posted 04-09-2001 22:40            

If you're interested in reading a little article on the decision not to have children and how it is accepted in society, here is a link to it. The Zero Population Growth webpage has some interesting stuff.

The proportion of women who have their first child by age 18 ranges from 1% in Japan to 53% in Niger. In the United States, close to
10% of women have their first child by age 18.
Source: Into a New World: Young Women's Sexuality and Reproductive Lives (AGI, 1998)

For an interesting list of how the U.S. compares demographically to the rest of the world, click here.

Other scary demographic facts. In Zimbabwe, approximately 25% of the population has HIV. Many African countries have rates of 5-20%. While some of these countries have very high birth rates and used to have doubling times of 17-25 years, that has changed to 69 in the case of Zimbabwe because the death rate has increased so much. There are still many countries in Africa, and others like Iraq and Palestine with very rapid doubling times of 20-30 years, compared to hundreds of years in Europe, Japan and the U.S. We're actually expecting negative population growth in the United States within the next 50 years.

However, the world population should hit 6 billion sometime this year, if it hasn't already.

There are two points to make here:
1) Many third world countries are making the greatest contributions to population growth.
2) The United States and other developed countries are making the greatest demands on resources.

And I VERY strongly believe that unless you are completely sure you want children, you shouldn't have them. It's a selfish thing to reproduce just because it seems it could be fun or because you want someone to carry on your last name. I chose not to have children at a young age and told my mother at age 21. She cried and begged me to wait and see if I'd change my mind. Given this sort of pressure from peers and relatives, it's no wonder many married couples have children. You date and everyone asks "when are you getting married?" You get married and everyone asks "when are you having kids?"

RANT RANT RANT. Man, there are few topics that get me going as much as this.

posted 04-10-2001 01:40            

Mighty Monju: *time to piss off Bex*
clme3748: eh? wha? you gonna breed?
Mighty Monju: Fuck ZPG
Mighty Monju: What are they here for?
clme3748: sigh.
Mighty Monju: They serve no purpose
Mighty Monju: They get in people's faces
Mighty Monju: Just like abortion supporters and protestors
clme3748: hrm.
Mighty Monju: So what if people breed?
Mighty Monju: So what if people don't?
clme3748: Hmm.
Mighty Monju: Some lame group with a website ain't gonna stop shit.
clme3748: Well.... look at a place where they dont use birth control simply because their religion forbids/Their dad didnt use it/it doesnt' feel right. Those factors result in more babies.
Mighty Monju: And?
Mighty Monju: So what?
Mighty Monju: We are to dictate people's religions now?
clme3748: sigh.
Mighty Monju: Who the fuck cares how many people breed in Africa?
clme3748: Yes. Just like always.
Mighty Monju: That's where AIDS is the most prominent.
Mighty Monju: More people with AIDS = slowed population growth
clme3748: Hahahahaha.
Mighty Monju: AIDS is the Bubonic Plague of the 21st century
Mighty Monju: You think I'm kidding?
clme3748: No.... plaugue was more humane.
Mighty Monju: I mean, what's the point of bemoaning population growth/
Mighty Monju: Bitching about it does nothing
clme3748: Educating! Not protesting about pregnant women!
Mighty Monju: ...?
Mighty Monju: what?
clme3748: Protesting population growth does nothing.
Mighty Monju: Be forewarned, I am using this chat in that post
Mighty Monju: Right, exactly
clme3748: Youre right about that. It doesnt keep me from wishing there were less people.
clme3748: I WISH there were less people in the world.
Mighty Monju: Hrm
Mighty Monju: I wish I had money
Mighty Monju: and there we are
Mighty Monju: Who cares how many people there are?
Mighty Monju: That's just another hurdle we'll have to overcome
clme3748: I do.
Mighty Monju: Or Nature will overcome it for us
Mighty Monju: Either way, there's a solution that we cannot predict
Mighty Monju: or something
clme3748: We've got to either expand beyond our boundaries (colonize?), get killed by disease and lack of resources, or just sit and sweat in a closet with our 5 brothers and 7 sisters.
clme3748: that so recently afflicted my sheep.. Haha.
Mighty Monju: Heh
Mighty Monju: I am a witty bitch
Mighty Monju: Right
Mighty Monju: We either leave or stop ourselves
Mighty Monju: the only viable option is to leave
Mighty Monju: or die
Mighty Monju: that's pretty viable too
clme3748: Well.... The other option is to shoot people who have more than the legally allowed number of children :-)
clme3748: It works for China!
clme3748: Shit... my family...
Mighty Monju: Yes, well....
Mighty Monju: that wouldn't work in the rest of the world
Mighty Monju: Not reall
Mighty Monju: y
Mighty Monju: at least, not now
clme3748: I have 8 aunts and uncles (not including the ones who married in) on one side alone.
Mighty Monju: I'm the oldets of 7 kids
Mighty Monju: oldest
clme3748: On the other side...4 aunts and uncles.
Mighty Monju: besides, who's to say that there's a "perfect" human population for Earth?
Mighty Monju: We've got enough food now
Mighty Monju: More than enough
clme3748: sigh. But not enough SPACE!
Mighty Monju: It's a matter of distributing it that's the problem
Mighty Monju: Who cares about space?
clme3748: Me.
Mighty Monju: Are you crowded?
clme3748: Yes.
clme3748: Anywhere inside a city, I am crowded.
Mighty Monju: hahahhaa
Mighty Monju: A city?
clme3748: I dont want it to be the "caves of steel"
Mighty Monju: A city?
Mighty Monju: Jesus man
clme3748: Yes. A city. Too crowded.
Mighty Monju: Move to the country then
clme3748: What country?
clme3748: Its all developed now!
Mighty Monju: It's an urban area --- of course there's lots of people
Mighty Monju: Then move east of the Cascades in Oregon
Mighty Monju: Nothing out there
clme3748: hahahahaha.
Mighty Monju: It's true
Mighty Monju: There's tons of space
clme3748: I like to be within 20 minutes of a real city :-) but still far enough away to be secluded. I also want land dammit. Like 7 acres or so.
Mighty Monju: Hrm
Mighty Monju: Ok, Thoreau
Mighty Monju: Whatever
clme3748: sigh. "caves of steel" "Thoreau", all of a sudden we compare everything to a book.
clme3748: I liked Thoreau!
Mighty Monju: Fuck Thoreau
clme3748: I dont believe in a utopia...but I liked his ideas.
Mighty Monju: Ooh Ooh! I want to live in Nature!
Mighty Monju: But I'll be 20 feet away from railroad tracks and walk to town everyday
Mighty Monju: Fuck that
clme3748: Hey...anyone who cant survive for a week without modern appliances doesn't deserve the ghetto mobile and drugs they kill people for.
clme3748: er.. I mean doesn't deserve to live. yeah.
Mighty Monju: ...
clme3748: Of course...it WOULD mean giving up cake

