10 ms·

Should I have children, I see myself walking my teenage son to the clinic to get this done. A rite of passage of sorts. It is difficult to understate the impor

Should I have children, I see myself walking my teenage son to the clinic to get this done. A rite of passage of sorts. It is difficult to understate the importance of bringing only wanted children into this world, and that both parents agree on it. The cultural importance of this invention will be revealed in time, I hope.

Ntrails 10y ago
I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy
- mjohn 10y ago
  Sure, but condoms fail too. There is no reason not to use both.
  - OJFord 10y ago
    > There is no reason not to use both. Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one. If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
    - anothercomment 10y ago
      How about combining it with freezing some sperm, just in case. Too expensive perhaps?
      - LeftTriangle 10y ago
        Freezing sperm costs on the order of $200-400 per year depending on how far you pay in advance. Worth paying if you're getting a vasectomy, but probably not worth it for this kind of (hopefully) temporary BC.
        anothercomment 10y ago
        What makes it so expensive?
        LeftTriangle 10y ago
        You have to be able to guarantee that your liquid nitrogen powered freezer (expensive) will never fail even once over decades of storage (extra expensive). I'm not sure what kind of profit margins sperm banks are working with, but there's quite a bit of competition, so I suspect the prices are mostly pretty close to cost. It's all very labor intensive as well; they need to employ a bunch of lab techs, all of whom have biotech or medical degrees.
  - pluma 10y ago
    I think what most people usually miss when dismissing the "condoms fail" argument is that while it's indeed unlikely that condoms literally break if properly used (they're stress tested to ensure a ridiculous level of quality so while possible that's still extremely rare) "user error" is not exactly unlikely. It's also extremely likely that user errors will be reported as condom failures instead.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  The same could be said of female contraception, yet I don't see many people complaining about that. Why do you think that is?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Oh, there are a ton of people complaining that female contraception encourages people to have sex they shouldn't be having. It's not usually framed in terms of STDs, but I'm pretty sure the STD argument here is just a cover for a moralistic argument anyway.
    - mehaveaccount 10y ago
      How sad that arguing virtue for its own sake is now politically incorrect.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Argue it all you want, just don't try to force it. If you're going to argue for sexual restraint but want to let people make their own decisions on it, you're going to have to work really hard to distance yourself from e.g. the people who fight against the HPV vaccine because they're more concerned with premarital sex than with cervical cancer. It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
        mehaveaccount 10y ago
        Because morals are a good thing. Isn't it funny how all the real religions came to the same conclusion on all the controversial issues of our day.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Oh yeah, it's great how every religion came up with the exact same views on how many women you should marry, how you should treat people who worship different gods, what kind of food it's OK to eat, whether religion should be subservient to the state or vice versa, and so forth. "Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?
- mikeash 10y ago
  I find it inconceivable that you'd equate contraceptives with "encourage high risk of stds."
- tehlike 10y ago
  not sure why this is downvoted. It highlights something very important.
  - _jal 10y ago
    You're right, it does. It highlights the strange special status sex is given, and the awful consequences caused by that special status. I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway. Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
  - criddell 10y ago
    He's highlighting something important, but I think it's the phrasing that's garnering the downvotes. The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      I don't think I don't deserve them tbh, I was being super glib/lazy. I interpreted the parent as implying that was going to be "job done" for getting a child prepared and it struck me as odd. Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
      - nommm-nommm 10y ago
        Its not one or the other, you preach the virtues of using both. I did that (condom and pill) with all my sexual partners before I got married and it wasn't uncommon among my peer group from what I saw. Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.
- _jal 10y ago
  So because seat-belts are not also interlock devices, you assume your kids won't drive?
- aianus 10y ago
  Children are worse than the worst STD. You can live a pretty normal life with HIV, Syphilis, herpes, etc.
  - mehaveaccount 10y ago
    What are you going to miss in life if you have children?
    - aianus 10y ago
      Ability to take risks (like starting a business or moving to a new city or country) is the biggest one. Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
      - mehaveaccount 10y ago
        What are you going to do with your extra money, sleep, and free time? You don't have to worry about the dating pool when you are married, something you should couple with who you are having sex with. Also the dating pool shrinks with age regardless. On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families (another reason the dating pool shrinks so significantly). And I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure. If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile.
        callinyouin 10y ago
        > most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families > I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure > If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.
nvahalik 10y ago
