SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the if-you-build-it-they-will-come dept.
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
After more than a decade of work, government researchers in the U.S. are ready to test an unusual birth control method for men—a topical gel that could prevent the production of sperm.
And no, gentlemen, you don't rub it on your genitals.
The clinical trial, which begins in April and will run for about four years, will be the largest effort in the U.S. to test a hormonal form of birth control for men.
[...] The new gel contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and testosterone. Progestin blocks the testes from making enough testosterone to produce normal levels of sperm. The replacement testosterone is needed to counteract the hormone imbalances the progestin causes but won't make the body produce sperm.
[...] The gel can suppress sperm levels for about 72 hours, so if men forget a dose, "there is a bit of forgiveness," says Régine Sitruk-Ware, distinguished scientist at the Population Council, a nonprofit for reproductive health that is sponsoring the trial alongside the NIH.
[...] Even if the trial is successful, Blithe says it will likely be several years before the gel would be available to the public.
Source: A Contraceptive Gel for Men Is About to Go on Trial (archive)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @06:11PM
One funny exchange I saw at the local college was between one of those modern "feminists," an older feminist from the second wave, and a conservative lady.
The modern one was literally arguing that men should literally have to sign contracts before having sex with a woman.
2nd wave, calling back to an earlier point in the discussion about reproduction rights, asked if that contract could include a provision where the woman waives all rights to support for the father if they accidentally have a child.
The modern one said that shouldn't be allowed because "they need to have consequences to their decision."
But 2nd wave replied with the fact that contraception fails, so not all pregnancies are the result of not using them and that women have multiple chances to get out of such a failure, including safe-haven abandonment after birth, purposeful failure to identify the father and abortion, and unilateral adoption. Why shouldn't men have the right to do the equivalent of abandonment and after-the-fact abortion, at least in terms of contact with the child and money.
Modern rebuts with the fact that doing so allows hurts the fetus, you are taking away its right to financial support to the father.
Conservative jumps in immediately with, "Well, since you believe the child has rights, then I guess you are also anti-abortion then? Wouldn't want to take away the poor thing's right to life."
Modern one gets a priceless look on her face.
In fairness, she then attempted to explain the body autonomy argument and the difference the decision to carry it to term makes, but had to be saved by 2nd wave feminist.