Can we just take a second to appreciate how fucking sick of a sign "MY UTERUS > YOUR GOD" is?
Best. Sign. Ever.
I'll remember that. Thank you.
I quite like this sign from the Women's March a few years ago-
I’m gonna be making these in bulk and pinning them up everywhere, holy shit
deleted by creator
Do you accept Your Uterus as your Lord and Savior?
I wonder what would happen if even just 50% of all women of child bearing age moved out of the states that added these abortion restrictions, that would basically destroy the states population in a few generations.
I wonder what the response would be...
Probably something terrible, and possibly illegal that would still somehow be permitted...
I am just a guy from Scandinavia looking at the US with complete disbelief that this shit happen in the west in this day and age.
To everyone fighting for this to be repealed I wish you all the best, and to all of those in favour of these restrictions, just stop voting, and go away.
What I have understood as a non American, the state would still have the same voting power though? So -75% of people, leaving just angry men I guess.
Sorta, but that’s not the whole story. We have two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the senate, every state gets two senators. In the house, every state gets at least two representatives, plus some amount based on population - california has 52, for instance.
The original idea was to “make sure rural voices were heard”. In practice, it very much has been what you stated - if you’re educated but not rich enough to benefit from republican policies, you flee red states en masse, leaving mostly rich assholes and uneducated chucklefucks who are hurt most by the very people they elect. They then have a massively disproportionate effect on policy versus any joe schmoe in california.
The problem is moving isn't free and there aren't good jobs in rural areas, meaning... Move with what money?
I wasn't even thinking about that, a 50% reduction in women in child bearing age would absolutely ruin the future population growth of the state, and on an even more basic level, would mean that a lot of men would never find a partner in the state, so they would need to move to other states to find someone, which means even more population loss.
At some point the situation would be so critical that there would be no choice but to change the laws back, and even after that it would take a LONG time for people to get the confidence to move back.
The amount of electoral votes per state is adjusted based on its population, but they all get a minimum of 3. So, if enough people left, it would have some effect on the state's voting power, but once you get to a certain threshold, the weight of each person's vote actually starts to go up.
(Sarcasm) Don't insult the west by lumping the US in with sane respectable nations. (/Sarcasm) The US is a third world country with some lipstick on at this point. We keep hoping to turn things around and put us back on course but. Damn is it exhausting.
I'm in the USA and we're a garbage country. Don't get me wrong, there are good areas and good people. But our broken system allows the craziest minority to have an outsized degree of power and they absolutely take advantage of it.
How a state like Wyoming, with fewer than a million people, can get as much say (in the senate) as my state of California is beyond me. We have almost 80x their population, yet they get an equal number of senators. I want a revolution that adjusts their voice to be proportional to their goddamned size.
I am too. There's a reason I chose a lemmy host outside our borders.
(OK, it was mostly so the government has free reign to accidentally spy on my international traffic because FISA/PATRIOT act are just so cool and down to earth. /s)
Did you miss civics class? Having both a senate and a house was a compromise between the smaller and bigger states. Small states could have been railroaded by bigger states with strictly proportional representation. It's almost like you're repeating something you heard without thinking about it much...
It's a stupid compromise to make. It might have made some sense at the time, when society expected them to behave as gentlemen with regard for their honor. Now a much smaller group gets to bully the rest of the country as a result.
There was a time and a reason for a lot of the old ways. We have the technology to make them irrelevant. That being said, I do feel there should be limitations in Federal decisions given the country is huge, and broad sweeping laws can negatively affect lower population areas.
We also have a bunch of basic life shit that absolutely should be Federally decided, and instead of letting people be people and live their lives, we apparently purposely try our hardest to go backwards right now. Many states are literally complicit in murdering women by law, and making it so people of different sexual or biological orientations are no longer people. How the fuck is it 2024 and women and others of various alignments are suddenly not people?
Did you know that the Supreme Court only exists because the "ultra rich" of the founding fathers' time felt they didn't have proper representation in government? This was their "check and balance" that let us become a nation.
A few generations? One generation is enough.
The population would collapse and they would be fucked.
Yeah any significant change in gender demographics of an area will cause problems. Too few men will cause some issues but our cultures have developed defenses around this problem thanks to cataclysmic wars happening every few generations. Too few women on the other hand will get real bad real fast especially since this will be a situation of existing misogyny driving women away. Some men will get real violent and those capable of living in either society will flee because they won’t get laid otherwise.
Forget population and generations. 25% of people just leaving an area will lead to a massive economic downturn.
You’d give those states all the electoral votes and senate seats, and they’d apply their laws at the federal level. I’m suspicious that’s their plan. Drive all the liberals out of these conservative states that were at risk of turning blue so they can take their policies federal.
Also if it's mostly women leaving, that makes it easier to recruit men into armies if they are told it will help them get laid when there's a huge imbalance. And easier to elect leaders who push male superiority ideas and that women should defer to men.
I wonder what would happen if even just 50% of all women of child bearing age moved out of the states that added these abortion restrictions,
I wonder what would happen if they actually voted?
I bet they'd supercharge enforcement of the laws they've been testing - such as intercepting women leaving the state for suspected abortions, or parents suspected of taking children out of the state for gender affirming care
The laws are set up that you could basically set up roadblocks and force a fight through the system to leave the state... Keeping people from leaving is important if you want a fascist state, because they suck and only "true believers" wouldn't consider moving
That's why those laws are so terrifying... They don't have to convict anyone, they can just be used to suppress movement
I knew of a girl when I was in high school. She was a senior and I was a sophomore. Word began rushing through the school that she (head cheerleader) was pregnant by the quarterback on the football team. He came from a super wealthy family, and honestly we all expected an immediate marriage and a 'premature' baby.
What happened instead was an announcement that she had died during emergency surgery and let's all pray. She had had a (what we called) backstreet abortion and hemorrhaged.
We all knew how to access an illegal abortion, we knew the risks, and this girl just was the unlucky one.
She was super smart, in the Latin club, debate, 4.0, just destined for success. And instead she died.
This was in 1969, and I cannot believe we as a nation are willing to go back over 2 decades in women's healthcare.
Y'allQaeda is at it again. Yeehaa!
She had had a (what we called) backstreet abortion and hemorrhaged.
Banning abortions doesn't stop abortion, it only stops safe abortions.
You know 1969 was 55 years ago? While that is technically "over 2 decades" that's an interesting way to describe 55 years lol
Technically correct is the best kind of correct
Haha!! I was trying to type 55!!
You can blame the Moral Majority. So many of them would look at your story and go "well that's what she deserved for having premarital sex".
I avoid having kids by simply being completely unappealing to women. 😤
Is it possible to learn such power?
Not from a normie
But he have fancy username? 🧐
The simplest way is to be a Reddit mod.
That's too much. I still want to be loved by my family and friends.
If you're loved by family and friends, there's always the chance, especially if she's Canadian.
Do you own a fedora?
Does my Aussie hat count?
It may not, especially if you have the accent.
But if you called it a fedora without knowing the difference? It just might.
I don't have an accent. Not an Aussie accent. I wear the hat and duster cuz I had a friend from there got me started on them about a decade ago and I stick to them rather adamantly because I appreciate what they do so much the entire concept of regional reference bears nothing on my skin when the fiction is so greatly better than anything else remotely close
So, you know when you see a woman, and you speak with her like a normal person and form a connection? Nothing good comes of that.
Instead of doing that, convince yourself in your head that saying even two words is going to end in disaster and then play on your phone and awkwardly pretend they aren't there until they go away.
