• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    591 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      111 year ago

      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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    121 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      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.

    • richieadler 🇦🇷
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      341 year ago

      If you think growing up in a conservative household guarantees a kid becomes conservative, you didn’t grow up in a conservative household.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      I’d still rather not force a conscious being into that existence. If I can’t move the needle myself, I’m not going to give up and and create a human just to put this massive burden on them.

  • defunct_punk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1301 year ago

    Can we just take a second to appreciate how fucking sick of a sign “MY UTERUS > YOUR GOD” is?

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
      link
      fedilink
      181 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            61 year ago

            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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        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.

    • HereFishyFishy
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      Planned parenthood does them cheap! Source, my ex in a red state got his done at Planned parenthood

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      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.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          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.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      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!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      241 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        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.

  • Snot Flickerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    30
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      271 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    161 year ago

    That’s probably the thing conservatives are going to go after when they’re done banning birth control medication.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    551 year ago

    I support any person who chooses not to have children. It’s saving the planet. There are way too many people.

      • AbsentBird
        link
        fedilink
        20
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly what part of that is eugenics? Deciding not to have kids, or recognizing the environmental impact of the choice?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          “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”

          • richieadler 🇦🇷
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            My main argument for antinatalism is that there are too many idiots willing to reproduce and raise children as bigger idiots than they are.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Instead of dehumanizing people for being born in a crowded, exploited region you dehumanize them for being less educated than you.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Overpopulation as a dogwhistle for racism is a conservative right-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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        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.

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        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.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            i mean yeah, that’s a possibility. Why though? I think there is some potentially sound logic there.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              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.”

              • KillingTimeItself
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          That’s not because there are too many people. That’s because the incentives are set up wrong.

          • KillingTimeItself
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            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.

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        121 year ago

        We can handle feeding everybody, we can’t handle the trash.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      I would look into this if I thought for a moment that someone might consider having sex with me ever again.

    • bbbbbbbbbbb
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I got it done at 22 years old, no ragrets and no oopsies so far

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          71 year ago

          I still get that from every human I talk to, just luckily not from the doctor. He was one vas deferens down when he asked for my motivation.

  • ☂️-
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    how does that look in %? more might just mean slightly more?

    • Veloxization
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      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.

      • myxi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The simplest way is to be a Reddit mod.

      • KillingTimeItself
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        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!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            It may not, especially if you have the accent.

            But if you called it a fedora without knowing the difference? It just might.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              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

    • KillingTimeItself
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      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.

  • KillingTimeItself
    link
    fedilink
    English
    321 year ago

    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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      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.