Indeed, the cultural "importance" will be revealed in time. However, I fear not in the way you intend. There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more. What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions. To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society. EDIT: Yeah, I know conservative positions on HN are ways to make your Karma go down, but hey, that's what forums are for right, to have your opinions regarded as trolling instead of interacting with them, right?
- pdelbarba 10y ago
  This is the same argument that was made when the pill came about.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    As well as Gardasil. A vaccine that friggin prevents cancer is somehow controversial! What the actual fuck?!
- elmigranto 10y ago
  > To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society. Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
- and0 10y ago
  A million times no to everything you just said.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- pjc50 10y ago
  Marie Stopes would like a word with you from beyond the grave. Seriously, we've had modern birth control for a century. Not only has society not collapsed but a whole number of hidden evils have been abolished (Tuam passim), and needless poverty avoided. It's our perfect anti-Malthusian weapon. This is Hacker News in the 21st century. Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do things. I'm astonished that your comment seems to have been upvoted here. Edit: I'm trying to keep it civil but I'm really disappointed not just that this appears on HN but it's sitting at the top of its thread tree not greyed out at the bottom. Oh, and it's "alluding" not "eluding".
dvdhnt 10y ago
It's probably difficult because you don't have children and therefore lack the experience necessary to develop a comprehensive understanding of the topic. That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete. Not only am I adopted (thus not "wanted"), but neither of my children were planned and my wife and I initially couldn't agree. From my real world experience, and not speculation, it only takes one person to "want" a child, and biology literally has nothing to do with it. I'm also not angry, sad, or pained with regret; it's impossible to generalize how individuals will respond. All of that said, I'm all for increasing the availability and effectiveness of birth control, and hope that children make their way to an environment of love and nurturing. So, what really can't be understated is the importance of parents and guardians being emotionally equipped to respond to those responsibilities in a way that is positive to all involved.
- Jarwain 10y ago
  I don't have your experience, nor do I really know what it's like, but here's a perspective I thought of after reading your post. Your birth parents may not have wanted you, putting you for adoption. However, you were wanted in a different sense, chosen for adoption by whomever adopted you. -shrugs- Don't know what point I wanted to make, just a thought
  - benjohnson 10y ago
    I would also add that his birth parents had enough compassion to let their child have life.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      Religious or other social reasons aside, the fact that s/he was brought to term indicates that he was wanted in some sense by his birth parents. Late-term abortions are most typically done only in the case of a grave medical issue (for the fetus or mother). Instead, what may have happened are situations changed for the couple. Maybe a nasty divorce occurred, or one of the partners abruptly left the relationship for reasons? Or maybe the father suddenly died? Or lost his job (or she did - or they both did)? Or any one of those coupled with already having other children. Any one of those, and other reasons, could be the case. Had something like that happened late in the pregnancy, where a legal late-term abortion wasn't available or allowed, then adoption might be the only choice for the parent(s). That doesn't mean s/he wasn't wanted by the birth parents, but that they instead (perhaps) loved the resulting infant so much that they decided adoption would give a better chance for life than keeping him/her. Maybe that was the wrong choice, maybe not. Adult choices are rarely easy.
kyriakos 10y ago
Keep in mind that even though unwanted pregnancies could be a problem giving your teenage son this option will also give him the false impression he's immune to STDs which a condom could have prevented.
- tw04 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I can't fathom a parent who would go through the effort of getting their child on birth control, but not having a discussion about STDs and safe sex. "Kids" are going to have sex, we should take every opportunity to provide them with a means to do it as safely as possible.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Preventing children AND STDs is a very powerful motivator, usually for both parties involved.
  - kyriakos 10y ago
    It's simple really. Teenagers tend to take more risks. A possible pregnancy is a good reason to use a condom, as a side effect a lot of stds are also prevented. Removing the pregnancy possibility from the equation removes the need for condom use.
    - tw04 10y ago
      Yes, I know when I was a teenager, getting a girl pregnant seemed like a FAR worse outcome than getting AIDs and dying. I'm not sure if you think teenagers lack basic reasoning skills, or if this is actually your personal reasoning skills being projected onto all teenagers.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  STD risks are generally overstated. There's basically three practical categories: 1. Herpes. It's usually on the level of "slightly annoying" rather than catastrophic. Pretty much the biggest downside of having herpes is the obligation to tell sexual partners that you have herpes. 2. Things that die to antibiotics. Syphilis, Chlamydia, etc. You get them, you get sick, you get treatment, you get better. 3. HIV/AIDS. Treatment is much better than it used to be for this, but it's definitely still the scariest one. Basically, getting tested regularly is probably enough precaution. You'd feel more regret over picking up an STD than putting too much effort into avoiding STDs, so it makes sense that people over-invest in this area (see also: hiring decisions).