It's hard, but with enough practice it will become second nature. You've got this!
yeah, be a turbo nerd, don't be socially competent (autism is a good start) and don't care about romantic relationships. It's all about the interpersonal aspects anyway.
this is currently my meta. Just betting that the likelihood that i get raped and end up "being a father" is low enough that having a vasectomy or something would outweigh the potential cons.
Good news then! If you do get raped, it's most likely to be by another man! No worries about fatherhood, just the pain, violation, and never feeling truly safe again.
and it's most likely that i'll kill them somewhere along the process, because men do not fuck around subtly.
Unfortunately, I think the people who should be sterilizing themselves are not the ones doing it. (not talking about eugenics)
Next step for Republicans: Ban sterilization. I mean plenty of doctors already refuse to agree for a patient to have a vasectomy/get their tubes tied, especially young (and white) patients, because of shitty personal beliefs. Why not go a step further? These working class heathens need to be forced to stay in line.
My mum, when she was in her mid40s, went to get her tubes tied. Dr refused, "still of child bearing age." Her response: I've got 6 kids, tie these damn tubes or I'll do it myself!
Edit: a word
I mean, if she wasn't 'of child bearing age' anymore there wouldn't be any point in tying her tubes anyway, so that's a pointless reason.
Right?
I recently went in for the snip because I'm in a state that wants to keep rolling back rights and already have a pretty awesome kid. My area also has a population of people who I don't quite understand that were definitely judging me for my choice.
I went to a highly rated urologist office that was a part of my insurance plan, though the procedure isn't covered, other aspects like the initial consultation were. The first receptionist I talked with quickly changed her tone toward me when I said I wanted a vasectomy and made a big deal about not being sure my insurance was accepted. She said she would call me back by EOD after she checked my insurance. This was midmorning on a Thursday. I never heard back. I called back a week or so later, different receptionist. She put me on hold for a few minutes to verify my insurance plan and we set an appointment for the consultation.
On the day of the consultation, the nurse who showed me to the exam room visibly changed her demeanor as soon as I stated why I was there. Thankfully the doctor was all business and the nurses assisting spring the procedure a few weeks later were professional and kind.
There are definitely some medical professionals out there who want to put their own beliefs over those of their patients. I didn't think it was as prevalent as it likely is.
Also ban viagra. Impotence is the will of god.
As a male, (who thankfully doesn't need it, yet) I agree with this 100%. If these clowns are going to force their beliefs on others, they should have to face the same consequences. Make it illegal, not enough to ban it.
Can we please not do the “it hurts the other side more”-bullshit? Especially in light of the fact that Viagra has legitimate medical uses outside of ED and that ED can also be caused by factors that affect conservatives a lot less, such as HRT for trans women.
Sorry, god says only natural boners
Don’t mind me, my trans ass is just over here laughing about how “concerned” the GOP is about trans kids’ fertility while lighting a fire under the ass of cis adults (which you may have noticed greatly outnumber trans children!) to get themselves permanently sterilized.
Also they love to make it a pain in the ass to bank genetic material. Like, if they covered that in health insurance a lot of trans people would just in case
Won't be long before the christian shithead republiclowns outlaw that too.
...and that's why I'm getting it done next month. I'm genuinely worried it's now or never.
wow, that is absolutely awful.
That you have such Fear of your Government i mean.
It's not the government, it's the republiclowns. They're in power because of the idiots that keep voting for them because fox "news" tells them to. Nobody besides the rich as shit should be voting red. (the rich as shit are assholes and they at least benefit from the tax breaks) They're just laughing at you while they piss all over you.
I support any person who chooses not to have children. It’s saving the planet. There are way too many people.
You keep being told that. There are way too many billionaires, that's the real problem.
Not really. The people there are just put in little effort not to screw up the planet .
"Overpopulation" is a right-wing myth.
Overpopulation as a dogwhistle for racism is a conservative myth.
Overpopulation in a "I'd rather not turn Earth into Coruscant and so many of our climate and food/water issues would be easier to deal with if the global birth rate slowed voluntarily" is not.
Overpopulation as a dogwhistle for racism is a conservativeright-wing myth.
FTFY.
I’d rather not turn Earth into Coruscant
Sooo... when will you actually be rejecting this right-wing myth?
Soon, I hope?
"as"
We can handle feeding everybody, we can't handle the trash.
We don't need to make nearly this much trash; it's just more profitable for shareholders. Not denying that some plastics are essential for medicine though.
We can handle feeding everybody, we can’t handle the trashcapitalist parasitism.
FTFY.
The fear of overpopulation, of the poors overbreeding and overcrowding the rich is basically a given in all political elites. Basically part of the washington consensus.
Our current, below replacement birthrate, no matter how much they try to hide it, is not an accident.
i have a theory that the food shortage is a sort of example of the overpopulation at play.
The sheer fact that there are so many people in this one place, that we can produce too much food, and then not distribute it effectively, implies to me that there are simply too many people in one place for it to be effectively distributed. I.E. over populated.
That's not because there are too many people. That's because the incentives are set up wrong.
that's definitely a possibility as well. Regardless, if it were literally as simple as "just give food to people" then one would think it would already be done. I suppose this could be an evil capitalism moment, but honestly, i just don't think that's the whole story.
It's not hard to imagine a room with 1000 people, and only 10 of those people distributing things at the wholesale level. There is inevitably going to be some amount of people that never get distributed to. It's just a lot of people in one space.
There isn't a food shortage, there's an equitable food distribution shortage.
i literally said this exact thing, go read my comment again.
Your theory is bad.
i mean yeah, that's a possibility. Why though? I think there is some potentially sound logic there.
If people in a city starve, it's not because there are "too many people in one place" - it's because the people who has control of the food distribution systems of that city chose to let them starve.
Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza... you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn't serve their interests.
It has absolutely nothing to do with there being "too many people in one place."
that's the thing though, it's not people in a city starving. It's people across the world starving. I mean sure homeless people are starving and food security IS an issue in the states. But that's also a macro level issue type deal.
Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza… you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn’t serve their interests.
It has absolutely nothing to do with there being “too many people in one place.”
yeah, no shit, that's not what im talking about. You could argue an abusive mother not feeding their child one night is also proof against that claim.
My point is that currently, in our collective society, globally, i do not think that our system is capable of supporting the amount of people that exist, in a functional manner. For example, if there were less people in the israel/palestine region, and the rest of the middle east, since they seem to love proxy wars so much. There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine. These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes, gaza especially is done for this reason. Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth. Again, the Bengal famine, was in part, due to an increase in population, which was unsustainable. Ethiopian famine is actually a little bit different, seems to be both in part due to war, and drought, or just drought, but it seems like another significant factor at scale was the food being grown being sold to other parties. As well as political shenaniganry. Though this was also happening during a civil war. Probably also in part, due to well, people existing over top of eachother.
But yeah no, those were absolutely preventable. Just give them food. Then they won't starve. It's that simple.
It is very discouraging to see someone with a presumably functional brain make an argument like this. Back in the 80s this could be written of as simple ignorance - but not today, when we have the information available at our fingertips.
There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine.
So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?
These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes
Colonialism is not merely a "territorial dispute."
Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth.
No, genius - it wasn't. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing "overpopulation" myths.
So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?
the only people who liked colonialism were the colonizers. Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it's an influential factor.
Colonialism is not merely a “territorial dispute.”
a little bit, 90% of the time colonialism turns into a war, is because the people being colonized, would prefer to not be colonized. You know, on account of the colonialism. I don't know if you understand what colonialism is, but it's basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun, and claiming that it's my home now, and that everybody in that home now works me. Seems rather territorial by nature to me.
No, genius - it wasn’t. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing “overpopulation” myths.
i'm not, colonialism was pretty explicitly a part of the reason as well. I don't know if your eyes just glazed over at every instance of me saying "in part" or something, but i was being pretty explicit about it.
Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it’s an influential factor.
You have, so far, made absolutely no case that "overpopulation" was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.
It seems to me that you think a community becomes "overpopulated" as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I've ever seen when it comes to this myth.
but it’s basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun
You don't know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?
You have, so far, made absolutely no case that “overpopulation” was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.
so far your entire argument is that not having enough food to feed people is a food issue, which is very true. But there is also another variable here. The people, the amount of people consuming the food being produced can lead to a food shortage. Lets say you as a small country grow a lot of food, but export the majority of it, because money. And let's say you have a food shortage, hey wait a minute this sounds familiar. Yes you can just look at it as if it's just a food/distribution issue, and that's definitely one way of looking at it, but i think it's also reasonable to consider where the food is going, and why.
It seems to me that you think a community becomes “overpopulated” as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I’ve ever seen when it comes to this myth.
it seems to me you are aggressively simplifying my argument, i'm just using the term overpopulation to describe the situation in which there are too many people involved in something, for it to be an equitable trade. I feel like given the context that it's pretty reasonable.
You don’t know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?
no, not really, i've also never claimed to know anything. I've also never claimed this to be the reason why it's happening. Perhaps you have some sort of knowledge in the subject matter, i don't know!
Environmental eugenics is still eugenics
Hey, haaaaave ya ever heard of personal autonomy?
Exactly what part of that is eugenics? Deciding not to have kids, or recognizing the environmental impact of the choice?
"There's too many people on earth" is a eugenicists talking point by affluent westerners. It's a short slippery slope from there to completely dehumanizing humans born in nations deemed "lesser than"
My main argument for antinatalism is that there are too many idiots willing to reproduce and raise children as bigger idiots than they are.
Instead of dehumanizing people for being born in a crowded, exploited region you dehumanize them for being less educated than you.
It's not a question of education, but of willing persistence in stupidity, entitlement and hubris.
The irony of you decrying hubris in people you deem lesser than yourself is lost on you
Anti intellectuals, jingoists, gun fetishists, imperialists and right wingers are objectively worse that everyone else who's not any of these things. This has nothing to do with me specifically.
And if you really want to raise kids, adoption is a win-win-win for you, them, and the planet
Isn't it really expensive in a lot of places?
It can be. The system is intentionally bogged down with a lot of red tape to discourage people who aren't fully committed to raising a child, especially one that isn't their own biological offspring. The thing is, raising kids is expensive in general. You'll shell out millions over their lifetime for basic necessities, education and enrichment. If somebody balks at the cost of adoption, they probably aren't ready for kids yet anyway.
It is, but a pregnancy with regular checkups, screening for potential issues, and delivery in a hospital isn't cheap, either, even when everything goes without issue. If there are complications and the baby needs to stay in a NICU or have surgeries, it can be far more expensive than adoption.
Except if you're not in the US. Don't get me wrong, it's still expensive to have a kid, but there's no risk of going broke during birth procedures (complicated or not) in most developed and even some developing countries.
Solid point. I've had it pretty good most of my life, but I'm so used to this ass backwards way of doing things that I often forget about how much better it can and should be.
I'm in Canada, this would mostly be free
People are simply not going to be forced to have kids. Repuglicans are completely blind to that fact
Didnt read all of it but what i did read was quite interesting. Just as interesting was the lack of popups and banner ads on the page.
That is a very good magazine and I read it a lot. High quality.
Read past tense though as it seemed to be cancelled.
Well, except for the quiver-full crowd and all the women indoctrinated into the barefoot and pregnant school of thought.
In other words, the poor, stupid, and indoctrinated will continue to spew out kids while the educated and reasoned will make the choice not to, therefore the stupid will inherit the earth.
The meek shall inherit. The stupid is anything but meek these days
That is literally the logical falicy that Idiocracy makes fun of and nature vs. nurture is still an ongoing discussion.
I don't see how that depends on it being nature or nurture. Nature: they will be like their parents because of genetics. Nurture: they will be like their parents because that's who's raising them.
I've said this elsewhere, but if you are in the states and have health insurance sterilization is covered! For those with lady bits too! This changed with ACA and as soon as it was in effect I started searching for doctors. Easier said than done unless you are old or already have children. But it is possible now, unless you are in some state that used their right to take that right away.
Have to be at least 21 for Medicaid, FYI.
How long until we see cishet women with "no unsnipped guys" in their Tinder bios?
As someone who was single and looking on dating apps a year ago I wish they did. Would have made my job easier since I don't want kids and not everyone puts that on there. I was extremely upfront about being a loser gamer (I play league) that doesn't want kids. You'd be surprised about the amount of people who still contacted me based on looks alone and didn't bother to read the bio.
I was extremely upfront cause I know who I am and what I want and I'm not hiding it. Take me or leave me. Turns out It worked and I found my fiancee that way.
Same here. I'm dude who was very upfront in his bio about being an asexual nerd and I still got booty called by plenty of women who seemed surprised when I told them I was ace. And it's not even like I'm hot. That's not just low self esteem talking, I'm so generic looking people literally struggle to describe me and I think it's hilarious. I'm pretty sure a lot of people (men and women) are just lonely and playing the numbers game hoping something works at this point.
Not sketchy at all /$
this is actually a really based statistic now that i think about it.
Just sterilize yourself forcibly if you are ok with it. It's a protest. What are they going to do, force us to have babies?
Also you can have your sperm or eggs frozen in case you do want to have kids in the future. Take control of your reproduction and fuck these conservatives.
True, but it's enough $$$ to be out of range for many (for eggs anyways)
"i froze my eggs/sperm and am now sterilized permanently. Eat shit losers."
Generally, female sterilization means cutting or removing the fallopian tubes. The eggs and womb (uterus) are still present and functioning, but the pathway for the eggs to travel is no longer available. In other words, eggs wouldn't need to be frozen in case a future pregnancy was wanted. However the eggs would need to be removed and mixed with semen, like in vitro fertilization, for a pregnancy to actually occur.
What are they going to do, force us to have babies?
According to the Handmaid's Tale (which seems to be their user manual) they will either kill us or send us to forced labor camps as we are useless to the holy demography.
fine be me. Not like i'm going to of much help doing anything else LMAO.
If you're a cis man, it isn't hard to get done. My urologist talked about the finer points of sci-fi while my procedure was done and then he mentioned that men often use events like march madness to conveniently allow themselves to be lazy. He was so cool. I want to be my urologist when i grow up.
The procedure sucks for folks who might not have the safety net like I did for it. I realize that. But if you do I have to say that it's much better than for a woman and that you are being a feminist warrior for your wife/SO. Anyway I encourage all guys to get it when they feel they are ready.
Also bringing your semen sample in a little lab bottle to your doctor is weird AF.
Lol yeah, worst was having to wait in line with it to check in! For those interested, I found a jock strap to be the most comfortable for the first few days.
Banning abortion is really gonna pump those birth rates up!
Oh wait...
Fuckin for real good for these folks for taking matters into their own hands.
The 1% can make their own wage slaves.
I live in Texas and plan on getting a vasectomy as soon as I have the money.
Do you have insurance? My rinky-dink bare minimum ACA insurance turned out to cover it. It cost me $40 in total. You might want to check into that.
I do have insurance. I'll have to see what's covered. Part of it is just going through the actual steps of scheduling and doing all the leg work.
Usually insurance policies will completely cover it because from their standpoint a vasectomy costs them a whole lot less money than childbirth. For them it's cost saving and they only care about the money. When I got mine, my insurance covered it and I had basically the worst insurance in my area.
According to my insurance it wants to charge about 600$. Without insurance, it's like 800. I might just ask the guy if cash is cheaper.
doing all the leg work.
