Male Birth Control, Without Condoms, Will Be Here by 2017


#1

"…While the way Vasalgel works inside a man’s body might be simple, its cultural impact would be complex. The Religious Right, in particular, has grown accustomed to a world in which regulating access to birth control means regulating women’s bodies, rather than men’s bodies. Although the Affordable Care Act began offering women no-to-low-cost contraceptive coverage in 2010, the Supreme Court’s now-infamous Hobby Lobby ruling this summer allowed “closely-held corporations” to offer health insurance plans without contraceptive coverage. The Hobby Lobby ruling is already being used to try to undermine Obamacare’s contraceptive requirement altogether. This week, Missouri state Representative Paul Wieland’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services went to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court will consider whether or not it is constitutional for “closely-held corporations” to be able to opt out of contraceptive coverage while states like Missouri cannot.

Lost in all of this legal conflict, however, is the fact that Hobby Lobby, of course, still covers vasectomies. But what if vasectomies were cheap, non-invasive, fully reversible, and as widespread as the female birth control pill? Would businesses like Hobby Lobby begin to object to them? If Vasalgel became popular and affordable enough to surpass female birth control, it would put the Religious Right’s opposition to contraception to the test. As The New York Times reported in 2012, many on the Religious Right justify their opposition to some forms of birth control by equating them with abortion because they “prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.” But if men’s bodies became the primary site for birth control, would religious leaders shift their rhetoric and take issue with a technology like Vasalgel on the grounds that it prevents life on a massive scale? Or do debates about life only have meaning when they take place over women’s bodies?..

…and given the fact that modern birth control has deep roots in Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s belief in eugenics, the benefits of male birth control for lower-income families in particular should not be overemphasized…"

Read more:

Male Birth Control, Without Condoms, Will Be Here by 2017

Here’s another:

The Male Birth Control Revolution May Be Upon Us, But Are Men On Board?

To Birth Control Or Not To Birth Control…

"…This question isn’t meant to suggest that men are selfish, irresponsible, reproductive-health-skirting jerks. But the burden of responsibility for fertility has been on women for so long – the Pill was first approved for contraceptive use in 1960, more than 50 years ago – that male birth control represents a powerful paradigm shift that anyone would have a hard time adjusting to.

The most reputable survey on this topic, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, revealed that 66% of men would be willing to take male birth control pills. Meanwhile, 43% were on board with taking the Depo-Provera shot, and just 36% were open to getting injected with the Norplant implant…"


#2

We do not need more birth control in our society. I really wish that society would wake up to the fact that contracepting is gravely sinful. Unfortunately, not many people believe that. :frowning:


#3

:thumbsup:

(Though for everyone who might deign to view children as a burden rather than a blessing, particularly those having sex outside of marriage, I’d far rather they had every means of cheap and effective contraception easily available than arranged abortions).


#4

Sadly the world seems to be getting more and more accepting of this.


#5

The first article, if biased, raises some good questions. I expect that among the vast majority of non-Catholic Christians (who loom large among the “religious right”) it will be deemed morally acceptable.

From the standpoint of Catholic moral theology (informed by Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae), it would perhaps be a lesser evil than potentially abortifacient methods; but I think it would still be intrinsically gravely evil, as it directly and deliberately prevents the primary end of the marital embrace by unnatural means.


#6

originally posted by GreyRabbit
The most reputable survey on this topic, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, revealed that 66% of men would be willing to take male birth control pills. Meanwhile, 43% were on board with taking the Depo-Provera shot, and just 36% were open to getting injected with the Norplant implant…"

I think this is just a phony deal. Hype put out by the prochoice people to make up think that all is well.

We know that women who take the “pill” take it for 1-5 years and then get off the medication. They are on and off. Some use IUD’s, condoms, etc. Some have tubal ligations. Vacectomies have been available for a long time but few men have them.
**
Men are not going to want to be bloated and have a low libido.
**
Just prochoice hype to make everyone believe men are going to take these medication. This will only anger the women more.

originally posted** by Murmurs**

(Though for everyone who might deign to view children as a burden rather than a blessing, particularly those having sex outside of marriage, I’d far rather they had every means of cheap and effective contraception easily available than arranged abortions).

Shame!


#7

Yes, I agree. It does seem that way. I do believe that there are ways that a person can spread the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. Learning Theology of the Body would help one to spread the teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception. I also recommend reading Venerable (Soon to be Blessed) Pope Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae”. He was truly a prophet in how he knew what widespread contraceptive usage would bring about for society. I honestly think that spreading the Church’s teaching which is the ultimate Truth about contraception is one good way to practice the New Evangelization.

Yes, I agree with you Ad Orientem. The fact is that non-Catholic Christians have it wrong on this issue though as you know. Only the Catholic Church has the fullness of the Truth as revealed to us by God.

As I said in reply to Randomusername, I believe the New Evangelization is essential in our modern day and age when secularism and relativism seems to be skyrocketing in popularity.


#8

Let’s just pray that God uses this to dispel the idea that our opposition to contraception is misogynous.


#9

Are women willing to trust men to actually be using this contraceptive? After all, if the man is lying or if he has compromised its effectiveness of the birth control, the woman will be the one who becomes pregnant.


#10

considering the cancer risks of the woman’s birth control pill, my guess would be a male version would cause male reproductive cancer. But I am sure jimmy or bob or joe or greg or lou would gladly risk it so he could have sex every week without getting a woman pregnant.


#11

This invention wouldn’t challenge Hobby Lobby. They only protest the use of abortifacients.


#12

On the other hand, I think it would be reasonable if. for once, men were expected to poison their own bodies in order to be always and immediatly sexually available like women have been for the last so many decades. Maybe if this was the case, people would rethink chemical birthcontrol.


#13

It could be possible it could have an abortifacient effect.


#14

Well said - making a sin easier to commit is not the answer.


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.