Flying SquidFree vasectomy clinic fills up fast in Oklahoma City
GregoryTheGreatI got one 2 years ago. Super easy and much less pain than kids. I felt like I got kicked in the balls 10 minutes ago for a few days. Worth it.
Don’t make your ladies have a more invasive surgery. Just get it done.
Rufus Q. Bodine IIIBest thing I ever did.
FredselfishI had mine 14 years ago 100% free all thanks to Plan Parenthood. No pain for me and I was back in action after 5 days. Wife at time had no problem giving me the 20 our so releases I needed to make sure I was clesn of active sperm.
So after doctors said I was clean said goodbye to condoms and never been freeier.
They say you can get easily reverse so see no reason why women should suffer under a horrible surgery and be out of action for 6 to 8 weeks. When it takes 30 minutes and all well in 5 days.
ZoboomafooThey say you can get easily reverse
That’s not true, reversal is much more invasive and not guaranteed to work
They told me it be less likely that I could reproduce the longer I had it but I was assured it was easily reversed. Not that matter I am not interested in having any more kids.
Yeah I got warned it wasn’t a 100% reversible.
Yeah when I got it done, my doctor told me to consider this as permanent procedure even though it is possible to reverse it. They want you to make this decision without the idea that a reversal is quick and easy or even possible
It doesn’t really matter. They can just get sperm from your testicles instead of trying to reverse it.
SciaphobiaIt is also less likely to succeed the longer you’ve had it. Relying on reversals is a less than ideal plan.
I was more upset that I had to wait the full 6 months to test, but it didn't matter since I failed the first time anyway...
So it didn’t work?
I'm just extra fertile I guess, I failed my first test but passed after that.
I can't say I'm surprised tho, considering my mom used to joke about being conceived while on the pill, so I guess that's genetic XD
Semi-Hemi-DemigodI agree that ladies shouldn’t have to get the much more invasive surgery, but I’ve never met a woman who regretted her hysterectomy.
Most women who’ve had a hysterectomy have likely had a severe debilitating medical issue related to the uterus and so removing it probably makes them feel the most free they’ve been in a long time.
I have. She had one as part of cancer treatment. And told me that she wished she had pushed for options that didn’t involve a hysterectomy.
Personally I was pretty glad to hear she got one. She would have been a terrible mother.
I agree, but the sad part is this is being done because abortion is illegal there now. It’s being done out of desperation, not because someone wants it done.
Whatever gets fewer kids into the world I support.
I understand the sentiment, but supporting this is sort of conceding the anti-abortion laws are there to stay and I don’t think we should accept that.
If you want to get a vasectomy, fine. That’s a personal choice. But the reason so many men are signing up for a free vasectomy isn’t because it’s a good financial deal. It’s because we’re losing the fight and we need to start winning it again.
I completely agree about the need to fight for our bodily autonomy. I’m old and postmenopausal even if I hadn’t yeeted the uterus years ago. But I am appalled that my daughters don’t have even the meager protection of Rowe v Wade.
There’s a tiny bit of my soul that is gratified however by the way more men are starting to step up and take on the responsibility of pregnancy prevention.
Fewer unwanted kids, I can get behind.
If you’re talking about global sustainability, it’s a little more complicated than just “less is better”.
JackGreenEarthPlease expound on the complexity.
Here’s a few things to consider, but I’m hardly the person to give an authoritative list.
- What are our quality of life targets?
We can support a crapton more people if we all go Amish. We gotta reduce growth to a global lottery system 30 years ago if we want everyone in the world to live like a median American.
This isn’t a one-size-fits-all-age answer, either. People need more resources as they get older, and contribute less work in return. An aging population means more economic stress on the younger population, and less economic output relative to each senior citizen means less access to medical care.
- What are our sustainability targets?
Some things are getting bad faster than others, some things are closer to breaking points, etc.
- How much do we want to bet on degrowth vs. innovation?
If we assume only tiny incremental improvements for centuries to come, then we’re preparing for something very different than if we’re trying to keep research investment steady or even accelerate progress on things like fusion, carbon removal, microplastics remediation, and power distribution and storage.
- What policies are on or off the table?
Some philosophies say that limiting a person’s reproduction is categorically immoral, even if the predictable consequence is that everyone dies. Some TESCREAL dudes say we should use nukes cuz the ends justify the means.
- How do we mobilize these policies?
We have lived experience that an aging population isn’t great for getting effective policy in place.
- What about the political fallout?
Population change policies certainly won’t be done globally in lockstep, which means in order to stabilize local economies, there will be more immigration for places where the internal population growth is slowing/reversing. That can easily lead to xenophobia, which could destabilize everything. It’s hard to fight global climate change when you’re dealing with local fascism.
etc.