More like all the THIRD leg work, amirite??
I'll show myself out..
Greatly depends on the state. The ACA made coverage for female sterilization mandatory, though I believe some states have passed laws against this. A handful of states have laws requiring coverage for male sterilization, unfortunately mine was not one.
Planned parenthood does them cheap! Source, my ex in a red state got his done at Planned parenthood
I have some nurses in my family and have a recommendation from a cousin that got one from a highly rated doctor. If it turns out too expensive I'll check there.
People should be paying you to get a vasectomy. When I got mine (8 years ago now?) it was $800. It is the single most effective thing one can do for the environment, and is a real vote against these tyrannous governments oppressing people (women specifically in the case of banning abortion).
For women, sterilization is involved and dangerous. For men, it is a 5 minute procedure. Do it!
Start taking the steps!
Don't forget that after you get it, you need to wait around 6 months before you're sterile. Then, you need to get your sperm count checked. It is important, the vasectomy is not immediate sterilization.
It is not six months. I was told by my doctor it was roughly one month, 30 days, and that was the time frame in which I was tested for before and after.
It can, in some situations, take up to three months at the outside. But definitely not six.
I am glad it was short for you, but it varies in general. For some people it doesn't take long. For others, it takes longer. For some, reconnection occurs so it is important to check again 1 year after the vasectomy.
15-20 ejaculations typically clear any remaining sperm, but again none of this is universal and it needs to be tested.
You absolutely do need to follow your doctor's recommendations and get a sperm count done at the prescribed times. But just blithely saying "it takes six months" to people is going to set them up with the wrong idea.
Erroring on the side of avoiding a pregnancy is a win in my book 👍
I have sent an email to setup an appointment. And my cousin told me the same thing about having to empty the tank before you're good to go.
That's probably the thing conservatives are going to go after when they're done banning birth control medication.
Dunno if I’m ‘young’ but I did get snipped 3 years ago. No kids for me.
I got it done at 22 years old, no ragrets and no oopsies so far
As a woman, I am extremely jelous. I just get "wHaT iF YoU WaNt ChIlDREn?"
As a male who just got snipped after 1 kid and still with her mother. My friends were asking me about if I found myself single and ended up with someone younger who wanted kids. I was actually shocked that was why they didn't want to do it. We're all in our 40s and have kids. Personally I have a hard time relating with women who are much younger and would be unlikely to get involved with someone who did want more kids. More importantly, I plan for a future with my partner, not some scenario where I end up single.
wait until they ban that too with these ghouls you never know.
this will be an interesting example of the cobra effect though.
I feel like people treat fertility way too seriously. So many doctors will refuse to sterilize people because "what if they want kids in the future". Well then they can get a sperm donor or adopt. It's not the end of the world.
In Germany it seems access to sterilization is more difficult if you're light skinned, go figure...
how does that look in %? more might just mean slightly more?
From the article:
They found that there were roughly 58 more tubal ligations per 100,000 outpatient visits after Dobbs and 27 more vasectomies per 100,000 visits.
Won't this potentially contribute to an increasing population of people supportive of, or otherwise apathetic about, abortion restrictions, supposing those taking this course are largely against abortion restrictions?
Support for abortion is not a genetic trait, and seeing firsthand the effects of criminalizing abortion is a quick road to being militantly supportive of it.
Support for abortion isn't a genetic trait, but religious parents tend to raise religious kids due to environmental factors.
I don't think it with be a big enough difference to matter given how much more liberal people get over time, but it is possible this will happen a bit.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, as I wasn't aiming to suggest it was a genetic trait. As another commenter indicated below, as well as another in this thread, I was asking in relation to the upbringing perspective.
Although I'm well aware upbringing isn't brainwashing, and so even those anti-abortion parents couldn't prevent their children from being for bodily autonomy, but I thought it worth asking about to see what others might think. If you read through some conservative leaning texts, some of them unambiguously talk about having children for the express purpose of perpetuating their beliefs, so at least some will view this trend as in their favor.
Also to be completely clear here: I'm pro-choice, and for bodily autonomy.
Yeah, coming from a deeply conservative community in the rural south I’m very familiar with the way parents there believe their children exist to be extensions of themselves.
Anyone under 60 who is anti-abortion only knows what it’s like to live in a post-Roe society, their stance is essentially theoretical and untested until now. When their friends and relatives start getting sick and dying from back alley abortions, miscarriages left untreated, or ectopic pregnancies there are going to be a lot of people singing a different tune.
No. This will lead to population collapse. It does not matter what policies/laws you have if you literally run out of people that can sustain the society with their... wait for it... work!
You're just doing exactly what conservatives want. Now they will have 20 kids and you will have zero, and the future generation will be further fucked.
If you think growing up in a conservative household guarantees a kid becomes conservative, you didn't grow up in a conservative household.
No, I'm doing what I want which is not to have kids. Regardless of what conservative fuckheads want or think.
Then this doesn't apply to you why are you commenting
They just want more plebe workers, this is almost certainly not what they want
I don't want to create a little person into this flaming hellhole just in time for them to watch everything go extinct from the frontlines of the resource wars. Fascists and their descendants can have it, I guess, fuck this shit.
Yeah but the future generation will be all conservatives, by your logic. So fuck it, I'll be dead and happy!
I think about this a lot, and the first scene of Idiocracy.
I wouldn't subject a child to being the 1 in 20 that was against fascism. I would rather they be the last ones left and burn themselves out.
Nobody owes children to society. I don't have children because I despise infants and I don't want the complication, period.
I'm not young, though, but I've never missed having children.
or someone tries and pull a quick one on you or something.
"I forego the ability to have children in case I get raped and do not take the morning after pill"
yes, exactly, you figured it out, congratulations.
People would genuinely rather not being able to have children (it's reversible most of the time, though not always) than be raped and have to support a child they are simply not capable of or ready to support.
How is sterilization preferable to the morning after pill?
probably because the morning after pill is potentially illegal, or possibly, soon to be illegal. As well as all of the potential red tape surrounding it.
Getting sterilized now, and not having to answer questions in front of a judge asking you why you took a morning after pill after getting raped is always going to be preferable. Plus a lot of these people already don't want children. So it's not like it makes a difference to them.
We live in absurd times.
yeah, and you would think abortion would just be legal, but no.
If you are going to have casual sex, you still need to wear a condom, what are you talking about? The lack of sex education in this thread is incredible.
No thanks, I'll just fuck a fleshlight instead. Much better than a real vagina with a condom.
BTW condom dissent is majorly censored all accross the internet, even though it is an almost universally held belief that condom sex is shit sex not worth having.
it is an almost universally held belief that condom sex is shit sex not worth having.
Many false beliefs are held by a high number of people.
Are you really trying to pull a popularity fallacy?
Let me try an ad hominem, people who argue about fallacies, aren't reliable authorities on what constitute good sex.
"Hurrrr hurrrr, people who know things don't fuck, hurrr hurrr".
Did you receive many head lesions playing football in college, or were you born a caveman already?
damn, bro would rather fuck a faux rubber pussy than fuck a pussy with rubber in between.
Yes, it's not even a contest which feels better.
It's real easy to find why, the condom moves -with- you, the fleshlight doesn't.
And the slick slippery surface of the condom dulls the texture.
damn that's crazy, i don't remember asking though.
Hey if you don't want to know, then keep it in your pants, your opinions that is.
i dont remember bringing up fleshlights to be completely honest.
I'm a degenerate, but not that much of a degenerate.
Can we just take a second to appreciate how fucking sick of a sign "MY UTERUS > YOUR GOD" is?
Best. Sign. Ever.