*sigh* All that stimulating cerebral debate, and it comes back to cake. What a letdown.

GRoups like that seriously piss me off though. Quit your bellyaching. It isn't doing anything.

And I'm sorry, Bex, those numbers fail to impress me. They're just numbers. But I am pretty sure we "officially" hit 6000000000 people last year, around October.

posted 04-10-2001 10:38            

Look, all of those numbers were intended to make two points.

1) The U.S. and Europe are not responsible for the majority of global population growth.
2) The U.S. and Europe ARE responsible for using a large percentage of global resources.

Why does this matter? Because we can bitch and moan about all of the kids that we have in this country and the bigger problem is that everyone drives SUV's and waters their lawn and has every electrical appliance on the market. Having fewer kids here means less people to use these resources and so it makes some sense if you care about the planet as a whole and not your little 800 square feet of living space.

And why does it matter that countries in Africa and Asia and South America have such rapid population growth? Because the greatest concentration of plant and animal species per square mile occur in the rainforests, which happen to fall in many of these countries. Because species on the African and South American plains that require vast amounts of space for migration and grazing/predation (elephants, zebras, wildebeest, giraffes, lions, etc) are being inhibited and wiped out by loss of habitat. The rift lakes in Africa have had massive fish species extinctions because of introduced tilapia to be used for food. Prior to this, they were impressive examples of evolution and speciation.

Why does this matter? Because the short-sighted "I'll never go to Africa and who gives a rat's ass" view is, to me, terrible and irresponsible. While we have an inherent desire to grow and expand and conquer, we also have a conscience and a responsibility to not cause the wholesale extermination of every species that gets in our way. There are ways to peacefully coexist if humanity is willing to make an effort. And honestly, having 16 kids, none of which you can feed, in hopes that one lives is not really making an effort.

This topic makes me sad, more than angry. The world would be a pretty boring place with nothing but humans and concrete. If you don't want to experience yourself as a part of the greater world, sign up to live on a space station. Me, I'd rather be outdoors and camping and seeing all of the fabulous things on this planet that aren't human.

posted 04-10-2001 15:16            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bex:
While we have an inherent desire to grow and expand and conquer, we also have a conscience and a responsibility to not cause the wholesale extermination of every species that gets in our way.

