If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Yearly birth rates continue to fall, although vasectomies are no longer responsible for the vas deferens   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 27
    More: Interesting, FBI agent BANNED, information center, table reservation, vasectomy, How Petraeus, coils, England and Wales  
•       •       •

1538 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-13 09:13:10 AM
Tubular dude!
 
2012-11-13 10:27:25 AM
I'd like to see more free vasectomies provided to those men wanting them, even those in high school.
 
2012-11-13 10:41:19 AM

minoridiot: I'd like to see more free vasectomies provided to those men wanting them, even those in high school.

 
2012-11-13 10:57:00 AM
I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

Also, a decrease in the birth rate is a good thing, but dammit, smart people need to breed! Look at Idiocracy!
 
2012-11-13 11:03:44 AM

Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.


That makes no sense. How can you know, before you get pregnant, what diseases or impairments the fetus may have? Or are you saying that they should accept any and all risks, regardless of the fact that we have procedures like abortion? That's like saying that you're pro-antibiotic, but you think that if people have sex, they should accept any diseases they get and not use antibiotics, because sex is not a risk-free procedure.
 
2012-11-13 11:04:33 AM
FTFA: The link is also seen in France, where relatively few vasectomies - legal only since 1999 - are done but abortions for older women are more common.

Why on Earth would vasectomies be illegal in the first place? Is this a chauvinistic French Pepe Le Pew paternalistic MAIS L'AMOUR!!!11! thing that finally got done away with?

Come on guys, man up.

/also on board with the free snips
//Mr. C got snipped, it was the least he could do after I went through labor and 2 c-sections
 
2012-11-13 11:34:41 AM
First world stops breeding, gets replaced by third world. This seems to be the pattern based on reproductive rates.
 
2012-11-13 12:40:45 PM
Look fellas if you have reached a certain age and or do not intend to raise any childeren, then this is the best way to go. It's minimally invasive pretty damned much guaranteed to work and it's a heck of a lot safer for your wife/ partener than many other types of contra seption.

relying on your significant other to get her tubes tied or staying on birth control is just lazy on your part.
 
2012-11-13 01:03:01 PM
i.dailymail.co.uk

What a vasectomy may look like?
 
2012-11-13 01:09:00 PM
I came only to say that I can't beat that pun.
 
2012-11-13 01:15:19 PM

Theaetetus: Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

That makes no sense. How can you know, before you get pregnant, what diseases or impairments the fetus may have? Or are you saying that they should accept any and all risks, regardless of the fact that we have procedures like abortion? That's like saying that you're pro-antibiotic, but you think that if people have sex, they should accept any diseases they get and not use antibiotics, because sex is not a risk-free procedure.


I meant abortions as post-hoc birth control, not for cases of fetal developmental issues, rape, incest, or threats to the life and health of the mother. Sorry, thought that was obvious.
 
2012-11-13 01:17:55 PM

sodomizer: First world stops breeding, gets replaced by third world. This seems to be the pattern based on reproductive rates.


Falling birthrates are plummetting even in the third world. Don't worry your pretty little head about being overrun with brown people.

The Economist

Behind this is a staggering fertility decline. In the 1970s only 24 countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less, all of them rich. Now there are over 70 such countries, and in every continent, including Africa. Between 1950 and 2000 the average fertility rate in developing countries fell by half from six to three-three fewer children in each family in just 50 years. Over the same period, Europe went from the peak of the baby boom to the depth of the baby bust and its fertility also fell by almost half, from 2.65 to 1.42-but that was a decline of only 1.23 children. The fall in developing countries now is closer to what happened in Europe during 19th- and early 20th-century industrialisation. But what took place in Britain over 130 years (1800-1930) took place in South Korea over just 20 (1965-85).

Things are moving even faster today. Fertility has dropped further in every South-East Asian country (except the Philippines) than it did in Japan. The rate in Bangladesh fell by half from six to three in only 20 years (1980 to 2000). The same decline took place in Mauritius in just ten (1963-73). Most sensational of all is the story from Iran.

When the clerical regime took over in 1979, the mullahs, apparently believing their flock should go forth and multiply, abolished the country's family-planning system. Fertility rose, reaching seven in 1984. Yet by the 2006 census the average fertility rate had fallen to a mere 1.9, and just 1.5 in Tehran.

