Ethics Of Fish Keeping. General Discussion - Page 2

Do you have ethical concerns about the hobbyist fish keeping industry?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

Lynn78too

Member
Jellibeen said:
Overfishing is different than collecting in small, managed numbers. I can't remember where, but I was looking at a breeder who specialized in taking wild caught fish from endangered habitats and breeding them to help preserve the species.

What is YT?
I was also wondering what YT was.
 

goldface

Member
Lynn78too said:
I'm curious, how does it help in conservation? Actually curious and want to know, not being snarky or accusing.
Here's a link: . Give it a good look around. It's better than anything I can explain myself.
If you're still against it, then that's fine. Just know that, regardless of your stance, you and every hobbyist as a fishkeeper are still benefiting from it, indirectly. After all, it all had to start somewhere.
 

AquaticJ

Member
I see it as an experienced Ram keeper, my wild caught Ram is very safe and well cared for. She has constant protection from any predators, healthy and well balanced meals in abundance, and clean water. I even use an RO system to make sure her water is soft and acidic just like where she’s from.
 

Piscesorkillerwhale

Member
Lynn78too said:
I won't buy wild caught fish. There is no tank in the world that is large enough to be the same as being in the wild. I watched someone on youtube once and he was saying he would only buy wild caught because they were sturdier and healthier and as he put his fish in (I think it was an arowana) I felt absolutely awful for this poor fish. Imagine, being put into a tank and never again swimming in a huge river basin.

Not to place blame only on fish people, I would also never own a wild caught bird or mammal either and there are plenty of mammal and bird species that are wild caught.
What about lion fish which are an invasive species now?
 

AquaticJ

Member
Piscesorkillerwhale said:
What about lion fish which are an invasive species now?
There are a TON of invasive species, a lot of them aren’t really a problem. For example, Texas Cichlids can be found all the way in Tennessee. That said, some of them are big problems.
 

Fish0n

Member
Lynn78too said:
I won't buy wild caught fish. There is no tank in the world that is large enough to be the same as being in the wild. I watched someone on youtube once and he was saying he would only buy wild caught because they were sturdier and healthier and as he put his fish in (I think it was an arowana) I felt absolutely awful for this poor fish. Imagine, being put into a tank and never again swimming in a huge river basin.

Not to place blame only on fish people, I would also never own a wild caught bird or mammal either and there are plenty of mammal and bird species that are wild caught.
Just to play the devils advocate and evaluate every side, the fish in the tank doesn't have to worry about declining habitat (which arguably has a larger effect on their populations than the hobby). And given that the hobby works on captive breeding and conservation efforts it can't be 100% doom and gloom for the fish when it gets taken from the wild.
 

FiscCyning

Member
smee82 said:
Maybe its just me but I believe that if you have ethical issues with fish keeping you shouldnt be keeping fish. And as far as permits go no way
I actually feel the opposite, that it's the people who have no ethical issues with any aspect of the fish keeping hobby who shouldn't be keeping fish (not saying that's you). In my experience, most serious fishkeepers have some level of ethical dilemma about the hobby, with the difference being where they draw the line. Some folks draw the line at tattooed fish, some at wild-caught fish, some at common goldfish kept in bowls. If someone has absolutely zero concerns about the ethics of the hobby and industry, then what's to stop them putting a koI in a 1/4 gallon bowl or a lion fish in a freshwater tank because saltwater sounds too difficult. Engaging with the ethics of the hobby doesn't mean hating the hobby; it means respecting the hobby (and the fish) enough to learn what practices are best.
 

Annie59

Member
My opinion with the whole thing is if your concerned with ethics I suggest you don't keep fish or any other pet. Even if a fish isn't wild caught what right do you have to keep it in a tank? It originally came from wild caught so it should have a LOT more room than a tank. As for the morphs, they are mostly morphed now, unless will caught. We REALLY don't know when our fish are "thriving", they can't tell us. So how do we know? We don't. We learned to keep fish alive and to breed by trial and error. If it weren't for those fish keepers years back and them having wild caught fish, the hobby wouldn't even exist. So no, I have no ethics against fish keeping.
 

david1978

Member
Actually we do know if our will thrive in certain set up or not. It comes from years of observations from Hobbiests as well as the scientific community.
 

jjohnwm

Member
Interesting thread. I can't help but smile at the number of people who express an ethical concern regarding certain aspects of fish-keeping (or hunting, or eating meat, or...or...well, you get the idea) but continue to do those things. At the other end of the spectrum are those uncommon individuals who claI'm to be totally free of any ethical constraints or conundrums. Must be nice to be so worry free.

We have folks who are concerned by the human propensity to arbitrarily decide which creatures are "born to live", and which others are "born to die". News flash, folks: we, all of us, every human and every other creature, are all born to die. It's going to happen. If we utilize some animals to provide food for other animals...or for ourselves...that seems to me like a natural thing, not something about which to be ethically concerned. Far worse to keep carnivorous animals like dogs or cats, and then subject them to a life of eating artificial foods containing no meat.

I keep aquarium fish...I also sport fish...I am an ardent birdwatcher...I am an avid hunter...and all of these things are ways to connect with nature. Not merely as an observer, but as a participant. When I was a youngster growing up, I caught critters in the wild and brought them home as pets. I learned a lot about them, I lost some, and I would no longer do many of those things today.

