• humdrumgentleman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Friendly reminder of the core problem: medical treatments are all balanced against the risk of what it counteracts.

    Undergoing physical and chemical changes to grow another creature inside you and have it damage everything on the way out is pretty risky. Female birth control only has to be less risky than that.

    A male has zero physiological risk from impregnating someone. Therefore, anything except a miracle drug with high efficacy and almost zero side effects is going to stall at the trial stage.

    On another note, that speaks to how safe and effective vasectomies are.

    • OmgItBurns@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I will say this as often as I can, getting the ol snip snip was the best decision I’ve ever made.

      • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Yeah zero psychological risk is a bit of an overstatement. Zero physical maybe, but there’s definitely psychological risks, and I’m not even thinking about child support

        Edit: I can’t read, it says physiological and I’m just deficient in the reading

    • constantokra@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are also plenty of medical reasons for even sexually inactive women to take hormonal birth control. This isn’t only about pregnancy, which as you say can have all sorts of physical consequences.