Monday, July 05, 2010

Birth Control Pill for Men Being Developed

The Pill. It empowered women sexually and provided an important cornerstone for the women's revolution that is going to mark our era in history. Now word is that there will be a pill for men to take once every few months to make them functionally sterile.

Here's what it boils down to: Women, would you trust your man to remember to take this? The researcher who developed the new pill thinks you will.

Time cites The Telegraph and is a little more readable for Americans:
In the search for a form of male contraception that can rival the female birth control pill, a team of researchers from Israel may have just made a breakthrough. As the Telegraph reports, in initial animal trials the team of researchers found that a pill they'd developed — which works by stripping sperm of a protein necessary to fertilize an egg — was able to create temporary sterility in mice for one to three months, depending on the strength of the dose.

Researchers plan to start human trials with the pill next year, and estimate that it could be available to the public in as little as three years. One of the major concerns about developing an effective pill-based form of male contraception is that men might be less likely to remember to take it every day. Yet, should it prove effective in humans, men would only need to take this tablet once a month or once every three months. As Haim Breitbart, a researcher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel who helped develop the pill, told the Telegraph:
"I think most women would trust their man to remember once a month or once a quarter."
In recent months the ongoing search for a reliable form of male birth control other than the condom has yielded clues about everything from how sperm swim to the potential for using ultrasound to disrupt sperm production and create temporary infertility.

Read the full Telegraph piece here.

Developing a once-a-month male birth control pill?

The risks and costs of pregnancy are not equally allocated to both members of a couple. In general, the male can walk away from a pregnancy and the female has to deal with it, it's a basic biological fact and is the fundamental reason that women need to be granted full decision-making authority over their own reproductive systems. On the other hand, there are a lot of good reasons why a man would want to control the consequences of his sexual behavior.

It will be interesting to see if this new approach is successful, and if it does reach the market, do people really take advantage of it. I have the feeling it is not the next Viagra.


Anonymous OIIOHH said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

July 06, 2010 9:37 AM  
Anonymous OIIOHH said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

July 06, 2010 9:37 AM  
Anonymous chicago, here I come, right back where I started from said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

July 06, 2010 9:45 AM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

exactly, they know they never should have elected him

now, they're looking for a chnage they can believe in

July 06, 2010 10:54 AM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

that's exactly right

the American people realize they should have never elected Obama to begin with

it was an irresponsible gamble, akin to going to a blackjack table in Vegas and taking a hit while showing eighteen

the next generation will suffer from this act of irresponsibility but we will, at least, minimize the damage at the polls in November

July 06, 2010 11:15 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Jim asked: Here's what it boils down to: Women, would you trust your man to remember to take this?

I trust women to make sure men take the pill as prescribed, provided they and their doctors agree it's safe.

Apparently Anon has no interest in male contraception to help prevent unplanned and unwanted pregnancies but would rather post another unattributed editorial, this time a now deleted Zuckerman editorial. Zuckerman's entitled to his opinions, but I'd like to know how he compares Reagan's 42% approval rating at this same point in his presidency to Obama's 45% approval rating.

I'm not sure which website you lifted Zuckerman's editorial from Anon, but for balance you might want to read The American people want more government spending, another editorial published today at RealClearPolitics, which reports:

The actual views of the American people are at odds with the corporate media’s portrayal of a nation of deficit hawks. According to a June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup Poll, 60 percent of Americans favor "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy." Only 38 percent of the respondents opposed the proposal, while 2 percent had no opinion.

July 06, 2010 12:57 PM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

actually, the defect in the male pill is that it is very easy to forget to take something every three months

the daily routine of female pills is much more reliable

one thing you may not remember about Reagan, Aunt Bea, is that he high negatives when he came into office because the liberals of the 60s and 70s had demonized him as an ultraconservative nut

Obama, on the other hand, was greeted as the Messiah

Reagan exceeded expectations; Obama, the opposite

I agree that the American people would be happy to extend the deficit if it would produce jobs

the perception is that we went all out on spending and Obama squandered it on things that didn't produce the desired boost in employment

remember, the Democrats control all three houses (White, Rep, Senate) and will be held more accountable for what they do than the Repubs will for what they say

here's Obama's attempt to create a diversion for the fall:

"PHOENIX (July 6) -- The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.

President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided and says the Arizona legislature acted "stupidly."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets."

Obama thinks he can energize his listless base this way but no American, of any demographic, will ignore Obama's mishandling of the economy, stupid.

July 06, 2010 1:32 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Did you just call me "stupid" because I have a different opinion than you do?