---

Hrm. We may have a conscience for it, but I don't know about the responsibility part. Don't get me wrong, I like animals as much as the next guy. But they're not really our responsibility, per se. We kinda need them, yes, but as I said, everything is Darwinian. They can't survive? Oh well.

I'm not advocating the wholesale extinction of every species here on Earth, you understand. Just saying that if it happens, it happens. That's the way nature works.

posted 04-10-2001 15:24            

I love my kids. My husband and I decided that we wanted kids a year or so after we were married. I love children and wanted to raise a couple of my own. We did not have them because we felt there was something missing in our lives, but rather because we were complete, and wanted to share it with someone else. We have two children, we will not have any more.

I don't think anyone should have more than two, which is kinda screwing myself, because I'm the youngest of three, but honestly my parents should have stopped with Jennifer. The financial burden is too great for more than two children, I certainly felt that growing up. By the time I got around to needing stuff, my parents couldn't afford it. I didn't get braces because Jennifer had gotten them and dental insurance didn't cover it (back then it was about $5000) so they couldn't afford to pay for another set. I got married in Reno, because Jennifer's wedding had just about broken them (she got divorced a year later, is now a single mom, poster girl for why people shouldn't automatically have kids after marriage). Basically, having more than two kids doesn't just suck for the environment, it sucks for the kid. But telling people who want them, and can provide for them not to have children, and that we are putting a burden on the ecology of the world, is ludicrous. Do what you think is right for you, but don't preach to me about my choices. I won't condemn you for not having kids, don't condemn me for having them.

posted 04-10-2001 16:08            

Family pressure to have kids is just as intense. Our parents want grandkids. My BF's parents were visibly upset when they found out I wasn't having children. As mentioned before, my mom cried. How any normal person can put up with pressure like that and not feel like shit for choosing a childless life is beyond me. I still have to defend myself on a regular basis.

Kids should be a choice. Not an obligation or a duty. Put in the greater context of national and global population (as in my earlier message), it's even more important not to have kids on a whim.

posted 04-10-2001 18:44            

But honestly, it's not a surgery you want to go through if you can use another form of birth control, it's not always successful, sometimes they actually grow back together, and it's highly painfull and invasive.

Your best bet is to use Depo Provera, it was my choice before and after I decided to have the munchkins. You go back every 3 months, get a shot in the ass, and no more Aunt Flo. God I love that. But soon Tical will be getting a vasectomy, so I won't have to worry about birth control nearly as much as I do now. The doctor won't try to talk you out of it, because it doesn't permanently remove your ability to procreate. And it's so nice to be able to go swimming whenever you want to...

God I can't spell...

posted 04-10-2001 19:30         

honestly, what is the point of talking about the benefits of zero or negative population growth to people living in nations already experiencing it? and the whole bit about us consuming all the resources, while true, has nothing to do with the problem.

people concerned with the planet would be better off teaching their 1.4 children to respect it rather than not having any and letting the planet be run by those who don't give a fuck.

posted 04-10-2001 20:56         

i had minor knee surgury to remove a ruptured cyst and i demanded to be put under general anestesia. i knew there was greater risk being put under than simply being numbed, but i didn't want to be awake while they were cutting into me. i was refused. regardless of the trauma of feeling my flesh being ripped apart (and i really felt it. i guess it was my anxiety behind it, but the local seemed to wear off almost immediately) i was much less likely to die and leave next of kin to clean them out for letting it happen. and it's a lot harder to sue for some kind of "anguish" than for a cold body lying on the table.

keeping that kind of thinking in mind, what doctor in his right mind would approve an operation when

• it is invasive, and there is therefore a risk of death (cross this off for the most part if they've developed some whateverscopy method to do this without opening you. i'm not up on the state of the art on reproductive medicine)
  
• it is not completely effective
  
• there are other non-invasive comparably effective methods availible
  
• young patients might say they want this procedure and then want it reversed later in life once their "biological clock" starts going off like a claxon. this would then require another invasive procedure to reverse, assuming nothing has gone wrong and it can indeed be reversed
  
• if someone wants this reversed and it can't be done, their spinster ass is going to make life hell for the butcher that did it to them
  

posted 04-11-2001 10:36            

Tubal ligation is done laparoscopically nowadays. An incision in the belly button and another one about an inch long a little lower for the scope and it's done. It's not even an inpatient procedure. You're in and out in about 6 hours. There are varying ways to "tie" the tubes including using little rubber bands, cutting them and tying knots in the ends, taking out a chunk and cauterizing, etc. It still requires general anesthesia because they fill the abdomen with nitrogen gas to be able to see what they're doing and that tends to hurt. But it's nearly bloodless, gives you fewer stitches than a bar fight and heals fast.

