uglies in the dark and seeing what children emerge as a result.

    You say that you think genetic engineering can prevent diseases sometime in the future. I cannot entirely argue against the possibility. But I wonder what *Else* will be changed. The will to be free could be genetically engineered away. And I must point out that anyone who has no genetic defects and is picky enough to screen for those in a potential mate will right now be able to significantly diminish the chance of those ailments. Not a mysterious time in the future of science fiction. Right now.

    Back to the subject, again, I think that the plant may help those who want to insulate against the chance of unplanned children. Can we either dismiss this argument about the pros and cons of eugenics, or make another thread so Daynab can promptly close and lock or delete it? :)
  11. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    Yes, yes, we should get back to the main subject, even if I don't understand what you consider a "strong genetic code free of weaknesses". Plus, nice Godwin point for you two ;)

    So yeah, this pill is interesting ; I'm eager to see what it will become. Let's hope people understand they still need condoms to avoid STIs.
    OmniNegro likes this.
  12. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    Since you did ask, "Strong Genetic Code Free of Weaknesses" should have had the word "Known" before weaknesses. I am speaking of things like my aforementioned weaknesses and similar things.

    Bipolar Disorder.
    And a plethora of similar things known as Genetic Disorders.

    There are way too many to count, or even roughly quantify.

    *Edit* By the way, here is a link anyone thinking genetic engineering is going to fix everything should read. I do not link to heavily biased junk references either. This is Wikipedia.
  13. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    But how could you judge such a code ?

    I consider myself as intelligent, charming, with a nice sense of humour, and a good general body condition. But I have Gilbert's syndrome and have myopia.

    Should I breed ?
  14. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member's_syndrome

    Both are hereditary. I would answer no.

    Sorry if this offends you. I have nothing against you, but I think that we should strive for the best for our children. I am certain you agree with that much at least. But again, it is your choice.

    As I have said before, *I* believe in selective breeding. *I* also believe in freedom for everyone to make their own choices. So do what you will with my blessing. I hope your genetic ailments are not passed on, and that someday there is a solution without ailments.
  15. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    The question of "what is best for our children" is a delicate one. Would they better exist with myopia, or not exist at all ?

    To be honest, the answer depends on the country you're in, and its case law. I do believe, in English, it's called "best-interest", and in France, we've had quite a few cases where the judges considered that a child couldn't, for instance, sue his parents because they didn't abort.

    "None can invoke any form of loss from his birth alone.", or something like that. It's a French law principle, but I think it's understable.

    But I understand your position ; indeed, you seem to have a quite... Handicaping disease (diabetes). But I live with Myopia and Gilbert's syndrome in a totally normal way, I do not consider them as handicaps.

    Anyway, I don't think we'll eventually come to an agreement. And sorry for my crappy English too, I hope you understood my point.
  16. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    I think I understand. You are clearly intelligent, because I see nothing about your posts other than that statement itself, that would indicate you have a less than perfect understanding of English. :)

    Now back to the now greatly neglected topic:

    Anyone happen to know anything specific about the plant itself? What type of soil it prefers? Full sun, or partial shade? Anything?

    *Edit* For reference:
    Balhichou likes this.
  17. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    Hum, the French Wikipedia page has slightly more information than the English one. We can learn that this plant is from the Acanthaceae family. Maybe we will find more informations here.

    *EDIT* From what I read online, this family seems to be adapted to aquarium culture. What a great information.
    OmniNegro likes this.
  18. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

    I wonder if it can thrive indoors with artificial lighting? It seems most of the family of plants prefer damp soil and tropical locations. That should be a cakewalk here in Texas.
    (By artificial lighting, I do not in any way mean CFLs or LEDs. I mean the more expensive HPS bulbs with a full-time magnetic ballast.)
  19. OmniaNigrum

    OmniaNigrum Member

  20. Balhichou

    Balhichou Member

    Hmm, I think it would work, since articifial lighting is used in most aquariums, as long as you use it 12 hours a day, to emulate sunlight.

    From a quick google search, it seems that eating the leaves would be enough ; but the side effects of just eating the leaves are still imprecise. It's used in Papuan weddings : as long as the dowry hasn't been fully given, the man eats the plant, to avoid making his wife pregnant.

    The effect of the leaves is that it refrains spermatozoids to go through the ovula, by suppressing the enzyma they use to penetrate the outer surface of the ovula. I'm not sure I make sense.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.