Page 3 of 6

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:26 pm
by James_0011
BRUTE wrote:what does James_0011 find unhealthy about them?
Roberts, H.J., M.D., Is Vasectomy Worth the Risk? Sunshine Sentinel Press, POB 8697, West Palm Beach, FL 33407.

Roberts, H.J., M.D., “Prostate Cancer and Vasectomy,” Townsend Letter for Doctors, April 1992, p. 277.

Rosenberg, L., et al. “Vasectomy and the Risk of Prostate Cancer,” Am. J. Epidemiol,. Vol. 132, 1051-1055 (1990).

Mettlin, C., et al. “Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer Risk,” Am. J. Epidemiol., Vol 132, 1056-1061 (1990).

"In a hormone survey of males who had emotional problems and impotence following vasectomy, as well as females who had nervous or emotional problems following tubal ligation, both groups had normal hormone levels immediately following surgery except for decreased progesterone. Taking a small dose of progesterone (5-10 mg) daily for only one week cured both males and females. Why? According to Peat, vasectomy sends a signal to the testicles to stop making progesterone. Tubal ligation as well as the IUD, sends the same signal to the ovaries. Peat’s research refers only to the initial weeks following the surgery. It does not apply to the long-term immune system, allergenic and carcinogenic effects described by Roberts."

http://www.litalee.com/shopexd.asp?ccod ... e+Problems

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:31 pm
by James_0011
Jean wrote:Do you realize, that all the ressources that your probably future-minded chlidren would have blocked are going to be available for present minded children, resulting in a greater mid term destruction of our environment?
Go ahead and breed if you want, but don't claim its helping anyone.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:54 pm
by 7Wannabe5
Eh, pretty basic systems theory analysis will inform that sudden total disruption of production or reproduction is not likely to be the best solution either. I mean I am assuming that it's not the case that the middle-aged members of this forum who chose to not have children themselves held the preference that everybody else not have children too, so that as of this moment in time there would be only humans over the age of 40 left on the planet?

I would go so far as to further presume that given some small desire for continuation of the existence of the human species through some means being retained, there might also be some concept or opinion regarding better or worse situations under which some reproduction of humans would have taken place. For instance, it might not be ideal for human infant to be placed in pile of litter in crack house.

I am okay with my population zero litter of two, and I think I should get some street meme cred for the fact that one of them has a degree in Natural Resources Biology and the other holds expertise in Ancient Languages, and neither of them currently owns a car (lol.) Also, I am currently creating permaculture project which I intend to bequeath to my theoretical two or less grandchildren.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:04 pm
by bryan
If I were super sure about not wanting to breed, a vasectomy seems like a good choice. If you are not super sure, it's tough to pick any single method (hence why there are many methods).

Though, is pulling out/withdrawal method really that hard? I guess the urge to send/receive ejaculate is just too strong sometimes? Or perhaps it is more about it being actually risky to do more sex after a previous sex was done. I wonder how THEORETICAL EFFECTIVENESS was determined to be 96% (seems low, intuitively it should be ~99%). Generally I don't trust/consider the PRACTICAL EFFECTIVENESS as is it is not that applicable for individual actors (person A's practice of method achieves a PROBABLE EFFECTIVENESS of ~98% vs person B's at ~90%).

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:53 pm
by BRUTE
James_0011 wrote:Go ahead and breed if you want, but don't claim its helping anyone.
haha, breeding. brute enjoys flipping the moral high ground on offspring-spawning. usually the humans with the largest number of spawn claim the moral high ground, as if polluting the planet with more of themselves is somehow a good thing.

few things seem more egoistical to brute than thinking "what the planet needs right now is more of brute's DNA running around, what's the easiest way to clone himself?"

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:11 pm
by bryan
BRUTE wrote: few things seem more egoistical to brute than thinking "what the planet needs right now is more of brute's DNA running around, what's the easiest way to clone himself?"
or destroy the DNA of your competitors. The thoughts seem, at least, medieval. Ghengis Khan ftw.

Then again it's not that egotistical in the sense that your offspring are not you and may be a disappointment or bring shame to your name? Unless you could figure a socially acceptable way to keep your legacy's honour intact down the generations.. that would be a a bit more egotistical, indeed.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:30 pm
by Riggerjack
I'm not say breeding is bad. I'm not self loathing, I'm good with having people around... at a distance. I would prefer fewer, but it's not up to me.

