Hacker News Reader

Comment by bufbupa | Hacker News Reader

The problem with male birth control pills is that it's the women who bear the bulk of the risk/responsibility when it comes to pregnancy. If a woman says "trust me, i'm on the pill" and lies -- they're the ones that get pregnant and likely get stuck raising the kid. Sure the father might be on the hook financially, but if the woman lied about their birth control and went forward with the pregnancy anyway it's not absurd to imagine the father bailing on the situation.

Flipped around the other way, if a man says "trust me, i'm on the pill", now a woman has to trust this man even though they're the one's at risk of getting pregnant. What's worse is that the woman can't easily verify if they did in fact take a pill. At least with a condom you can be check that it's being used properly..

This asymmetric risk profile makes me think think that male birth control pills won't work outside of trusting long-term relationships, and then there's better options than a chemical pill for those situations already.

View on HN

So your point would be... what? Women already have birth control and still can take it. A male birth control pill helps prevent the opposite situation where she "forgot" to take the pill, or the small chance that a fertilized egg stays attached, henceforth putting the man on a financial hook. What you wrote here comes off as a case of "women most affected" since you're implying there's an asymmetric risk profile that doesn't already exist for men. Somehow having a more leveled playing field only works in long-term relationships? If anything, it's a greater benefit in short-term relationships since you can be assured that even if a condom fails the chance of pregnancy would be scant.

Other than condoms, birth control (used mostly as birth control, not as menstrual regulation) is mostly relegated to trusting long term relationships already: STDs exist. So whether this is better or worse than the pill for women engaging in casual sex is probably not all that big of a deal: If you are trusting someone's recent STD panel results, you are still putting quite a bit of trust in them.

Now, saying there are better options in those long relationships is quite the claim. There's a non insignificant percentage of women that have serious side effects with hormonal birth control: Mood changes and reduced sex drive are crippling, if you are unlucky enough to find yourself in that category. Surgical approaches aren't great if you see a possibility of wanting to change your mind later.

So there's definitely a market for male birth control, if it has few side effects. Will it sell as much as once a trimester hormonal treatments for women? probably not, but you are assuming there's no market there.

> here's a non insignificant percentage of women that have serious side effects with hormonal birth control: Mood changes and reduced sex drive are crippling, if you are unlucky enough to find yourself in that category. Surgical approaches aren't great if you see a possibility of wanting to change your mind later.

absolutely agreed, If there are pills and procedures for both sides, whoever has bad side effects (or risks for a surgery) can opt-out, and the other partner will do it. Or both can combine, decreasing the risk of pregnancy even more

Men can only "bail on the situation" when they don't have much to lose. Any man with a reliable job and good salary is very vulnerable to having wages garnished.

Which is sad. Should be treated like sexual assault

How would that help the child?

I hate this mentality. If the guy should be on the hook it should depend on the circumstances in my opinion. However, that is not the current case.

Yes, I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility, and as a corollary, I believe that men should take responsibility for their effluvia. It takes two to make a child, and the kid cannot be responsible before adulthood. Don't want a baby? Wrap it up, don't have unprotected sex, or coming soon, take a pill.

It's not common, but there are cases like this:

Here a women took a use condom form the trash to get pregnate. https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2003_07_thu_01.shtml

Women Forged a signature of her ex-husband at an IVF clinic that had his sperm, and he still had to pay child support. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8544783/Woman-had-tw...

There are numerous other cases like this, not common but it does happen. Lying about birth control is similar, but harder to prove, but even in these blatant examples men are still forced to pay child support. You can't argue this is even just?

Edit: also looking there are some cases just as blatant as those two that have happened in the US. Not common, but it does happen. This is why I think child support should take into account the circumstances. Edges cases are always a thing in real life. A hard rule of a man must always pay child support is not good public policy and unjust to those who are victims of such things.

While lying about birth control is more murky it still should not be something we condone, and if there is proof of it and not some she said he said battle I think family courts should to take that into account.

There also cases of sperm donors ending up on the hook, for child support, not common if the clinic is doing things correctly, but it does happen.

