In over 30 years of practice, Dr. Errol Billinkoff rarely saw a man without kids come into his Winnipeg clinic to get a vasectomy. But since the pandemic began, he says it’s become an almost daily occurrence.
And he’s not alone.
“At first, I thought I was the only one who was noticing this,” Billinkoff, who brought a no-scalpel vasectomy procedure to Winnipeg in the early 1990s, told CBC News in a November interview.
“But I am part of an international chat group where doctors who do vasectomies participate and the topic came up, and it’s like everybody notices it.”
I got one because the idea of having kids has always filled me with a keen sense of dread. Any time I hear that someone is expecting a child my first thought is “oh no I’m so sorry” before saying the expected congratulations.
Both my partner and I don’t like or want kids, why risk accidents happening?
More people seem to be choosing child free living because of the state of the world and economy rn. I don’t blame them.
Get pets like me!
I think this is a great thing to see happening. Men are taking birth control into their own hands. Why take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy? Sometimes other methods fail.
The peace of mind must be amazing too
Being trapped by a woman is not even a crime no matter how bad the facts are, including rape.
Society views men as nothing more than ATM in such cases. Should wraped it up twice lol
So good for them!
Better safe than sorry.
Just in case someone out there doesn’t know, never use two condoms. That’s going to cause them to break.
Also, I’m not sure what terrible circumstances happened to you, but I get the feeling you wouldn’t appreciate sweeping statements being made about men like that.
I hope you find yourself in a place where you no longer feel that way.
Say what?
- No right to abortion in the United States
- Giving someone who didn’t get asked or consent to being born, the forced existence of life.
- A child for a parent is expensive, mentally draining, and you have to be a good parent
- You also have to be the parent for a child with any special needs, from allergies to mental issues to being born without limbs
- If the child is any form of “other” to society, they will be picked on, and then possible harmed by the rise of Neo-Fascism
- Work or starve, work or be cold, work until you die. Another tax number, another corporate slave.
Being born is fine, once you’re here you should try to live life to its fullest. But I don’t want kids, I would be a horrid father.
Let’s not forget about child care, cause you know, in this economy both parents typically need to work to keep their heads financially above water.
Giving someone who didn’t get asked or consent to being born, the forced existence of life.
I’ve never understood that argument. Simple logic states nobody would exist if we asked every sperm and egg before having sex.
Correct, you can’t ask. It’s a question of ethics.
It’s something to just ask. No one was asked to be born. Some where cheated out of a good life. There’s people born into poverty and disease who don’t know a good life. They feel that pain and suffering without the option to go out that isn’t killing themselves.
You weren’t asked, I wasn’t, our parents weren’t, and so on. It’s not evil, it’s just the pure simple fact of “No one was asked to be born into a world where you need to earn money or you will die.”
I still don’t understand.
I’m good with making life less shitty for everyone though.
This is one of those philosophical questions that have no “correct” answer but heres my take on it. Also sorry, this turned into an essay but I was on a roll
The main thing is that having a child isn’t something the parents do for the child. You can’t do anything for a child that doesn’t exist. Having a child is something parents do for themselves; they want a child so they have a child. Plus an unborn child can’t possibly consent to being born. Put those two things together and you have two people doing something that they want to do for their own benefit which fundamentally changes the state of being of another person who can’t possibly consent to it.
When you have a child you are also taking a gamble on how their life will turn out without consulting them. They could wind up being the happiest person in the world who lives a full perfectly fulfilled life. Or they could wind up absolutely miserable for the rest of their life wishing that they have never been born. Both of those things are largely up to random chance.
For example my brother in law was born to a homeless single heroin addict and grew up on the street even after his mom died. He is now a professional engineer with a doting wife, a loving family, and a large house with a white picket fence in a fairly nice neighborhood. He now literally lives the steriotypical american dream except he has a cat instead of a dog. Sure he worked for all of that but even he will tell you that it also just required a lot of luck. Meanwhile my foster brother was born to a happy, healthy, loving, and even relatively wealthy family but due to a freak illness when he was barely a toddler he now has next to no motor function. He can only slightly move one eye and eyelid but even that is taxing for him. He can kind of control a tablet with eye tracking for brief periods of time before it exhausts him and he likes to wink at people to say “hi” but that is the extent of agency he has in the world. He will almost certainly be like that for the rest of his life.