 
2012-11-13 01:57:00 PM

Lord Dimwit: Theaetetus: Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

That makes no sense. How can you know, before you get pregnant, what diseases or impairments the fetus may have? Or are you saying that they should accept any and all risks, regardless of the fact that we have procedures like abortion? That's like saying that you're pro-antibiotic, but you think that if people have sex, they should accept any diseases they get and not use antibiotics, because sex is not a risk-free procedure.

I meant abortions as post-hoc birth control, not for cases of fetal developmental issues, rape, incest, or threats to the life and health of the mother. Sorry, thought that was obvious.


So, you're okay with some abortions where the mother doesn't want to have the child, but not okay with other abortions where the mother doesn't want to have the child? That's an odd position for an allegedly "pro-choice" person to take.
And honestly, it shows a very limited understanding of what goes on during an abortion. They're not without risk, and they're frequently (if not always) painful. I don't think anyone is choosing to have them over other forms of birth control.
 
2012-11-13 02:38:41 PM
Birth rates have been rising in the US since around '05, not only among the stalwart Hispanics but all sectors of women. Whites and Blacks, if I recall correctly have reached replacement for the first time in a long time.

Now the UK, OTOH is an entirely different story with far fewer deeply-religious folks, more available contraception, and sex education. Plus everything is so expensive there, including kids.
 
2012-11-13 03:29:54 PM
Isn't biatchiness the most natural form of contraception?
 
2012-11-13 03:58:30 PM

Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

Also, a decrease in the birth rate is a good thing, but dammit, smart people need to breed! Look at Idiocracy!


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-13 04:45:49 PM

Incog_Neeto: Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

Also, a decrease in the birth rate is a good thing, but dammit, smart people need to breed! Look at Idiocracy!

[imgs.xkcd.com image 729x520]


Where is the citation that says it is wrong? Just because xkcd says so, doesn't mean it is true. XKCD != Stone Cold
 
2012-11-13 10:27:45 PM

Lord Dimwit: Theaetetus: Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

That makes no sense. How can you know, before you get pregnant, what diseases or impairments the fetus may have? Or are you saying that they should accept any and all risks, regardless of the fact that we have procedures like abortion? That's like saying that you're pro-antibiotic, but you think that if people have sex, they should accept any diseases they get and not use antibiotics, because sex is not a risk-free procedure.

I meant abortions as post-hoc birth control, not for cases of fetal developmental issues, rape, incest, or threats to the life and health of the mother. Sorry, thought that was obvious.


It should be obvious, but isn't to everyone. And some folks just get off on getting incensed over internet comments.

The combination of the increasing number of abortions and the lower number of vasectomies, and assuming that the rate of pre-natally diagnosable congenital defects remains steady, implies that people are simply considering an abortion to be just another way to not have a child you didn't want. This seems contrary to the NHS's goals of promoting good health in society, when a decrease in an almost risk-free procedure results in an increase in a procedure that has a measurably higher rate of long-term health issues. Then there are the psychological troubles that can result which must also be treated.

I also find it tragic that if the rate of abortions is about 1% per year from 30-44 years of age, that basically means that about 10-15% of women in the UK (lower figures when multiple abortions are common) will have an abortion between age 30 and menopause. I'm not of the mind to oppose allowing women to have the procedure, but it's still a physically and psychologically traumatic procedure and should be viewed as a last resort. Safe, legal, but as rare as necessary to maintain a civil society.
 
2012-11-13 10:42:09 PM

rolladuck: Lord Dimwit: Theaetetus: Lord Dimwit: I'm pro-choice, but I think once you're in your 30s and 40s, you should know well enough before you get pregnant whether or not you're going to want the child. It's not a risk-free procedure.

That makes no sense. How can you know, before you get pregnant, what diseases or impairments the fetus may have? Or are you saying that they should accept any and all risks, regardless of the fact that we have procedures like abortion? That's like saying that you're pro-antibiotic, but you think that if people have sex, they should accept any diseases they get and not use antibiotics, because sex is not a risk-free procedure.

I meant abortions as post-hoc birth control, not for cases of fetal developmental issues, rape, incest, or threats to the life and health of the mother. Sorry, thought that was obvious.

It should be obvious, but isn't to everyone. And some folks just get off on getting incensed over internet comments.
... I'm not of the mind to oppose allowing women to have the procedure, but it's still a physically and psychologically traumatic procedure and should be viewed as a last resort.


But his comment is ignoring exactly that. If you admit that it's a physically and psychologically* traumatic procedure, then why would you believe that women were using it as "post-hoc birth control"? That position requires a belief that either women willingly do traumatic things, or women are too stupid to recognize trauma. Either they're insane, or idiotic... and frankly, both of those beliefs are inconsistent with a pro-choice position, because if you believe women are insane or idiots, you don't believe they have capacity to make choices.