Maybe it's my liberal upbringing, but I do have an issue with hypocrisy. Telling me to respect the environment/save the planet, for your children is just a bit hypocritical. Coupling that to how "other people" need to have less children is downright wrong. Yet the list of prominent and less prominent progressives who have preached no breeding, then had a litter is almost as long as the list of progressives who lived to 30. I have no respect for anyone preaching that others should sacrifice beyond the sacrifice the preacher is willing to bear.

I didn't want children. Not having them was not a sacrifice.

In my ideal world, we would have a strain of super mumps come thru. Fever chills, 2 weeks of bedrest, and 90% sterility. In that world, population would collapse, and children would be cherished. Child abusers wouldn't make it to jail. When there's only 1 kid per block, everyone is watching. No kids in sweat shops, no kids mining trash heaps.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:47 am
by Jean
The problem with the libertarian point of view is that the criterium for private property in not clear cut. For some people, looking at a landscape gives it value, for other, only mining does.
Which sets us back do violence to set property rights.
So I strongly encourage people I like to breed, and people I don't like to drink themselves to death. This is purely subjective, as everyone is.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:01 am
by 7Wannabe5
few things seem more egoistical to brute than thinking "what the planet needs right now is more of brute's DNA running around, what's the easiest way to clone himself?"
Few things seem more ridiculous to me than thinking raising children is equivalent to a choice in the moment to ejaculate ;) I chose to have children because I enjoy the work of caring for young children. I started babysitting when I was 10, and I am still teaching kindergarten part-time in my 50s. When I was raising my own children full-time, I almost always had another child in my care. I like spending a day making play-dough, reading picture books, pulling a wagon to the park, wiping off faces with towel monster and taking afternoon nap. I also find early childhood development fascinating. How is this individual two year old like every other two year old? How is she uniquely herself? I do pat myself on the back a bit that my kids, after no shortage of trials and tribulations, have landed on the other side as well-mannered adult citizens of the planet who are also interesting conversationalists, but mostly it makes me happy that my kids remember having a mostly fun childhood, because I enjoyed sharing that time with them too.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:19 am
by slowtraveler
I've been seriously thinking about getting one too. My current stance on kids is that I want to wait until 30 then reconsider but right now I don't see myself enjoying having kids, except for being able to teach them how things work and learning with them.

Vasalgel looks like a good options whenever it becomes available. I've signed up to possibly be in trials when that begins. <crossing my fingers>

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:28 am
by DutchGirl
@bryan: the pullout method gives "only" a 50% pregnancy rate if you use it consistently for a year. That's a bit better than not pulling out at all, which gives roughly a 90% pregnancy rate for a heterosexual fertile couple. So I would strongly advise anyone to not rely on "pulling out" if you're not ready to have a child (or an abortion or a pregnancy followed by an adoption).

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:35 pm
by bryan
@DutchGirl, how so? i.e. citation needed. Again, not asking for at-large statistics (that are helpful for a government, say) but for something closer to experimental results. Something that enumerates the failure modes of the method (i.e. you can't knock the method if the male starts ejaculating and then pulls out..)

Planned Parenthood gives a thumbs up to the Withdrawal Method (admittedly they strongly suggest combining it w/ condom to prevent STIs).

If I were female I would certainly not be a huge fan of the pull-out method (since the male is the one in control).

edit: see https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/defaul ... 07-410.pdf, however all the theoretical % of various methods (I mentioned 96% seems low) all seem to come from "Contraceptive Technology" HTNCSL, which I haven't found a link to..

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:58 pm
by jennypenny
@bryan -- It's hard to find reliable statistics on the withdrawal-only method because it tends to be combined with fertility-awareness methods (known as Natural Family Planning in the Catholic Church). The failure rate is said to be 2-5% when the two methods are combined. Off the record, I've heard that the rate varies with age and that 20-somethings tend to have higher failure rates (10-12%). The rate drops to almost zero by maternal age 40. The variability could be due to the increased fertility of 20-somethings or to method failure. Since it's primarily used/studied by Catholics who, in theory, wouldn't have strong objections to pregnancy, the incentive to follow the method rigorously is absent. I'd guess it's a combination of both. I haven't seen any studies of teen failure rates but I doubt the Church would study such things. I wouldn't recommend that kind of labor-intensive method to a teenager anyway.

