> > Some people defend the current contraceptive status-quo by reasoning "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." > Yes. This is how

> > Some people defend the current contraceptive status-quo by reasoning "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." > Yes. This is how modern medicine works. Nearly every medication will cause an adverse reaction to a small number of people and there's really not much we can do about it. They produce a net good though so we use them. Feminists were making some progress with figuring out how to help women take better control their own fertility in the 1950's and 1960's... I have some of their books. Then the pill came out, and women were like, "why bother figuring out how our bodies work, and how to make them work better, when we can just take a little pill every day!" Or something like that. It's trivially-easy for men to render themselves temporarily infertile (edit: without resorting to condoms/surgery/pills). But there's no recurring business to the medical industry, so that body of knowledge is ignored. > [...] incompetent doctor. [...] incompetent doctor. Both of these doctors are just implementing their training, which is based on pharmacology rather than physiology. > Also, I'm certainly not a doctor but doesn't Nexplanon release the same hormones in "the pill", used by millions of women around the world? The various birth control pill formulas use different 'progestins', the class of chemicals that are sort-of similar to the natural Progestogens [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progestogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progestogen