When you have a child you are taking that chance without consulting them. Some people see the chance of their child living a good life as being worth the risk, which is a perfectly acceptable opinion to have. Don’t take this as me saying people need to be ashamed of having children. Like I said, there is no correct answer here. Other people (myself included) see it as unethical to take that risk for someone who can’t consent to it. I obviously lean that way due to personal experience. I also don’t see much point in creating more children when there is even one child that doesn’t have a happy home. My genes aren’t anything special, why make a new child when I could even possibly help an existing child have a better life.
Why would I force another human into this shitty existence?
Also condoms suck and raw dick is just better.
yea same. condoms suck.
Syphilis and gonorrhea must love you.
Wow, I didn’t know it was impossible not to stick your dick in every passing stranger. Here I was only having sex with people I know and who have been tested like a weirdo.
Kind of slut shamie don’t you think?
Well do you ask your partners if they have STDs?
When animals are over stressed, unable to provide the basics of survival, and constantly dealing with external threats they tend to not have babies.
For real? I didn’t know that.
This is what happens when the conservatives threaten the right to an abortion. Drastic measures have to be taken.
No kid should be born unloved or a woman have her life threatened because too many ignorant folks think she is sinful for getting healthcare or evil for not raising more wage slaves for the bourgeoisie.
Let’s get clear i hate pp and the con as much a everybody here but pp never ever talked about removing abortion rights, he actually said the opposite. I’ll reiterate pp is a loser, he has no real agenda, and his whole camapign is basically fuck trudeau. But he never said abortions right were on the table.
A common sense Conservative government will not legislate on abortion and therefore would never use this section of the Constitution pertaining to this matter," he said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-same-sex-marriage-abortion-1.7222881
In an interview with Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, who hosts a podcast called Uncommons, Alberta Conservative MP Arnold Viersen also stressed his social conservative credentials on other issues, saying he wants protections for what he calls the “pre-born,” supports Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s transgender policies and would vote to criminalize cannabis possession again if given the opportunity.
Asked by Erskine-Smith about a hypothetical future bill to overturn same-sex marriage, Viersen said, “I vote gay marriage down.”
In a media statement issued Monday, Poilievre said Viersen’s statements and positions “do not represent the positions of the Conservative Party, or myself as leader.”
“As our party’s policy book, adopted by party members, has said for years, ‘a Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.’ When I am prime minister, no laws or rules will be passed that restrict women’s reproductive choices. Period,” Poilievre added
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rayes-abortion-poilievre-1.7362640
Poilievre has said that if he’s elected prime minister, his government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.
“As the Party’s policy book, adopted by Party members, has said for years, ‘a Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion,’” said Poilievre’s spokesperson, Sebastian Skamski, in a media statement.
“When Canadians elect Pierre Poilievre as Prime Minister, no laws or rules will be passed that restrict women’s reproductive choices. Period.”
Once again just to be clear. Fuck pp and his cons🫡
Continue not taxing the rich and making conditions worse for the 99%. Let’s see how it works out.
Exactly
This is what happens when you can’t afford raising kids and also more and more people decide that they would rather just enjoy their life without the responsibility or or financial burden of raising kids. I don’t know how i feel about this due to the our birth rate not doing so well, and instead of people having children, we have to import people into the country (which i have no problem with but that really isn’t a solution).
that really isn’t a solution
why not? are you afraid of johnny whitebread “real”
muricancanadian getting…replaced?the fact that the 1% is shitting their pants over the declining birthrate makes me think it’s fan fucking tastic. every industry’s profit margin suffers from fewer babies. less money is spent on food, gas, clothes, giant SUVs, toys, medicine–literally everything you buy for yourself, you’re also buying for your kids for 18 years. unless you don’t have kids.
those poor, poor shareholders.
fuck them. low birthrate = GOOD.
also, please–who wants to have a kid just so they can explain to them why they’re growing up in a toxic wasteland?
why not? are you afraid of johnny whitebread “real” murican canadian getting…replaced?