I'll remember that. Thank you.
I quite like this sign from the Women's March a few years ago-
I’m gonna be making these in bulk and pinning them up everywhere, holy shit
deleted by creator
Do you accept Your Uterus as your Lord and Savior?
I wonder what would happen if even just 50% of all women of child bearing age moved out of the states that added these abortion restrictions, that would basically destroy the states population in a few generations.
I wonder what the response would be...
Probably something terrible, and possibly illegal that would still somehow be permitted...
I am just a guy from Scandinavia looking at the US with complete disbelief that this shit happen in the west in this day and age.
To everyone fighting for this to be repealed I wish you all the best, and to all of those in favour of these restrictions, just stop voting, and go away.
What I have understood as a non American, the state would still have the same voting power though? So -75% of people, leaving just angry men I guess.
Sorta, but that’s not the whole story. We have two legislative bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the senate, every state gets two senators. In the house, every state gets at least two representatives, plus some amount based on population - california has 52, for instance.
The original idea was to “make sure rural voices were heard”. In practice, it very much has been what you stated - if you’re educated but not rich enough to benefit from republican policies, you flee red states en masse, leaving mostly rich assholes and uneducated chucklefucks who are hurt most by the very people they elect. They then have a massively disproportionate effect on policy versus any joe schmoe in california.
The problem is moving isn't free and there aren't good jobs in rural areas, meaning... Move with what money?
I wasn't even thinking about that, a 50% reduction in women in child bearing age would absolutely ruin the future population growth of the state, and on an even more basic level, would mean that a lot of men would never find a partner in the state, so they would need to move to other states to find someone, which means even more population loss.
At some point the situation would be so critical that there would be no choice but to change the laws back, and even after that it would take a LONG time for people to get the confidence to move back.
The amount of electoral votes per state is adjusted based on its population, but they all get a minimum of 3. So, if enough people left, it would have some effect on the state's voting power, but once you get to a certain threshold, the weight of each person's vote actually starts to go up.
(Sarcasm) Don't insult the west by lumping the US in with sane respectable nations. (/Sarcasm) The US is a third world country with some lipstick on at this point. We keep hoping to turn things around and put us back on course but. Damn is it exhausting.
I'm in the USA and we're a garbage country. Don't get me wrong, there are good areas and good people. But our broken system allows the craziest minority to have an outsized degree of power and they absolutely take advantage of it.
How a state like Wyoming, with fewer than a million people, can get as much say (in the senate) as my state of California is beyond me. We have almost 80x their population, yet they get an equal number of senators. I want a revolution that adjusts their voice to be proportional to their goddamned size.
I am too. There's a reason I chose a lemmy host outside our borders.
(OK, it was mostly so the government has free reign to accidentally spy on my international traffic because FISA/PATRIOT act are just so cool and down to earth. /s)
Did you miss civics class? Having both a senate and a house was a compromise between the smaller and bigger states. Small states could have been railroaded by bigger states with strictly proportional representation. It's almost like you're repeating something you heard without thinking about it much...
It's a stupid compromise to make. It might have made some sense at the time, when society expected them to behave as gentlemen with regard for their honor. Now a much smaller group gets to bully the rest of the country as a result.
There was a time and a reason for a lot of the old ways. We have the technology to make them irrelevant. That being said, I do feel there should be limitations in Federal decisions given the country is huge, and broad sweeping laws can negatively affect lower population areas.
We also have a bunch of basic life shit that absolutely should be Federally decided, and instead of letting people be people and live their lives, we apparently purposely try our hardest to go backwards right now. Many states are literally complicit in murdering women by law, and making it so people of different sexual or biological orientations are no longer people. How the fuck is it 2024 and women and others of various alignments are suddenly not people?
Did you know that the Supreme Court only exists because the "ultra rich" of the founding fathers' time felt they didn't have proper representation in government? This was their "check and balance" that let us become a nation.
Do we really need 50 states and territories in this era? If we must have them we could divide and merge based on population similar to the slate article. https://slate.com/culture/2014/10/if-every-u-s-state-had-the-same-population-what-would-the-map-of-america-look-like.html
A few generations? One generation is enough. The population would collapse and they would be fucked.
Yeah any significant change in gender demographics of an area will cause problems. Too few men will cause some issues but our cultures have developed defenses around this problem thanks to cataclysmic wars happening every few generations. Too few women on the other hand will get real bad real fast especially since this will be a situation of existing misogyny driving women away. Some men will get real violent and those capable of living in either society will flee because they won’t get laid otherwise.
Forget population and generations. 25% of people just leaving an area will lead to a massive economic downturn.
You’d give those states all the electoral votes and senate seats, and they’d apply their laws at the federal level. I’m suspicious that’s their plan. Drive all the liberals out of these conservative states that were at risk of turning blue so they can take their policies federal.
Also if it's mostly women leaving, that makes it easier to recruit men into armies if they are told it will help them get laid when there's a huge imbalance. And easier to elect leaders who push male superiority ideas and that women should defer to men.
I wonder what would happen if they actually voted?
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/
I bet they'd supercharge enforcement of the laws they've been testing - such as intercepting women leaving the state for suspected abortions, or parents suspected of taking children out of the state for gender affirming care
The laws are set up that you could basically set up roadblocks and force a fight through the system to leave the state... Keeping people from leaving is important if you want a fascist state, because they suck and only "true believers" wouldn't consider moving
That's why those laws are so terrifying... They don't have to convict anyone, they can just be used to suppress movement
I knew of a girl when I was in high school. She was a senior and I was a sophomore. Word began rushing through the school that she (head cheerleader) was pregnant by the quarterback on the football team. He came from a super wealthy family, and honestly we all expected an immediate marriage and a 'premature' baby.
What happened instead was an announcement that she had died during emergency surgery and let's all pray. She had had a (what we called) backstreet abortion and hemorrhaged.
We all knew how to access an illegal abortion, we knew the risks, and this girl just was the unlucky one.
She was super smart, in the Latin club, debate, 4.0, just destined for success. And instead she died.
This was in 1969, and I cannot believe we as a nation are willing to go back over 2 decades in women's healthcare.
Y'allQaeda is at it again. Yeehaa!
Banning abortions doesn't stop abortion, it only stops safe abortions.
You know 1969 was 55 years ago? While that is technically "over 2 decades" that's an interesting way to describe 55 years lol
Technically correct is the best kind of correct
Haha!! I was trying to type 55!!
You can blame the Moral Majority. So many of them would look at your story and go "well that's what she deserved for having premarital sex".
I avoid having kids by simply being completely unappealing to women. 😤
Is it possible to learn such power?
Not from a normie
But he have fancy username? 🧐
The simplest way is to be a Reddit mod.
That's too much. I still want to be loved by my family and friends.
If you're loved by family and friends, there's always the chance, especially if she's Canadian.
Do you own a fedora?
Does my Aussie hat count?
It may not, especially if you have the accent.
But if you called it a fedora without knowing the difference? It just might.
I don't have an accent. Not an Aussie accent. I wear the hat and duster cuz I had a friend from there got me started on them about a decade ago and I stick to them rather adamantly because I appreciate what they do so much the entire concept of regional reference bears nothing on my skin when the fiction is so greatly better than anything else remotely close
So, you know when you see a woman, and you speak with her like a normal person and form a connection? Nothing good comes of that.
Instead of doing that, convince yourself in your head that saying even two words is going to end in disaster and then play on your phone and awkwardly pretend they aren't there until they go away.
It's hard, but with enough practice it will become second nature. You've got this!
yeah, be a turbo nerd, don't be socially competent (autism is a good start) and don't care about romantic relationships. It's all about the interpersonal aspects anyway.
this is currently my meta. Just betting that the likelihood that i get raped and end up "being a father" is low enough that having a vasectomy or something would outweigh the potential cons.