That’s why I can pretty much only reliably say “people who don’t want kids… not being forced to have kids… is an unambiguously good thing” and I can’t extend that to people who do want kids.
NeshuraChiming in with my own thoughts.
I regularly see people calling for massive reductions in population and I don’t think they are as informed about the subject as they think they are. For starters I usually get the feeling that they think degrowth will be painless or relatively painless even when massive. It won’t, even a slight reduction in worker population each generation is massively going to decrease the standard of living, starting with pretty much every luxury service we have. Any innovation in tech? Yeah not gonna happen anymore, there is not enough breathing room in the economy to waste on fancy little toys. In a system set on degrowth any available resource will be exclusively used to maintain the status quo, forget improvements.
Thinking further beyond the immediate consequences there is the long term question of what we want to happen to humanity. If people think we should go extinct then degrowth is a perfectly viable strategy for making that take a bit longer, if we are to potentially survive indefinitely degrowth is not an option. We are consuming more depletable resources than any individual can count and a great many of them have already dropped below a level where we could rediscover them. For example: There is not enough surface ore (coal, iron, copper, etc) in the world anymore to repeat an industrial revolution. If we lose the capacity of mass production that’s it, no second attempt. And it is like that with many resources, Helium is running out in iirc ~100 years, Uranium for reactors in iirc ~80 years, nitrate needed for fertilizers is running low and concrete manufacturers are looking into alternatives to river sand because that is also running dangerously low. Now we can stop growth and extend the usable time we have left with these resources but they will run out eventually. Or alternatively we can stop pretending that stagnation has ever worked for anything (no not even nature works with stagnation, a forest with only old trees dies together with its entire animal population and is eventually replaced by a new forest with young trees) and start working on solution to that problem. If we don’t want to got extinct the only solution is to get off this rock and start mining the planets we don’t have to be careful with. We cannot strip mine earth because it’s the only habitable place we have but we don’t have that problem with any other celestial body.
As for the short term, getting rid of the excessively wealthy would be a good start, it’s not like we lack resources as is, it’s just that 0.1% of the population are hogging 99% of it for themselves. Imo eating the rich will net much better results than doing a china and having less kids (btw anyone check on how their industry is doing, cuz last I checked their government is panicking a bit about the side effects the decline in workforce brings with it)
Well a lot of social safety nets require on a continually growing work force, of course they could be removed but that will never happen. Immigration is also a good solution but it’s unclear if in many places that will ever be expanded. But furthermore, there is no reason to stop people having kids in most situations.
But furthermore, there is no reason to stop people having kids in most situations.
have you seen the hellscape out there mate?
introducing more load onto an overloaded system isn’t going to do those future generations any favors.
The world is not overloaded, Malthus thought it was a long time ago, but the planet I pretty big.
fuck malthus he didn’t know shit from shinola. the world is cooking friend. baking. shit’s on fire yo.
Yeah but that’s not due to pure numbers of people
you’re disregarding basic physics. more consumers burning more shit for energy food and heat.
this is ridiculous, I’m done here. blocking.
Exactly, burning. If we do away with the burning, trading fossil fuels for environmentally friendly alternatives, we can reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases, the biggest contributor to climate change.
This is such a short sighted and selfish thing to say.
I had a vasectomy, for many of the reasons stated here (the most important one being so my wife didn’t have to put her own body through any more trauma).
But I had 3 beautiful, healthy and perfect kids first
It’s natural to want kids. You want kids personally. I do too but I won’t bring kids into this. I see having kids because I want them as selfish.
Into what? Suicide rates are unfortunately high, but nowhere near the majority required to say being born was a curse to most people
So that’s how we tell if people are having a good time? Whether or not they kill them selves!? Wtf.
I’ve not had a good time but my brain is wired to not kill itself.
Not entirely, but yeah we can tell if life is better off not worth living for at least some people based on that.
Sure, that is the reason. Your great moral superiority and first principle reasoned stance.
You must know more about it than me. What’s my reason then?
I thought it was because of how hard life is and the extreme possibility to suffer but what do I know.
Anti-natalism definitely the most empathetic ideology and not at all misanthropic
Don’t make your ladies have a more invasive surgery. Just get it done.
word, the differences in their longterm health outcomes are ridiculous with hysterectomy. We still get our testosterone and dangly bits, we just, er, cut the swimmers off at the pass. not having to worry about condoms / bc / etc? priceless.
That is if you can find a doctor who will give a recommendation for one. My partner has endometriosis and has wanted an oblation for a while but nobody will give her the ok cuz she’s in her 30’s and “she could still have kids if she wanted to.”
I thought stuff like that was a meme but she can’t find anyone. The first doctor I met with just wanted me to know a vasectomy was permanent and he gave me some vallium. $200 and 20 minutes was all it took for me and she’s STILL looking to get an oblation :/