It’s not a solution because, with a few exceptions, standards of living (and therefore reasons to not immigrate) are rising in most of the world, so in a few decades there likely won’t be enough migrants to go around.
those poor, poor shareholders.
If it looks like only shareholders are having problems because of low birthrates in Japan and South Korea, then you should learn more about those places.
i’m not sure why you brought race into this, when there is multiple multigenerional multicultural people in this country. I don’t think its a requirement that everyone has to have a child, but the way you are talking makes it sound like its a good thing our species wipes itself out. I get how you feel about CEOs and stuff, but i was just stating that why our birthrate was low, and what the goverment has done to fix that.
makes it sound like its a good thing our species wipes itself out
not necessarily a good thing, but we are indeed wiping ourselves out, for better or worse. sure, future generations might fix all the multitudes of problems we’ve caused (doubt), but how many will have to die in the process?
evangelists love to call people who don’t want kids “selfish.” on the contrary, it’s the polar opposite of selfish to deny our own reptilian brain instincts to pass on our genes because we don’t think it’s a moral decision to bring innocent children to life in this soon-to-be-uninhabitable broken hellscape
I think we cannot give up and say that this is it.
guess you better start having more kids then
I don’t want to. Can’t afford it
Here’s the thing about abortion in Canada …
- the right to abortion is not codified in law: the SCoC struck down the laws against abortion in 1988 based on our 1982 Charter of Rights
- abortion is technically legal under the federal Health Act
- this is why the Cons have stated they don’t want to challenge women’s ability to have an abortion … because if they did in court, and it went to SCoC, the court could (and likely would) force the Con gov’t to enact actual legislation forever enshrining abortion rights in Canadian law
- the Cons, just like the GOP down south, are hoping to have enough power at some time to force change here – but the problem is our SCoC works differently than SCOTUS (ie: zero judges are elected in Canada, ever); SCoC rulings are not based on original intent (and our Charter is vastly newer than America’s founding documents); etc.
I’m doing my part.
But seriously, men should be more responsible when it comes to birth control and not leave it up to women, so I think this is a good thing.
men should be more responsible when it comes to birth control and not leave it up to women
Men literally only have 2 options: condom or vasectomy. Condoms don’t feel good for either side, which is why both try to avoid using them. Vasectomies can be reversible, but require surgery and thus are costly, which of course makes it impossible or at the very least much less attractive for a large portion of society.
Yes, men can buy underwear that heats up their balls to temperatures that kill sperm, but I’d like you to go around spreading the word of discomfort through sweaty balls and see how far you get.
You know what feels way worse than condoms but is just as effective? Celibacy. Don’t complain about how the sex you’re having isn’t good enough, say that the risks to your partner aren’t important enough, or tell them that they’re the only one that needs to be responsible. I can’t imagine the type of person that would still sleep with you with those attitudes. (If you feel like fluid bonding with a person, great, that’s your choice, but some of us don’t want to, have multiple partners, or can’t)
Your 3rd option is chemical castration, which is kind of like taking the pill for decades.
Chemical castration is not birth control. Firstly, it rarely actually results in complete sterility. Secondly, it’s whole purpose is to remove sex drive and the ability to feel arousal. Chemical castration in men is closer to women taking an estrogen blocker than it is to hormonal birth control.
I guess if you consider abstinence to be birth control then you could call it birth control because it enforces abstinence. But ultimately the issue is just that sperm production is far less dependent on hormones than eggs being released. Hormonal changes in men can can easily result in a large reduction in fertility but it is very difficult to cause complete infertility short of physical means. Even trans women who are several years into hormone therapy (without srs obviously) can remain fertile.
Yeah, I can already hear the hordes dashing to the urologist for that.
This is a t-shirt for women! Parts of the men would be so mad at it!