Good news then! If you do get raped, it's most likely to be by another man! No worries about fatherhood, just the pain, violation, and never feeling truly safe again.
and it's most likely that i'll kill them somewhere along the process, because men do not fuck around subtly.
Unfortunately, I think the people who should be sterilizing themselves are not the ones doing it. (not talking about eugenics)
Next step for Republicans: Ban sterilization. I mean plenty of doctors already refuse to agree for a patient to have a vasectomy/get their tubes tied, especially young (and white) patients, because of shitty personal beliefs. Why not go a step further? These working class heathens need to be forced to stay in line.
My mum, when she was in her mid40s, went to get her tubes tied. Dr refused, "still of child bearing age." Her response: I've got 6 kids, tie these damn tubes or I'll do it myself!
Edit: a word
I mean, if she wasn't 'of child bearing age' anymore there wouldn't be any point in tying her tubes anyway, so that's a pointless reason.
Right?
I recently went in for the snip because I'm in a state that wants to keep rolling back rights and already have a pretty awesome kid. My area also has a population of people who I don't quite understand that were definitely judging me for my choice.
I went to a highly rated urologist office that was a part of my insurance plan, though the procedure isn't covered, other aspects like the initial consultation were. The first receptionist I talked with quickly changed her tone toward me when I said I wanted a vasectomy and made a big deal about not being sure my insurance was accepted. She said she would call me back by EOD after she checked my insurance. This was midmorning on a Thursday. I never heard back. I called back a week or so later, different receptionist. She put me on hold for a few minutes to verify my insurance plan and we set an appointment for the consultation.
On the day of the consultation, the nurse who showed me to the exam room visibly changed her demeanor as soon as I stated why I was there. Thankfully the doctor was all business and the nurses assisting spring the procedure a few weeks later were professional and kind.
There are definitely some medical professionals out there who want to put their own beliefs over those of their patients. I didn't think it was as prevalent as it likely is.
Also ban viagra. Impotence is the will of god.
As a male, (who thankfully doesn't need it, yet) I agree with this 100%. If these clowns are going to force their beliefs on others, they should have to face the same consequences. Make it illegal, not enough to ban it.
Can we please not do the “it hurts the other side more”-bullshit? Especially in light of the fact that Viagra has legitimate medical uses outside of ED and that ED can also be caused by factors that affect conservatives a lot less, such as HRT for trans women.
Sorry, god says only natural boners
Don’t mind me, my trans ass is just over here laughing about how “concerned” the GOP is about trans kids’ fertility while lighting a fire under the ass of cis adults (which you may have noticed greatly outnumber trans children!) to get themselves permanently sterilized.
Also they love to make it a pain in the ass to bank genetic material. Like, if they covered that in health insurance a lot of trans people would just in case
Won't be long before the christian shithead republiclowns outlaw that too.
...and that's why I'm getting it done next month. I'm genuinely worried it's now or never.
wow, that is absolutely awful.
That you have such Fear of your Government i mean.
It's not the government, it's the republiclowns. They're in power because of the idiots that keep voting for them because fox "news" tells them to. Nobody besides the rich as shit should be voting red. (the rich as shit are assholes and they at least benefit from the tax breaks) They're just laughing at you while they piss all over you.
I support any person who chooses not to have children. It’s saving the planet. There are way too many people.
You keep being told that. There are way too many billionaires, that's the real problem.
Indeed, there's more than 0.
2 things can be true at the same time.
Not really. The people there are just put in little effort not to screw up the planet .
"Overpopulation" is a right-wing myth.
Overpopulation as a dogwhistle for racism is a conservative myth.
Overpopulation in a "I'd rather not turn Earth into Coruscant and so many of our climate and food/water issues would be easier to deal with if the global birth rate slowed voluntarily" is not.
FTFY.
Sooo... when will you actually be rejecting this right-wing myth?
Soon, I hope?
"as"
We can handle feeding everybody, we can't handle the trash.
We don't need to make nearly this much trash; it's just more profitable for shareholders. Not denying that some plastics are essential for medicine though.
FTFY.
The fear of overpopulation, of the poors overbreeding and overcrowding the rich is basically a given in all political elites. Basically part of the washington consensus.
Our current, below replacement birthrate, no matter how much they try to hide it, is not an accident.
i have a theory that the food shortage is a sort of example of the overpopulation at play.
The sheer fact that there are so many people in this one place, that we can produce too much food, and then not distribute it effectively, implies to me that there are simply too many people in one place for it to be effectively distributed. I.E. over populated.
That's not because there are too many people. That's because the incentives are set up wrong.
that's definitely a possibility as well. Regardless, if it were literally as simple as "just give food to people" then one would think it would already be done. I suppose this could be an evil capitalism moment, but honestly, i just don't think that's the whole story.
It's not hard to imagine a room with 1000 people, and only 10 of those people distributing things at the wholesale level. There is inevitably going to be some amount of people that never get distributed to. It's just a lot of people in one space.
There isn't a food shortage, there's an equitable food distribution shortage.
i literally said this exact thing, go read my comment again.
Your theory is bad.
i mean yeah, that's a possibility. Why though? I think there is some potentially sound logic there.
If people in a city starve, it's not because there are "too many people in one place" - it's because the people who has control of the food distribution systems of that city chose to let them starve.
Pick a famine - Irish, Bengal, Ethiopian, the current ongoing one in Gaza... you name it. All preventable. All of them not prevented because the people who had control of the food distribution system saw fit not to prevent it because doing so didn't serve their interests.
It has absolutely nothing to do with there being "too many people in one place."
that's the thing though, it's not people in a city starving. It's people across the world starving. I mean sure homeless people are starving and food security IS an issue in the states. But that's also a macro level issue type deal.
yeah, no shit, that's not what im talking about. You could argue an abusive mother not feeding their child one night is also proof against that claim.
My point is that currently, in our collective society, globally, i do not think that our system is capable of supporting the amount of people that exist, in a functional manner. For example, if there were less people in the israel/palestine region, and the rest of the middle east, since they seem to love proxy wars so much. There would likely be a lot less war leading to famine. These wars are cropping up LITERALLY over territorial disputes, gaza especially is done for this reason. Seems like the Irish famine you referenced was in part, due to unsustainable population growth. Again, the Bengal famine, was in part, due to an increase in population, which was unsustainable. Ethiopian famine is actually a little bit different, seems to be both in part due to war, and drought, or just drought, but it seems like another significant factor at scale was the food being grown being sold to other parties. As well as political shenaniganry. Though this was also happening during a civil war. Probably also in part, due to well, people existing over top of eachother.
But yeah no, those were absolutely preventable. Just give them food. Then they won't starve. It's that simple.
It is very discouraging to see someone with a presumably functional brain make an argument like this. Back in the 80s this could be written of as simple ignorance - but not today, when we have the information available at our fingertips.
So how do you explain the very same kind of genocidal colonialist wars of the previous three centuries when there were a whole lot less people around?
Colonialism is not merely a "territorial dispute."
No, genius - it wasn't. Stop trying to apologize for colonialist exploitation by hiding behind right-wing "overpopulation" myths.
the only people who liked colonialism were the colonizers. Also to be clear, i never stated that over population was the only reason, merely that i think it's an influential factor.
a little bit, 90% of the time colonialism turns into a war, is because the people being colonized, would prefer to not be colonized. You know, on account of the colonialism. I don't know if you understand what colonialism is, but it's basically the equivalent of me walking into a random suburban home with a gun, and claiming that it's my home now, and that everybody in that home now works me. Seems rather territorial by nature to me.
i'm not, colonialism was pretty explicitly a part of the reason as well. I don't know if your eyes just glazed over at every instance of me saying "in part" or something, but i was being pretty explicit about it.