I think the combined fertility awareness/withdrawal method can be very reliable, especially in committed relationships where the burden of following the method is shared between both partners. That said, I have a hard time imagining using only that method in any situation except for a long-term committed relationship. The disease risks are too great to forgo a barrier method of contraception. I also wouldn't rely solely on NFP if there were grave risks associated with pregnancy, either because of maternal health issues or known genetic problems related to fetal development.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:43 pm
by Jean
One begnin STD costs as much to heal in antibiotics as 1000 condoms do.
So outside of commited relationships, I would advocate for condom or abstinence, unless impregating anyone is very high in your priorities.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:18 pm
by DutchGirl
Oh, it's 27%, so one in four women who get pregnant using this method (only) for one year, not one in two. Still, that's a TERRIBLE birth control method. If you use it for five years, you would have a 80% chance of a pregnancy during those five years. I guess only to be used for people who are only trying to have a few years between each pregnancy (and child), and not as a way to actually prevent a pregnancy. Source: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... ulling-out .

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
by bryan
Thanks, that's the page I read where it sounds like PP gives it a thumbs up. Though, PP is quoting the 96% effectiveness which I have already questioned as being too low.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:07 pm
by enigmaT120
Jean wrote:One begnin STD costs as much to heal in antibiotics as 1000 condoms do.
So outside of commited relationships, I would advocate for condom or abstinence, unless impregating anyone is very high in your priorities.
That's if you only get ones that can be cured. So I agree, and that's why I am only interested in committed relationships since if I had to use a condom I wouldn't bother having sex with another person. I hate VD and I've never even had one.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:05 am
by slowtraveler
Interesting idea that it costs 1000 condoms equivalent to cure one std. It's actually infinite since condoms are free at local colleges and std testing clinics. 10-17 if you're not on this forum and pay a whole dollar for each one.

Chlamydia is $17, gonorrhea is $10 to cure, syphilis takes a penicillin shot, HPV tends to cure itself, well over 50% of people already have dormant HSV-1 and most don't know it and it'll likely never effect them. Chlamydia and gonorrhea have high transmission rates so these are the most common.

HIV can kill you. This one is worth being safe from and getting actually educated about as it will effect the rest of your life if you get it.
HIV has a ridiculously low transmission rate unless 1) the infected person has a high viral load and 2) large amount of bodily fluids containing the virus (blood, sperm, precum, vaginal fluid, or breast milk) from infected person gets in direct contact with blood on potential victim.

Condoms are a joke for protection from disease. I know someone who got HIV when his condom broke because of the 2 previous conditions. He thought the rubber protected him. Get tested instead and only play with someone you trust.

I know multiple people who had unprotected sex with someone with HIV when their viral load was low-nothing happened but better not to play with fire.

+1 to JennyPenny on fertility awareness. High success rate but depends on not playing when desire is highest. IUD, BC pills, vasectomy, and hopefully vasalgel soon all have high success rates (>99% without pulling out) and don't depend on this willpower.

If anybody knows of anything available now as effective as vasectomy without the irreversible risk, please let me know.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 3:07 am
by Stahlmann
There's always revasectomy and you could do that after having amassing some wealth and then have kids with some 30yo when you're 50yo. Sorry for treating life as RPG.

Btw, do they do sperm ejection from testicles for something like in vitro for males (even if it's put in women utherus then, not on lab glass)? Sorry, I haven't been attentive during biology classes in HS.

Re: Vasectomy? Child-free life?

Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 7:01 pm
by Jean
slowtraveler wrote:
Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:05 am
Chlamydia is $17, gonorrhea is $10 to cure, syphilis takes a penicillin shot, HPV tends to cure itself, well over 50% of people already have dormant HSV-1 and most don't know it and it'll likely never effect them. Chlamydia and gonorrhea have high transmission rates so these are the most common.
It probably doesn't includes the talk with the doctor and the lab work to determine what bacteries you're infected with, and which antibiotics still work against them.