There also cases of underage boys who end up on the hook for child support, despite what happened being statutory rape. This is insane. For example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statut...

Two anecdotes pales in comparison to the frequency of deadbeats: less than half of custodial parents* receive the full amount, and almost a third never receive a payment.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-tps...

But ultimately, the child is the most vulnerable party in question. Yes, our legal system is geared to protect them first. It's not the best outcome for either parent. But the kid comes first, because the kid is the most vulnerable and has the greatest potential for societal harm/benefit.

Those cases are bad, yes. Are they statistically significant? Citation please. Men lie about having had vasectomies, too, to have unprotected sex, resulting in unwanted pregnancies. Frequently? I don't know. Guys sneaking their condom off is pretty frequent in my experience, though.

* note the gender neutral term. There are quite a few deadbeat moms too. Single dads need child support too.

I saying this happens and courts need to have legal discretion to handle the circumstances of the case. In cases like this it's insane a man should have to have shoulder responsibility. Discretion is important for edge cases. Further putting a the child above all else and causing unjust harm to people is wrong, and should not something we want courts doing. They should ensure things are just. Statistically significance should not matter this is matter of injustice in these cases.

I am not arguing against going after child support from dead beats. Although, the punishments some times go to far. Taking a driver license away for example and then they can't get a job/lose it ect... and even at times putting them in jail and forcing them to pay while in jail while unable to work makes it even worse. These are different issue than what we were talking about though. Let's not move the discussion to much.

As for lying about birth control I said it's more murky, but such blatant edge cases as pointed out above certainly should not be handled as they currently are.

> Discretion is important for edge cases. Further putting a the child above all else and causing unjust harm to people is wrong, and should not something we want courts doing.

I'm taking a Utilitarian position on a Trolley Problem here. Of course you can change the equation by putting Hitler or Mother Theresa on the tracks. I've agreed that some edge cases have been handled badly; what is your desired outcome of this?

I am saying courts should be allowed to use common sense in edge cases. Ideally in more murky situations the burden should be lessened.

An other statutory rape case: https://www.lawlink.com/research/cases/74059/county-of-san-l...

The victim should not be paying any child support in this case.

Similar, when sperm is taking with zero consent.

Maybe more murky things like lying about birth control if there is solid evidence of that the courts should be able to take that into account ect...In such murky situations I am not saying responsibility should be completly absolved. The child always first is just black and white thinking, and lacks nuance and common sense. That leads to injustice.

Here is an other example of child rape victim forced to pay child support: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma...

Such a legal system is not just if it can't handle cases like this.

The legal system is not just in all edge cases. This is known. The good news is that bad precedents can be overturned.

This is problem with how current statues are written for child support. This would take legislative action at least it looks that way in the USA for most states with a cursory google.

Most statues allow courts to have some discretion to handle edge cases. This is not the case with child support. That's why I said it's bad public policy, and there will be more people victimized by these poorly written laws.

Sure. Needs work. When you say you "hate this mentality" it sounds like you want to toss out the entire legal concept. In further discussion, you're hyperfocused on some edge cases. I agree, those edge cases need work... but you haven't convinced me that the entire concept is unworkable.

The state should pay the child support equivalent to help the child in a case like this.

With whose taxes, exactly?

I don't know, maybe the military could spare 0.1% of its hundreds of billions. Why do taxes become a problem when someone proposes using them for something practical that benefits society, rather than making Boeing richer?

> If a woman says "trust me, i'm on the pill" and lies -- they're the ones that get pregnant and likely get stuck raising the kid. Sure the father might be on the hook financially, but if the woman lied about their birth control and went forward with the pregnancy anyway it's not absurd to imagine the father bailing on the situation.

And yet there are whole discussion boards dedicated to the subject how to best catch a man by getting yourself pregnant by him against his will.

I couldn't find a single one for men on how to catch a women by getting her pregnant against her will.

Then you didn't look hard enough.

Care to help me with a link?

Sorry, diving deep into the manosphere is not exactly lining up with my self care goals, but I'm sure you're not as bad at using Google as you'd let me to believe.