Frankly, it's an amazingly good dog whistle - anyone saying "abortions as post-hoc birth control" is immediately outed as someone who doesn't believe women should be able to make choices for themselves. The best part is, they don't realize that that's what they're saying, so they don't hold it back.

*it's apparently not psychologically traumatic, according to that recent study that was greenlit in another thread. But still physically painful, and the point stands.
 
2012-11-14 04:42:35 AM

Theaetetus: If you admit that it's a physically and psychologically* traumatic procedure, then why would you believe that women were using it as "post-hoc birth control"?


Maybe because pregnancy, birth, and child rearing are also traumatic and the people involved might choose to undertake a procedure -- even if it is traumatic -- to avoid another undesirable outcome? Are you sure you aren't the one with the dog whistle?
 
2012-11-14 07:45:45 AM

profplump: Theaetetus: If you admit that it's a physically and psychologically* traumatic procedure, then why would you believe that women were using it as "post-hoc birth control"?

Maybe because pregnancy, birth, and child rearing are also traumatic and the people involved might choose to undertake a procedure -- even if it is traumatic -- to avoid another undesirable outcome? Are you sure you aren't the one with the dog whistle?


Yes, since I'm not the one calling it "post-hoc birth control". Of course, that's why they choose it. It's not because of some specific preference for abortion over condoms or the pill, as he's implying.
 
2012-11-14 11:45:39 AM
The increase in abortions among older women is probably because many women are delaying childbirth until 40, which greatly increases the likelihood of defects like Down's Syndrome.

Moreover, many older women have to rely on IVF, resulting in a high risk of multiples pregnancies, many times anything more than twins is reduce for the health of the babies and the mother.

This is a daily fail non-story expect for the reduction in vasectomies, that can also be explained away with the delaying of child rearing. If you want to have kids at 40 you are not getting snipped at 35.
 
2012-11-14 03:59:31 PM

Theaetetus: *it's apparently not psychologically traumatic, according to that recent study that was greenlit in another thread. But still physically painful, and the point stands.


As a former post abortion grief counselor, that is BULLshiat. Both women and men suffer psychologically from abortion. Not a single person who has had an abortion ever forgets it.
 
2012-11-14 04:31:19 PM

marleymaniac: Theaetetus: *it's apparently not psychologically traumatic, according to that recent study that was greenlit in another thread. But still physically painful, and the point stands.

As a former post abortion grief counselor, that is BULLshiat. Both women and men suffer psychologically from abortion. Not a single person who has had an abortion ever forgets it.


Call me crazy, but I'm going to accept a peer reviewed study with published data over hyperbole from some anonymous guy on the internet who's relying on a personal anecdote.
 
2012-11-15 11:25:30 AM

marleymaniac: Theaetetus: *it's apparently not psychologically traumatic, according to that recent study that was greenlit in another thread. But still physically painful, and the point stands.

As a former post abortion grief counselor, that is BULLshiat. Both women and men suffer psychologically from abortion. Not a single person who has had an abortion ever forgets it.


Basically, there's studies that found that while abortion isn't a picnic mentally, being denied an abortion ended up being worse mentally and emotionally.

It also worsened socio-economic status and increased stress, etc and had far more life-long effects on the mother.
 
2012-11-15 04:48:01 PM

shortymac: marleymaniac: Theaetetus: *it's apparently not psychologically traumatic, according to that recent study that was greenlit in another thread. But still physically painful, and the point stands.

As a former post abortion grief counselor, that is BULLshiat. Both women and men suffer psychologically from abortion. Not a single person who has had an abortion ever forgets it.

Basically, there's studies that found that while abortion isn't a picnic mentally, being denied an abortion ended up being worse mentally and emotionally.

It also worsened socio-economic status and increased stress, etc and had far more life-long effects on the mother.


Agreed. 100%.
 
2012-11-15 04:50:37 PM

Theaetetus: marleymaniac: Theaetetus: *it's apparently not psychologically traumatic, according to that recent study that was greenlit in another thread. But still physically painful, and the point stands.

As a former post abortion grief counselor, that is BULLshiat. Both women and men suffer psychologically from abortion. Not a single person who has had an abortion ever forgets it.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to accept a peer reviewed study with published data over hyperbole from some anonymous guy on the internet who's relying on a personal anecdote.


Have you experienced an abortion? I doubt the answer will be, "Um, not that I can recall."
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report