Male contraceptive jab is here.
The scientists claim it can give much better protection against pregnancy than condoms.
And it is hoped the work could help pave the way for such a form of contraception to become more widely available.
The injections contain the hormones testosterone and progesterone, and are given to the men every two months.
Sperm counts fall rapidly, and when these are low enough couples taking part in the trial would use the jabs as their method of contraception for a year.
Scientists also stress that the effects of the injections are fully reversible.
In earlier stories the BBC and others stressed research that found females did not trust males to always take a contraceptive pill. Early studies indicated females didn’t trust males to be honest about it. More recently the studies say females are concerned that men would forget to take a pill from time to time. It appears that as a male contraceptive pill moves towards becoming a reality, females are waking up to the fact that men want it. Their objections are becoming weak and irrelevant.
There is nothing preventing the female from continuing to take her pill so I don’t see their views as even relevant.
I think/hope that once the male contraceptive pill becomes a reality it will create a second sexual revolution. One where male reproductive rights and issues start to be considered.
Take the following example: a man does not want children so he takes the contraceptive pill. His partner tell him that she is also on the pill. For some reason (new technology) his pill fails. It turns out she lied and she was not taking her pill. She actually wanted to have a baby all the time. She falls pregnant. She could take the morning after pill but she refuses to do that. She wants the child and he does not. She wants to raise the child on her own. She doesn’t want him in the picture. She just wants his pay cheaque. Should he have to pay a very large part of his pay for the next 19 years for this child? Is he responsible for this child?
OK write your answer down. Justify your answer.
Now how about this example: He wants a child and she does not. They both have well paid professional careers. He tells her he is on the pill. He lies. She takes no contraception. She falls pregnant. She only realises 2 months into term. It is now either an abortion or she has the child. She has the child but does not want to keep it. She tries to put the child up for adoption but he objects and takes the child from birth to raise on his own. Should she have to pay a large part of her pay for the next 19 years for this child?
Is your answer different from the first example? If so justify it.
I look forward to reading your view points.