If in needs a deep dive into some weird niche of the internet then my point has been proven. Catching man with the use of a pregnancy gives whole pages of google results with simplest of searches.

Not exactly. Women have the power to choose abortion but men don't. Men however are liable for financially supporting the child. The greater risk is with the man.

There are a lot of men who would love to have the confidence of not having to trust every woman he sleeps with. "Stealing" babies from men and the fear of that is real.

> Women have the power to choose abortion but men don't.

Not exactly. Abortion is criminalized in multiple states now. In other states, the father needs to be identified and consent to the abortion. It's also stigmatized and many women don't have a free choice in the matter -- in some religious communities, a woman who seeks an abortion does so at the risk of excommunication, disowning or even beatings/murder.

Exactly. Of course, depending on country/state, the regulations vary. But at least here in Canada, if birth control fails, the woman can get an abortion. What happens is that often they don't, but you can't say the option is not there. (again: depending on local regulations, but assuming you are somewhere with this option)

> Not exactly. Women have the power to choose abortion but men don't. Men however are liable for financially supporting the child. The greater risk is with the man.

I find brushing off abortion like this a tad ridiculous. Sure one could say the 'risk' is greater. But abortion carries with it emotional, and physical trauma, not to mention a lot of women are still met with shameful looks in today's society for doing so. It isn't an easy process, and I think comparing it with financial liability like this is a bit.. "Insensitive", I think the word is.

Even still, some women are not comfortable with abortion. And in that case they will be taking a greater risk.

Like I see what you're saying, but I don't think the comparison between abortion and financial liability is something we should be doing.

That financial liability is 18 years of paying some double-digit percentage of your income to somebody that could be a almost a stranger for nothing in return. All those hours of work wasted is huge, so is the emotional toll of being cheated in such a large scale.

Abortion as soon as you discover you're pregnant is just a pill and quite easy.

> Abortion as soon as you discover you're pregnant is just a pill and quite easy.

You mean the intentional killing of a human being is "easy", I read this and I know society is doomed.

Mifepristone (the abortion pill) only works up to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. All scientific evidence suggests the nervous system is not developed enough to experience anything resembling consciousness or to feel pain until 20 weeks at the earliest. Before that point, the fetus is just a cluster of cells. Brains are what make us human.

> All scientific evidence suggests the nervous system is not developed enough to experience anything resembling consciousness or to feel pain until 20 weeks at the earliest.

Bold claim with no data to back it up and yet a cursory search on Google shows how false your claim is:

1. https://flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-developm.... 2. https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fet...

Is feeling pain or being conscience the standard upon which we determine the worth of someones life? If yes then please head over to your nearest hospital and pull the plug on all the comatose patients.

Nobody is required by law to sustain life of another human by making internals of your body available and risking your health and/or life.

Except for pregnant women.

We've been killing each other for thousands of years for far more trivial reasons than getting 18 years of financial obligations.

>We've been killing each other for thousands of years for far more trivial reasons than getting 18 years of financial obligations.

Yes we have, and the repercussions of those acts are still being felt to this day with calls for justice, reducing human worth to purely a "financial obligation" to be avoided at all costs makes us lower than beasts roaming the Serengeti

More options are always better. It's common that hormonal birth control won't work for someone, so it's great that we are creating more configurations. You're also correct that the person who is going to get pregnant is the more invested party and the one who is going to suffer the consequences from improper preparations.

> You're also correct that the person who is going to get pregnant is the more invested party and the one who is going to suffer the consequences from improper preparations.

Depending on the country/state you are in. If abortion is legalized, you can do that. And then, if you know you won't get an abortion either because local regulations forbid, or it goes against your beliefs, then you have to weight in your risks and make your decisions, like combining birth control methods for example.

Now, in places where abortion is legalized, women are the only ones with the power to stop the pregnancy, and the guy needs to face their decision. They can't bail (at least, financially)

I've been party to at least two abortions. They're shitty and they come with major side effects. I would have taken the male pill as religiously as I take my allergy pills, to avoid that.

