5 ms·

You think it's a good think that the majority of women were resorting to a drug to cope with a normal healthy body function? I think it's good if more women ar

You think it's a good think that the majority of women were resorting to a drug to cope with a normal healthy body function? I think it's good if more women are able to cope without the drugs.

Udo 11y ago
I said it's a culture shift, I didn't mean to pass any judgement. As someone with a male body I'm not really in the position to tell. I have a strong feeling of what I would do if I had been born female, but I was not, so... Pain, suffering, and health problems in general, are indeed natural as you say. However, most people would consider them part of the "no thanks" aspect of nature. You disagree, and I suspect you already know that's an extreme and unethical position to hold, otherwise you would not have made a new HN account just for this discussion.
- yumptonpa 11y ago
  > I said it's a culture shift, I didn't mean to pass any judgement. You said it was a 'regression'.
  - Udo 11y ago
    Yes, my personal opinion seeped through a little bit here. If that offended you, so be it.
    - yumptonpa 11y ago
      I never said it offended me - I was just pointing out that you weren't being as non-judgemental as you claimed you were.
      - mreiland 11y ago
        It's like a fight between SJW's. Who's the least judgemental! Tune in at 11 and find out! lol
        dang 11y ago
        Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
        mreiland 11y ago
        I feel as if you've decided to follow me around and find a reason to go through with your previous threat. What exactly have I done to warrant this harassment?
        dang 11y ago
        The comments I've replied to are ones I ran across randomly browsing the threads, or that users flagged. The issue is that your comments are problematic, and you need to fix that if you want to continue commenting here. The same applies to everyone.
      - Udo 11y ago
        So our disagreement boils down to language "gotchas"? Yes, you got me. Although one might argue that labeling something a regression is not a value judgement when things have indeed gone back to how they were in the past - but if bias is what you were looking for you found it. I never tried to hide it either. Let's talk about something worthwhile instead: do you really believe, as alluded to in your comments, that the natural state is an ideal humans should aspire to, especially in the face of disease and other bodily limitations?
  - chippy 11y ago
    "like a strange regression in some ways" != "it was a regression"
zeveb 11y ago
> You think it's a good think that the majority of women were resorting to a drug to cope with a normal healthy body function? That's what I've always thought was so odd about the complaint that erectile dysfunction are typically covered by health insurance but contraception may not be: the former fixes a broken body, while the other breaks a functioning one.
- golergka 11y ago
  "Fixed" and "broken" are defined how the person wants to use his body, not by natural order of things. Otherwise, reaching immortality could be viewed as "breaking" perfectly functioning death meachanism.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > "Fixed" and "broken" are defined how the person wants to use his body, not by natural order of things. That's an interesting idea, but one which I have to disagree with. A person who wishes to be an amputee does not have a broken body because he has two arms and two legs, nor is his body fixed by severing one or more of them; rather, he has healthy limbs and a broken brain or mind, which may be fixable with particular forms of therapy, or not, but certainly not by destroying his healthy limbs. > Otherwise, reaching immortality could be viewed as "breaking" perfectly functioning death mechanism. From what I know of how people age and die it appears that death is the failure and that immortality, were it achievable, is the proper state.
    - golergka 11y ago
      Interesting discussion. What's the definition of "fixed" and "broken" you're implicitly using in your argument?
      - mreiland 11y ago
        stop worrying about definitions, it's a question of intent and life satisfaction for people. What category someone on the internet wants to file that under is irrelevant.
golergka 11y ago
I think that the pill is supposed to "cope" with potential unwanted pregnancy, not with periods.
- yumptonpa 11y ago
  > Many said their menstrual problems were greatly reduced, and of course there was a completely reliable schedule that came with it.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Are you saying that problems are normal and healthy?
  - golergka 11y ago
    Thanks, I can read. My point is, while this might be a desirable side-effect, this is not the reason women are on the pill.
    - mkaziz 11y ago
      Actually, a lot of women who have really bad periods sometimes specifically go on the pill to reduce their intensity. Source: friends in med school who have gone through their ob-gyn rotations.
      - golergka 11y ago
        Wow, I had no idea. Thanks.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Just to add to mkaziz's info, my wife specifically went on the pill in her teens, and was on it through her early through mid twenties specifically to address how painful her periods were. Its not well known, but some women's periods can be debilitating (several days where you experience intense pain and cramping, where you don't even want to get out of bed).
delecti 11y ago
Normal healthy body function is getting pregnant many times throughout your life. Just because periods are what happens every month to a female body in current society doesn't mean it's normal or healthy. There's reason to think that modern women having so many periods throughout their adult lives is at least partly to blame for higher incidences of various female-specific cancers (breast in particular, but also uterine and ovarian). Reducing the number of periods a woman has in her lifetime greatly reduces the risk of those cancers. http://gladwell.com/john-rock-s-error/ http://gladwell.com/john-rock-s-error/
- sangnoir 11y ago
  Estrogen is carcinogenic. 1. http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10_may26_03/ http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10688862 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10688862
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Estrogen can be administered with other compounds to reduce the chance of cancer from interaction with oxygen radicals: http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10_may26_03/ http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10... Anyways, there's always something that's going to cause cancer in your body until we determine a way of hardening the cellular death and reproduction systems.