You have, so far, made absolutely no case that "overpopulation" was a factor in any way whatsoever. Period.
It seems to me that you think a community becomes "overpopulated" as soon as anything bad happens to them - which is pretty much the shittiest take I've ever seen when it comes to this myth.
You don't know a lot about the subject matter involved in this conversation, do you?
so far your entire argument is that not having enough food to feed people is a food issue, which is very true. But there is also another variable here. The people, the amount of people consuming the food being produced can lead to a food shortage. Lets say you as a small country grow a lot of food, but export the majority of it, because money. And let's say you have a food shortage, hey wait a minute this sounds familiar. Yes you can just look at it as if it's just a food/distribution issue, and that's definitely one way of looking at it, but i think it's also reasonable to consider where the food is going, and why.
it seems to me you are aggressively simplifying my argument, i'm just using the term overpopulation to describe the situation in which there are too many people involved in something, for it to be an equitable trade. I feel like given the context that it's pretty reasonable.
no, not really, i've also never claimed to know anything. I've also never claimed this to be the reason why it's happening. Perhaps you have some sort of knowledge in the subject matter, i don't know!
Environmental eugenics is still eugenics
Hey, haaaaave ya ever heard of personal autonomy?
Exactly what part of that is eugenics? Deciding not to have kids, or recognizing the environmental impact of the choice?
"There's too many people on earth" is a eugenicists talking point by affluent westerners. It's a short slippery slope from there to completely dehumanizing humans born in nations deemed "lesser than"
My main argument for antinatalism is that there are too many idiots willing to reproduce and raise children as bigger idiots than they are.
Instead of dehumanizing people for being born in a crowded, exploited region you dehumanize them for being less educated than you.
It's not a question of education, but of willing persistence in stupidity, entitlement and hubris.
The irony of you decrying hubris in people you deem lesser than yourself is lost on you
Anti intellectuals, jingoists, gun fetishists, imperialists and right wingers are objectively worse that everyone else who's not any of these things. This has nothing to do with me specifically.
And if you really want to raise kids, adoption is a win-win-win for you, them, and the planet
Isn't it really expensive in a lot of places?
It can be. The system is intentionally bogged down with a lot of red tape to discourage people who aren't fully committed to raising a child, especially one that isn't their own biological offspring. The thing is, raising kids is expensive in general. You'll shell out millions over their lifetime for basic necessities, education and enrichment. If somebody balks at the cost of adoption, they probably aren't ready for kids yet anyway.
It is, but a pregnancy with regular checkups, screening for potential issues, and delivery in a hospital isn't cheap, either, even when everything goes without issue. If there are complications and the baby needs to stay in a NICU or have surgeries, it can be far more expensive than adoption.
Except if you're not in the US. Don't get me wrong, it's still expensive to have a kid, but there's no risk of going broke during birth procedures (complicated or not) in most developed and even some developing countries.
Solid point. I've had it pretty good most of my life, but I'm so used to this ass backwards way of doing things that I often forget about how much better it can and should be.
I'm in Canada, this would mostly be free
People are simply not going to be forced to have kids. Repuglicans are completely blind to that fact
This is a good article about how one woman figured out how to do abortions herself. https://story.californiasunday.com/abortion-providers/
This is what will happen.
Didnt read all of it but what i did read was quite interesting. Just as interesting was the lack of popups and banner ads on the page.
That is a very good magazine and I read it a lot. High quality.
Read past tense though as it seemed to be cancelled.
Well, except for the quiver-full crowd and all the women indoctrinated into the barefoot and pregnant school of thought.
In other words, the poor, stupid, and indoctrinated will continue to spew out kids while the educated and reasoned will make the choice not to, therefore the stupid will inherit the earth.
The meek shall inherit. The stupid is anything but meek these days
That is literally the logical falicy that Idiocracy makes fun of and nature vs. nurture is still an ongoing discussion.
I don't see how that depends on it being nature or nurture. Nature: they will be like their parents because of genetics. Nurture: they will be like their parents because that's who's raising them.
I've said this elsewhere, but if you are in the states and have health insurance sterilization is covered! For those with lady bits too! This changed with ACA and as soon as it was in effect I started searching for doctors. Easier said than done unless you are old or already have children. But it is possible now, unless you are in some state that used their right to take that right away.
Have to be at least 21 for Medicaid, FYI.
How long until we see cishet women with "no unsnipped guys" in their Tinder bios?
As someone who was single and looking on dating apps a year ago I wish they did. Would have made my job easier since I don't want kids and not everyone puts that on there. I was extremely upfront about being a loser gamer (I play league) that doesn't want kids. You'd be surprised about the amount of people who still contacted me based on looks alone and didn't bother to read the bio.
I was extremely upfront cause I know who I am and what I want and I'm not hiding it. Take me or leave me. Turns out It worked and I found my fiancee that way.
Same here. I'm dude who was very upfront in his bio about being an asexual nerd and I still got booty called by plenty of women who seemed surprised when I told them I was ace. And it's not even like I'm hot. That's not just low self esteem talking, I'm so generic looking people literally struggle to describe me and I think it's hilarious. I'm pretty sure a lot of people (men and women) are just lonely and playing the numbers game hoping something works at this point.
Not sketchy at all /$
this is actually a really based statistic now that i think about it.
Just sterilize yourself forcibly if you are ok with it. It's a protest. What are they going to do, force us to have babies?
Also you can have your sperm or eggs frozen in case you do want to have kids in the future. Take control of your reproduction and fuck these conservatives.
True, but it's enough $$$ to be out of range for many (for eggs anyways)
"i froze my eggs/sperm and am now sterilized permanently. Eat shit losers."
Generally, female sterilization means cutting or removing the fallopian tubes. The eggs and womb (uterus) are still present and functioning, but the pathway for the eggs to travel is no longer available. In other words, eggs wouldn't need to be frozen in case a future pregnancy was wanted. However the eggs would need to be removed and mixed with semen, like in vitro fertilization, for a pregnancy to actually occur.
According to the Handmaid's Tale (which seems to be their user manual) they will either kill us or send us to forced labor camps as we are useless to the holy demography.
fine be me. Not like i'm going to of much help doing anything else LMAO.
If you're a cis man, it isn't hard to get done. My urologist talked about the finer points of sci-fi while my procedure was done and then he mentioned that men often use events like march madness to conveniently allow themselves to be lazy. He was so cool. I want to be my urologist when i grow up.
The procedure sucks for folks who might not have the safety net like I did for it. I realize that. But if you do I have to say that it's much better than for a woman and that you are being a feminist warrior for your wife/SO. Anyway I encourage all guys to get it when they feel they are ready.
Also bringing your semen sample in a little lab bottle to your doctor is weird AF.
Lol yeah, worst was having to wait in line with it to check in! For those interested, I found a jock strap to be the most comfortable for the first few days.
Banning abortion is really gonna pump those birth rates up!
Oh wait...
Fuckin for real good for these folks for taking matters into their own hands.
The 1% can make their own wage slaves.
I live in Texas and plan on getting a vasectomy as soon as I have the money.
Do you have insurance? My rinky-dink bare minimum ACA insurance turned out to cover it. It cost me $40 in total. You might want to check into that.
I do have insurance. I'll have to see what's covered. Part of it is just going through the actual steps of scheduling and doing all the leg work.
Usually insurance policies will completely cover it because from their standpoint a vasectomy costs them a whole lot less money than childbirth. For them it's cost saving and they only care about the money. When I got mine, my insurance covered it and I had basically the worst insurance in my area.