There's also a legal document to sign saying you understand it's permanent, may not be 100% effective, blah blah blah so the risk to the doc unless they kill you by accident is pretty minimal. You don't just trot in off the street, ask to get snipped and have it done.

I am opposed to the idea that a doctor will refuse to do this procedure even for married couples with kids. I think it's a viable birth control option and if you know your own mind enough to know you don't want kids, then why wait for several years and risk having a kid anyway? Even doctors are prone to the idea that there is something wrong with not wanting kids.

And guys seem to think birth control is so easy. I gained about 40 pounds and felt like I was having an out of body experience from the hormones in the Pill. You want to see PMS to the tenth power, put me on the Pill. Depo Provera is still hormones. Except for condoms, the burden is on the female to keep from getting pregnant. Fine, you take some damn injection or pill that fucks up your hormone balance so you can't produce nice wiggling little sperm and I'll endorse that all the way.

If tubals or vasectomies are non-reversable and you really want kids later in life, then adopt or be a foster parent. It's not that big a deal. Reversals and unusual reproductive methods like egg harvesting and embyro transfer tend not to be covered by insurance so you're only hurting yourself if you change your mind.

posted 04-11-2001 17:59         

regarding the "spinster ass" comment. i agree with you wholeheartedly that in a perfect world people would take responsibility for their actions and a statement of acceptance of risks would cover the doctors ass. however, this is a very imperfect world and the only field more filled with frivilous lawsuits than medicine is corporate law. the "spinster asses" are not every woman who gets the procedure. it's the women who will not accept the consequences of their actions and who, in todays legal climate, could be a very legitimate threat if not treated seriously. and the best way to aviod confrontations with such people is to make sure they do not exist.

posted 04-11-2001 22:23            

read the book
lost horizon

posted 04-11-2001 22:54            

Besides, tubal ligations are BORING.

posted 04-11-2001 23:39            

Ask a GP about a tubal and you'll automatically be referred to an OB/Gyn. GP's don't do surgeries like that anyway. It's up to the OB/Gyn to say yes or no to doing it.

I can see your point about the risks of litigation, but I think they're overblown. I just think most OB's like kids and can't imagine a woman not wanting one someday, even if she's having some mental abherration in her early 20's.

Utopia sounds boring.

posted 04-12-2001 23:03            

An AWFUL lot of women really, really do change their mind about having kids in their mid to late twenties. It's not an entirely rational decision; there's a hell of a lot of hormones involved as well.

In the meantime, there're condoms, sponges, jellies, creams, several flavors of pill (I know, hormones), Depo-Provera (hormones again), Norplant (yet again), and from what I'm told, they've even come up with a new version of the IUD that doesn't cause the problems that the old version did - 24/7 protection WITHOUT hormone balance problems, yay!

Believe me, I wish at LEAST as strongly as you do that there were a male birth control pill / shot. You think I wouldn't be taking it?

posted 04-13-2001 00:25            

The best time to have your tubes tied is immediately after the birth of a child, you're already there, and the discomfort that comes along with any surgical procedure is nothing compared to the pain you just went through.

My mother had hers done immediately after I was born, but then she was 31, the doctor had no problem performing it then, in the 70's 31 was considered almost too old to have a baby.

posted 04-13-2001 02:08            

1. I never called you irrational.
2. Congratulations on feeling the same way 4 years later. I never said that YOU SPECIFICALLY would change your mind.
3. An OB-GYN is in a position to see - as I mentioned - a LOT of women who firmly decided in their early twenties that they didn't want children change their mind a full 180 degrees and become RABID for them in their late twenties or early thirties.

Which is why, dammit, I said that "I'm not entirely sure I blame OB/GYNs for not wanting to administer a tubal ligation to a 22-year old." Not, repeat, NOT that "Bitchgoddess was wrong about wanting to get her tubes tied."

posted 04-13-2001 12:36            

I am not saying that my doctors sucked, you seem to be putting words into my mouth on that one. I had great doctors, my daughter was premature and had a lot of serious problems, we almost lost her. Because of the great doctors I had, she is a healthy, if sometimes overactive 4 year old.

My point is that my doctors didn't discuss the situation with me, to find out if I was serious, they dismissed it completely out of hand, even when I tried to explain that it was a decision I had made long before having any children. They spent plenty of time trying to talk me into breast feeding and out of having an ultrasound, they should have spent at least the same amount of time listening to my concerns.