Ntrails 10y ago

I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy

mjohn 10y ago
Sure, but condoms fail too. There is no reason not to use both.
- OJFord 10y ago
  > There is no reason not to use both. Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one. If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
  - anothercomment 10y ago
    How about combining it with freezing some sperm, just in case. Too expensive perhaps?
    - LeftTriangle 10y ago
      Freezing sperm costs on the order of $200-400 per year depending on how far you pay in advance. Worth paying if you're getting a vasectomy, but probably not worth it for this kind of (hopefully) temporary BC.
      - anothercomment 10y ago
        What makes it so expensive?
        LeftTriangle 10y ago
        You have to be able to guarantee that your liquid nitrogen powered freezer (expensive) will never fail even once over decades of storage (extra expensive). I'm not sure what kind of profit margins sperm banks are working with, but there's quite a bit of competition, so I suspect the prices are mostly pretty close to cost. It's all very labor intensive as well; they need to employ a bunch of lab techs, all of whom have biotech or medical degrees.
- pluma 10y ago
  I think what most people usually miss when dismissing the "condoms fail" argument is that while it's indeed unlikely that condoms literally break if properly used (they're stress tested to ensure a ridiculous level of quality so while possible that's still extremely rare) "user error" is not exactly unlikely. It's also extremely likely that user errors will be reported as condom failures instead.
TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
The same could be said of female contraception, yet I don't see many people complaining about that. Why do you think that is?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Oh, there are a ton of people complaining that female contraception encourages people to have sex they shouldn't be having. It's not usually framed in terms of STDs, but I'm pretty sure the STD argument here is just a cover for a moralistic argument anyway.
  - mehaveaccount 10y ago
    How sad that arguing virtue for its own sake is now politically incorrect.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Argue it all you want, just don't try to force it. If you're going to argue for sexual restraint but want to let people make their own decisions on it, you're going to have to work really hard to distance yourself from e.g. the people who fight against the HPV vaccine because they're more concerned with premarital sex than with cervical cancer. It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
      - mehaveaccount 10y ago
        Because morals are a good thing. Isn't it funny how all the real religions came to the same conclusion on all the controversial issues of our day.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Oh yeah, it's great how every religion came up with the exact same views on how many women you should marry, how you should treat people who worship different gods, what kind of food it's OK to eat, whether religion should be subservient to the state or vice versa, and so forth. "Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?
mikeash 10y ago
I find it inconceivable that you'd equate contraceptives with "encourage high risk of stds."
tehlike 10y ago
not sure why this is downvoted. It highlights something very important.
- _jal 10y ago
  You're right, it does. It highlights the strange special status sex is given, and the awful consequences caused by that special status. I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway. Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
- criddell 10y ago
  He's highlighting something important, but I think it's the phrasing that's garnering the downvotes. The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    I don't think I don't deserve them tbh, I was being super glib/lazy. I interpreted the parent as implying that was going to be "job done" for getting a child prepared and it struck me as odd. Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Its not one or the other, you preach the virtues of using both. I did that (condom and pill) with all my sexual partners before I got married and it wasn't uncommon among my peer group from what I saw. Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.
_jal 10y ago
So because seat-belts are not also interlock devices, you assume your kids won't drive?
aianus 10y ago
Children are worse than the worst STD. You can live a pretty normal life with HIV, Syphilis, herpes, etc.
- mehaveaccount 10y ago
  What are you going to miss in life if you have children?
  - aianus 10y ago
    Ability to take risks (like starting a business or moving to a new city or country) is the biggest one. Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
    - mehaveaccount 10y ago
      What are you going to do with your extra money, sleep, and free time? You don't have to worry about the dating pool when you are married, something you should couple with who you are having sex with. Also the dating pool shrinks with age regardless. On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families (another reason the dating pool shrinks so significantly). And I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure. If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile.
      - callinyouin 10y ago
        > most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families > I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure > If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.

nvahalik 10y ago

Indeed, the cultural "importance" will be revealed in time. However, I fear not in the way you intend. There used to be a time when we as a society valued things like self-control, discipline, and tradition. No more. What you are alluding to here is a world where we are ruled by our emotions and our basest desires without the fear or potential for having to deal with our actions. To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society. EDIT: Yeah, I know conservative positions on HN are ways to make your Karma go down, but hey, that's what forums are for right, to have your opinions regarded as trolling instead of interacting with them, right?