According to my insurance it wants to charge about 600$. Without insurance, it's like 800. I might just ask the guy if cash is cheaper.
More like all the THIRD leg work, amirite??
I'll show myself out..
Greatly depends on the state. The ACA made coverage for female sterilization mandatory, though I believe some states have passed laws against this. A handful of states have laws requiring coverage for male sterilization, unfortunately mine was not one.
Planned parenthood does them cheap! Source, my ex in a red state got his done at Planned parenthood
I have some nurses in my family and have a recommendation from a cousin that got one from a highly rated doctor. If it turns out too expensive I'll check there.
People should be paying you to get a vasectomy. When I got mine (8 years ago now?) it was $800. It is the single most effective thing one can do for the environment, and is a real vote against these tyrannous governments oppressing people (women specifically in the case of banning abortion).
For women, sterilization is involved and dangerous. For men, it is a 5 minute procedure. Do it!
Start taking the steps!
Don't forget that after you get it, you need to wait around 6 months before you're sterile. Then, you need to get your sperm count checked. It is important, the vasectomy is not immediate sterilization.
It is not six months. I was told by my doctor it was roughly one month, 30 days, and that was the time frame in which I was tested for before and after.
It can, in some situations, take up to three months at the outside. But definitely not six.
I am glad it was short for you, but it varies in general. For some people it doesn't take long. For others, it takes longer. For some, reconnection occurs so it is important to check again 1 year after the vasectomy.
15-20 ejaculations typically clear any remaining sperm, but again none of this is universal and it needs to be tested.
You absolutely do need to follow your doctor's recommendations and get a sperm count done at the prescribed times. But just blithely saying "it takes six months" to people is going to set them up with the wrong idea.
Erroring on the side of avoiding a pregnancy is a win in my book 👍
I have sent an email to setup an appointment. And my cousin told me the same thing about having to empty the tank before you're good to go.
That's probably the thing conservatives are going to go after when they're done banning birth control medication.
Dunno if I’m ‘young’ but I did get snipped 3 years ago. No kids for me.
I got it done at 22 years old, no ragrets and no oopsies so far
As a woman, I am extremely jelous. I just get "wHaT iF YoU WaNt ChIlDREn?"
As a male who just got snipped after 1 kid and still with her mother. My friends were asking me about if I found myself single and ended up with someone younger who wanted kids. I was actually shocked that was why they didn't want to do it. We're all in our 40s and have kids. Personally I have a hard time relating with women who are much younger and would be unlikely to get involved with someone who did want more kids. More importantly, I plan for a future with my partner, not some scenario where I end up single.
I would look into this if I thought for a moment that someone might consider having sex with me ever again.
I’ll have sex with you.
Well, now I have to make a doctor's appointment.
wait until they ban that too with these ghouls you never know.
this will be an interesting example of the cobra effect though.
I feel like people treat fertility way too seriously. So many doctors will refuse to sterilize people because "what if they want kids in the future". Well then they can get a sperm donor or adopt. It's not the end of the world.
In Germany it seems access to sterilization is more difficult if you're light skinned, go figure...
how does that look in %? more might just mean slightly more?
From the article:
Won't this potentially contribute to an increasing population of people supportive of, or otherwise apathetic about, abortion restrictions, supposing those taking this course are largely against abortion restrictions?
Support for abortion is not a genetic trait, and seeing firsthand the effects of criminalizing abortion is a quick road to being militantly supportive of it.
Support for abortion isn't a genetic trait, but religious parents tend to raise religious kids due to environmental factors.
I don't think it with be a big enough difference to matter given how much more liberal people get over time, but it is possible this will happen a bit.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, as I wasn't aiming to suggest it was a genetic trait. As another commenter indicated below, as well as another in this thread, I was asking in relation to the upbringing perspective.
Although I'm well aware upbringing isn't brainwashing, and so even those anti-abortion parents couldn't prevent their children from being for bodily autonomy, but I thought it worth asking about to see what others might think. If you read through some conservative leaning texts, some of them unambiguously talk about having children for the express purpose of perpetuating their beliefs, so at least some will view this trend as in their favor.
Also to be completely clear here: I'm pro-choice, and for bodily autonomy.
Yeah, coming from a deeply conservative community in the rural south I’m very familiar with the way parents there believe their children exist to be extensions of themselves.
Anyone under 60 who is anti-abortion only knows what it’s like to live in a post-Roe society, their stance is essentially theoretical and untested until now. When their friends and relatives start getting sick and dying from back alley abortions, miscarriages left untreated, or ectopic pregnancies there are going to be a lot of people singing a different tune.
No. This will lead to population collapse. It does not matter what policies/laws you have if you literally run out of people that can sustain the society with their... wait for it... work!
You're just doing exactly what conservatives want. Now they will have 20 kids and you will have zero, and the future generation will be further fucked.
If you think growing up in a conservative household guarantees a kid becomes conservative, you didn't grow up in a conservative household.
No, I'm doing what I want which is not to have kids. Regardless of what conservative fuckheads want or think.
Then this doesn't apply to you why are you commenting
They just want more plebe workers, this is almost certainly not what they want
I don't want to create a little person into this flaming hellhole just in time for them to watch everything go extinct from the frontlines of the resource wars. Fascists and their descendants can have it, I guess, fuck this shit.
Yeah but the future generation will be all conservatives, by your logic. So fuck it, I'll be dead and happy!
I think about this a lot, and the first scene of Idiocracy.
I wouldn't subject a child to being the 1 in 20 that was against fascism. I would rather they be the last ones left and burn themselves out.
Nobody owes children to society. I don't have children because I despise infants and I don't want the complication, period.
I'm not young, though, but I've never missed having children.
Wow, people really don't want to wear a condom...
condoms are cool and all, until you get raped.
Or they fail.
or someone tries and pull a quick one on you or something.
"I forego the ability to have children in case I get raped and do not take the morning after pill"
yes, exactly, you figured it out, congratulations.
People would genuinely rather not being able to have children (it's reversible most of the time, though not always) than be raped and have to support a child they are simply not capable of or ready to support.
How is sterilization preferable to the morning after pill?
probably because the morning after pill is potentially illegal, or possibly, soon to be illegal. As well as all of the potential red tape surrounding it.
Getting sterilized now, and not having to answer questions in front of a judge asking you why you took a morning after pill after getting raped is always going to be preferable. Plus a lot of these people already don't want children. So it's not like it makes a difference to them.
We live in absurd times.
yeah, and you would think abortion would just be legal, but no.
If you are going to have casual sex, you still need to wear a condom, what are you talking about? The lack of sex education in this thread is incredible.
No thanks, I'll just fuck a fleshlight instead. Much better than a real vagina with a condom.
BTW condom dissent is majorly censored all accross the internet, even though it is an almost universally held belief that condom sex is shit sex not worth having.
Many false beliefs are held by a high number of people.
Are you really trying to pull a popularity fallacy?
Let me try an ad hominem, people who argue about fallacies, aren't reliable authorities on what constitute good sex.
"Hurrrr hurrrr, people who know things don't fuck, hurrr hurrr".
Did you receive many head lesions playing football in college, or were you born a caveman already?
damn, bro would rather fuck a faux rubber pussy than fuck a pussy with rubber in between.
Yes, it's not even a contest which feels better. It's real easy to find why, the condom moves -with- you, the fleshlight doesn't. And the slick slippery surface of the condom dulls the texture.
damn that's crazy, i don't remember asking though.
Hey if you don't want to know, then keep it in your pants, your opinions that is.
i dont remember bringing up fleshlights to be completely honest.
I'm a degenerate, but not that much of a degenerate.