Why can't they both take the respective pill? That way nobody has to trust anyone else.

That doesn't follow. You have to trust people to have taken the pill.

If the pill worked when you took it 5 minutes in advance of the act, you could both watch each other take it and find something else to do for five minutes. That's not the case.

You just need to know that you took your own pill

> If a woman says "trust me, i'm on the pill" and lies

The guy can now mitigate the risk by being on the pill himself

Everyone should be responsible for their own bodies. The fact that men now have access to the pill does not mean that women will have to stop taking theirs and suddenly leave the risks of pregnancy to others.

Now both will be able to take it. Each individual will be able to choose the level of risk that is right for them.

If you are a woman who is comfortable with the risk, you can stop the pill and trust your partner. If you are not, you can take the pill yourself.

If you are a man who is comfortable with the risk, you can stop the pill and trust your partner. If you are not, you can take the pill yourself.

This is also a great option for stable relationships where the woman cannot take hormone-based pills. The man can simply take this non-hormonal pill and the couple will be protected from unplanned pregnancy.

I don't understand this take. If a woman doesn't want a kid she can get an abortion. If a man doesn't want a kid he better hope the woman feels the same or he is screwed. Women have almost all the power in this situation.

I once came across this statement, which has stuck with me: “All unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible ejaculations.” And I haven’t been able to figure a situation that refutes that. The idea that a woman somehow has power in this situation misrepresents power dynamics and the reality of gender inequality in our society. If men don’t want a kid, or don’t want to risk a pregnancy, it is not difficult to avoid.

No birth control (aside from sterilization) is 100% effective. If you consider all premarital sex, even "protected" sex, to be irresponsible, then that is a fair statement. But most people do not.

When it comes to elective abortion, I am personally most sympathetic to the case where the couple tried their best to prevent pregnancy and yet it happened anyway. (Of course, there is also the case of rape, where the woman should definitely have the option of abortion.)

I can think of four quite trivially. The condom fails. The IUD fails. Your wife forgets to take the pill. Your girlfriend lies about being on the pill.

Not only is it an incredibly callous take devoid of empathy, it is wrong. It is like telling a woman if you didn't want to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex.

Not in Texas or the other states following suit. Not sure if you're American or not but women are having the right to choose stripped a lot lately. None of us will have any power soon.

This underplays the risks men face. As a woman, you can take bc and protect yourself against crazy guys who would ditch in the case of a pregnancy. Male bc would similarly protect men against women who would lie about being on bc

Ah yes. We can protect ourselves from the least likely scenario. Good... good...

Do people really think this is so common that we need to consider it a possibility in almost any case? It keeps being brought up but it's highly unlikely, outside of daytime talk shows.

> and then there's better options than a chemical pill for those situations already

What are the better options? Male condoms have a "typical use failure rate" of 13%, and a "perfect use failure rate" of 2%. Which isn't really good compared to chemical contraceptives like the pill.

You can see numbers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me...

I would assume that the male pill is targeted more toward people in relationships. Condoms prevent more than just the one side effect of intercourse, where a pill does nothing for STDs. After our first kid, my wife told me to go get clipped. I didn't hesitate for a second and now I'm happily unable to procreate again. On the other hand, my wife has regretted that decision for years. Selfishly, I love the fact that I don't have to argue about it but had she not been so quick to react to the unpleasantness of pregnancy, I probably would have caved and we'd have two kids. Had a pill been available, she almost certainly would have opted for that. (Birth control pills and devices have caused her serious medical problems in the past, so it's not a viable option.)

what better options do you mean?

for long-term birth control a copper (non-hormonal) IUD might be a better option. You don't have to remember to take pills, and it's less chemically disruptive to the body. Or better yet a vasectomy if you never want kids.

total anecdotal: a couple years ago, I went to a gender reveal party. The wife had IUD, but it was not properly put, iirc. Then talking to another couple there, they were expecting a baby. Guess what was the birth control of choice?

In the end, all methods can fail. Combining male + female controls is the best, since both would have to fail for a pregnancy to happen.

A financial medallion

Reply on news.ycombinator.com