pdelbarba 10y ago
This is the same argument that was made when the pill came about.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  As well as Gardasil. A vaccine that friggin prevents cancer is somehow controversial! What the actual fuck?!
elmigranto 10y ago
> To divorce sex from children is to misunderstand intimacy, the family, and the entire underpinning of our society. Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man.
and0 10y ago
A million times no to everything you just said.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
pjc50 10y ago
Marie Stopes would like a word with you from beyond the grave. Seriously, we've had modern birth control for a century. Not only has society not collapsed but a whole number of hidden evils have been abolished (Tuam passim), and needless poverty avoided. It's our perfect anti-Malthusian weapon. This is Hacker News in the 21st century. Tradition alone is a terrible reason to do things. I'm astonished that your comment seems to have been upvoted here. Edit: I'm trying to keep it civil but I'm really disappointed not just that this appears on HN but it's sitting at the top of its thread tree not greyed out at the bottom. Oh, and it's "alluding" not "eluding".

dvdhnt 10y ago

It's probably difficult because you don't have children and therefore lack the experience necessary to develop a comprehensive understanding of the topic. That's not to say your partial understanding is not valid, it's just incomplete. Not only am I adopted (thus not "wanted"), but neither of my children were planned and my wife and I initially couldn't agree. From my real world experience, and not speculation, it only takes one person to "want" a child, and biology literally has nothing to do with it. I'm also not angry, sad, or pained with regret; it's impossible to generalize how individuals will respond. All of that said, I'm all for increasing the availability and effectiveness of birth control, and hope that children make their way to an environment of love and nurturing. So, what really can't be understated is the importance of parents and guardians being emotionally equipped to respond to those responsibilities in a way that is positive to all involved.

Jarwain 10y ago
I don't have your experience, nor do I really know what it's like, but here's a perspective I thought of after reading your post. Your birth parents may not have wanted you, putting you for adoption. However, you were wanted in a different sense, chosen for adoption by whomever adopted you. -shrugs- Don't know what point I wanted to make, just a thought
- benjohnson 10y ago
  I would also add that his birth parents had enough compassion to let their child have life.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Religious or other social reasons aside, the fact that s/he was brought to term indicates that he was wanted in some sense by his birth parents. Late-term abortions are most typically done only in the case of a grave medical issue (for the fetus or mother). Instead, what may have happened are situations changed for the couple. Maybe a nasty divorce occurred, or one of the partners abruptly left the relationship for reasons? Or maybe the father suddenly died? Or lost his job (or she did - or they both did)? Or any one of those coupled with already having other children. Any one of those, and other reasons, could be the case. Had something like that happened late in the pregnancy, where a legal late-term abortion wasn't available or allowed, then adoption might be the only choice for the parent(s). That doesn't mean s/he wasn't wanted by the birth parents, but that they instead (perhaps) loved the resulting infant so much that they decided adoption would give a better chance for life than keeping him/her. Maybe that was the wrong choice, maybe not. Adult choices are rarely easy.

kyriakos 10y ago

Keep in mind that even though unwanted pregnancies could be a problem giving your teenage son this option will also give him the false impression he's immune to STDs which a condom could have prevented.

tw04 10y ago
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I can't fathom a parent who would go through the effort of getting their child on birth control, but not having a discussion about STDs and safe sex. "Kids" are going to have sex, we should take every opportunity to provide them with a means to do it as safely as possible.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Preventing children AND STDs is a very powerful motivator, usually for both parties involved.
- kyriakos 10y ago
  It's simple really. Teenagers tend to take more risks. A possible pregnancy is a good reason to use a condom, as a side effect a lot of stds are also prevented. Removing the pregnancy possibility from the equation removes the need for condom use.
  - tw04 10y ago
    Yes, I know when I was a teenager, getting a girl pregnant seemed like a FAR worse outcome than getting AIDs and dying. I'm not sure if you think teenagers lack basic reasoning skills, or if this is actually your personal reasoning skills being projected onto all teenagers.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
STD risks are generally overstated. There's basically three practical categories: 1. Herpes. It's usually on the level of "slightly annoying" rather than catastrophic. Pretty much the biggest downside of having herpes is the obligation to tell sexual partners that you have herpes. 2. Things that die to antibiotics. Syphilis, Chlamydia, etc. You get them, you get sick, you get treatment, you get better. 3. HIV/AIDS. Treatment is much better than it used to be for this, but it's definitely still the scariest one. Basically, getting tested regularly is probably enough precaution. You'd feel more regret over picking up an STD than putting too much effort into avoiding STDs, so it makes sense that people over-invest in this area (see also: hiring decisions).