You think it's a good think that the majority of women were resorting to a drug to cope with a normal healthy body function? I think it's good if more women are able to cope without the drugs.

Udo 11y ago

I said it's a culture shift, I didn't mean to pass any judgement. As someone with a male body I'm not really in the position to tell. I have a strong feeling of what I would do if I had been born female, but I was not, so... Pain, suffering, and health problems in general, are indeed natural as you say. However, most people would consider them part of the "no thanks" aspect of nature. You disagree, and I suspect you already know that's an extreme and unethical position to hold, otherwise you would not have made a new HN account just for this discussion.

yumptonpa 11y ago
> I said it's a culture shift, I didn't mean to pass any judgement. You said it was a 'regression'.
- Udo 11y ago
  Yes, my personal opinion seeped through a little bit here. If that offended you, so be it.
  - yumptonpa 11y ago
    I never said it offended me - I was just pointing out that you weren't being as non-judgemental as you claimed you were.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      It's like a fight between SJW's. Who's the least judgemental! Tune in at 11 and find out! lol
      - dang 11y ago
        Please don't post unsubstantive comments.
        mreiland 11y ago
        I feel as if you've decided to follow me around and find a reason to go through with your previous threat. What exactly have I done to warrant this harassment?
        dang 11y ago
        The comments I've replied to are ones I ran across randomly browsing the threads, or that users flagged. The issue is that your comments are problematic, and you need to fix that if you want to continue commenting here. The same applies to everyone.
    - Udo 11y ago
      So our disagreement boils down to language "gotchas"? Yes, you got me. Although one might argue that labeling something a regression is not a value judgement when things have indeed gone back to how they were in the past - but if bias is what you were looking for you found it. I never tried to hide it either. Let's talk about something worthwhile instead: do you really believe, as alluded to in your comments, that the natural state is an ideal humans should aspire to, especially in the face of disease and other bodily limitations?
- chippy 11y ago
  "like a strange regression in some ways" != "it was a regression"

zeveb 11y ago

> You think it's a good think that the majority of women were resorting to a drug to cope with a normal healthy body function? That's what I've always thought was so odd about the complaint that erectile dysfunction are typically covered by health insurance but contraception may not be: the former fixes a broken body, while the other breaks a functioning one.

golergka 11y ago
"Fixed" and "broken" are defined how the person wants to use his body, not by natural order of things. Otherwise, reaching immortality could be viewed as "breaking" perfectly functioning death meachanism.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > "Fixed" and "broken" are defined how the person wants to use his body, not by natural order of things. That's an interesting idea, but one which I have to disagree with. A person who wishes to be an amputee does not have a broken body because he has two arms and two legs, nor is his body fixed by severing one or more of them; rather, he has healthy limbs and a broken brain or mind, which may be fixable with particular forms of therapy, or not, but certainly not by destroying his healthy limbs. > Otherwise, reaching immortality could be viewed as "breaking" perfectly functioning death mechanism. From what I know of how people age and die it appears that death is the failure and that immortality, were it achievable, is the proper state.
  - golergka 11y ago
    Interesting discussion. What's the definition of "fixed" and "broken" you're implicitly using in your argument?
    - mreiland 11y ago
      stop worrying about definitions, it's a question of intent and life satisfaction for people. What category someone on the internet wants to file that under is irrelevant.

golergka 11y ago

I think that the pill is supposed to "cope" with potential unwanted pregnancy, not with periods.

yumptonpa 11y ago
> Many said their menstrual problems were greatly reduced, and of course there was a completely reliable schedule that came with it.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Are you saying that problems are normal and healthy?
- golergka 11y ago
  Thanks, I can read. My point is, while this might be a desirable side-effect, this is not the reason women are on the pill.
  - mkaziz 11y ago
    Actually, a lot of women who have really bad periods sometimes specifically go on the pill to reduce their intensity. Source: friends in med school who have gone through their ob-gyn rotations.
    - golergka 11y ago
      Wow, I had no idea. Thanks.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Just to add to mkaziz's info, my wife specifically went on the pill in her teens, and was on it through her early through mid twenties specifically to address how painful her periods were. Its not well known, but some women's periods can be debilitating (several days where you experience intense pain and cramping, where you don't even want to get out of bed).

delecti 11y ago

Normal healthy body function is getting pregnant many times throughout your life. Just because periods are what happens every month to a female body in current society doesn't mean it's normal or healthy. There's reason to think that modern women having so many periods throughout their adult lives is at least partly to blame for higher incidences of various female-specific cancers (breast in particular, but also uterine and ovarian). Reducing the number of periods a woman has in her lifetime greatly reduces the risk of those cancers. http://gladwell.com/john-rock-s-error/ http://gladwell.com/john-rock-s-error/

sangnoir 11y ago
Estrogen is carcinogenic. 1. http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10_may26_03/ http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10688862 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10688862
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Estrogen can be administered with other compounds to reduce the chance of cancer from interaction with oxygen radicals: http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10_may26_03/ http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publications/in-vivo/Vol2_Iss10... Anyways, there's always something that's going to cause cancer in your body until we determine a way of hardening the cellular death and reproduction systems.