Your debating skills are sorely lacking, Anon.

one thing you may not remember about Reagan, Aunt Bea, is that he high negatives when he came into office because the liberals of the 60s and 70s had demonized him as an ultraconservative nut

Obama, on the other hand, was greeted as the Messiah

Right. The GOP and the birthers and the tea baggers never demonized Obama as a socialist, Nazi, communist, Chicago shakedowning, Kenyan interloper did they, Anon?

< eye roll >

July 06, 2010 2:44 PM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

"Did you just call me "stupid" because I have a different opinion than you do?"

I was just quoting James Carville, stupid.

Did you not get that?

Bea, you don't appreciate historical setting. In 1980, before the internet and cable TV, liberals controlled the media and their take on Reagan was largely unquestioned.

Debate is more even-handed in our era.

Obama is a socialist, btw. Whether that represents demonization depends on your perspective. Seems to me you regularly argue for a socialists world view so that would be a virtue from your angle.

July 06, 2010 3:46 PM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

a new Gallup approval rating is out today and Obama gets a whopping 44%

that's four times snake eyes for you gamblers out there

another con man loses the confidence of those he swindled

July 06, 2010 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the opposition to $33 billion in new spending on unemployment benefits “just cruel” and said this about unemployment benefits:

"... This is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you the money is spent quickly, it injects demand into the economy, and is job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name"

No economist, but three things jump out at me:

First, it just doesn’t pass the smell test with me that unemployment benefits create more jobs than “almost any other initiative you can name.” The vast majority of jobs created in post-WWII America have been created by small businesses. In the long run, removing red tape and unleashing small businesses creates millions more jobs than any government initiative can ever create.

Second, if Pelosi feels that unemployment benefits are a big stimulus to the economy, why isn’t the legislation being paid for out of stimulus money? Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed doing just that, but Democrats are resisting.

Third, Pelosi’s remarks clearly show the disconnect between the Democratic Party and Main Street businesses. She doesn’t seem to understand the uncertainty that so many businesses are facing because of the massive expansion of government and the spiraling deficits: Most businesses are facing the specter of unknown healthcare costs and higher taxes. So no wonder unemployment remains so high--most businesspeople I know are waiting to see where it all shakes out. “High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth,” economist Allan Meltzer wrote in a great piece last week in the Wall Street Journal on the common-sense reasons why the president’s stimulus plan has failed to solve the unemployment problem.

July 06, 2010 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's what you stupidly said: "Obama is a socialist, btw. "

Before you embarrass yourself further, you should consider enrolling in a Montgomery College course in political/economic theory. Maybe, just maybe, you can learn for yourself what makes a "socialist" instead of mouthing the platitudes and dumb remarks of your TeaBagger heroes!

And...once again...your inability to focus on the topic of this thread: "Birth Control Pill for Men Being Developed" and your persistent attempts to turn the dialog to whatever is of interest to just you, is cause for concern regarding your mental health.

July 07, 2010 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh yeah, mental homes are full of people who give their opinion when not asked

everyone in China and Iran knows that

Obama believes upper income people ahould be taxed and the money they've earned should be used to pay for services for people who did not earn it

that's socialism

besides the issue of sheer equity is the fact that the rich don't have enough money to do this

socialist societies aren't self-sustaining

July 07, 2010 7:28 PM  
Anonymous this is serious said...

the socialist-in-chief has now revealed himself

the 2010 election debate begins now

the American people will now have to recognize our Hugo Chavez wannabe president for what he is

we can still turn back:

"President Obama is making a huge end-run around the American people with his recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick.

“This recess appointment is an insult to the American people,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), a physician and leading Berwick opponent. “Dr. Berwick is a self professed supporter of rationing health care, and he won’t even have to explain his views to the American people in a hearing. Once again, President Obama has made a mockery of his pledge to be accountable and transparent.” Berwick will have authority over an agency with the largest single budget in the entire U.S. government and over implementation of the most sweeping legislative overhaul of our health sector ever — without so much as a congressional hearing!

Berwick will run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), giving him control of its $800 billion budget during the crucial months when thousands of pages of regulations will be written, determining how Obamacare will be run.

The reason Berwick’s nomination was so highly controversial: numerous statements he has made professing his love for socialized medicine.

Echoing Republicans, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on Wednesday blasted the Obama administration for sidestepping Congress to install Berwick.

"Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered," Baucus said in a statement."

July 07, 2010 9:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm..."oiiohh" (and other pseudonyms): 7 posts of total irrelevancy - more examples of your ego-stroking!

July 08, 2010 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you haven't shown how irrelevancy is the equivalent of "ego-stroking"

we're waiting...........

July 08, 2010 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do us all a favor and continue holding your breath!

July 10, 2010 12:44 PM  
Anonymous oiiohh said...

one thing for certain, then anon whining about "ego-stroking" won't be able to back up his idiocy

July 11, 2010 2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home