But in today's world, in our fervent quest to protect nature and to be "ethical", we caution children never to do anything more than watch. Don't touch, don't interfere, don't experiment, don't do anything...just watch. And then, we expect them to somehow grow up with an appreciation and respect and love for nature. This will never happen. The interaction is extremely important, and it becomes more and more difficult to experience every day. Keeping fish as "prisoners" in our little glass boxes is one of the only types of contact that many urban people will ever have with nature. So, do it in a responsible manner, be humane, be ethical, and above all be thankful that you even have the opportunity and the desire to do so.
 

DoubleDutch

Member
Lynn78too said:
Doesn't over collection/fishing affect the population negatively though? I understand that having them watch them is good but it's kind of like if conservationists were around 200 years ago and said , "we notice there aren't as many bison, maybe we shouldn't hunt them so much." It was overhunting (for lack of a better word) that almost killed them all, isn't that what could potentially happen if people are overfishing in areas?
It all depends on the country, area, location, political situation, local habits, education, common sense, etc etc....

I personally don't like fish to be caught from the wild for our hobby. There are a.lot of species on the red list cause of this.
Others still are doing wel.

Shortcut : When we humans appear in the area normally we don't bring any good to the locals, the environment, etc....
We NEVER did in my opinion.
 

Dave125g

Member
Lynn78too said:
Doesn't over collection/fishing affect the population negatively though? I understand that having them watch them is good but it's kind of like if conservationists were around 200 years ago and said , "we notice there aren't as many bison, maybe we shouldn't hunt them so much." It was overhunting (for lack of a better word) that almost killed them all, isn't that what could potentially happen if people are overfishing in areas?
Collecting and hunting are 2 very different things. That's a bad analogy. Biologists collect them in an effort to breed them and up the population. Some are also given to breeders for the hobby and to return to the wild. Yes there's plenty of poachers who just take from the wild for the hobby just for profit, but that's not what I was talking about there.
 

-Mak-

Member
jjohnwm said:
Interesting thread. I can't help but smile at the number of people who express an ethical concern regarding certain aspects of fish-keeping (or hunting, or eating meat, or...or...well, you get the idea) but continue to do those things. At the other end of the spectrum are those uncommon individuals who claI'm to be totally free of any ethical constraints or conundrums. Must be nice to be so worry free.

We have folks who are concerned by the human propensity to arbitrarily decide which creatures are "born to live", and which others are "born to die". News flash, folks: we, all of us, every human and every other creature, are all born to die. It's going to happen. If we utilize some animals to provide food for other animals...or for ourselves...that seems to me like a natural thing, not something about which to be ethically concerned. Far worse to keep carnivorous animals like dogs or cats, and then subject them to a life of eating artificial foods containing no meat.

I keep aquarium fish...I also sport fish...I am an ardent birdwatcher...I am an avid hunter...and all of these things are ways to connect with nature. Not merely as an observer, but as a participant. When I was a youngster growing up, I caught critters in the wild and brought them home as pets. I learned a lot about them, I lost some, and I would no longer do many of those things today.

But in today's world, in our fervent quest to protect nature and to be "ethical", we caution children never to do anything more than watch. Don't touch, don't interfere, don't experiment, don't do anything...just watch. And then, we expect them to somehow grow up with an appreciation and respect and love for nature. This will never happen. The interaction is extremely important, and it becomes more and more difficult to experience every day. Keeping fish as "prisoners" in our little glass boxes is one of the only types of contact that many urban people will ever have with nature. So, do it in a responsible manner, be humane, be ethical, and above all be thankful that you even have the opportunity and the desire to do so.
The problem is a lot of what humans do is not responsible nor humane, hence the ethical concerns some people express for fish keeping, eating meat, etc
I think your thoughts on interaction leading to love for nature are spot on though
 

jjohnwm

Member
-Mak- said:
The problem is a lot of what humans do is not responsible nor humane, hence the ethical concerns some people express for fish keeping, eating meat, etc...
I agree completely. I am not pretending that I have an answer for this problem, but I sure acknowledge that it exists. I question the use of the term "a lot"...I think that the vast majority of people are basically good, and will not willfully act in an inhumane or destructive manner. It's that 1% degenerate population which is the problem. The tiny group of hunters who act like unfeeling slobs and give the impression that we are all that way; the minute percentage of birdwatchers who trample sensitive areas and stress rare birds in order to add a checkmark to their lists; the sport fishers who pay no attention to size restrictions or bag limits; and so forth. The damage that is done by people like this lives on.

A century-old tree grows in a yard. Thousands of people see it and admire it and appreciate its beauty. Then a single person cuts it down...and it is gone forever, for everyone. How do you solve a problem like that?
 

Jellibeen

Member
I disagree that people who have ethical objections to fish keeping shouldn’t be in the hobby. I have ethical objections, but I don’t think the hobby is inherently wrong. I am not perfect, but I do my best to avoid the parts I think are wrong.

jjohnwm said:
Interesting thread. I can't help but smile at the number of people who express an ethical concern regarding certain aspects of fish-keeping (or hunting, or eating meat, or...or...well, you get the idea) but continue to do those things. At the other end of the spectrum are those uncommon individuals who claI'm to be totally free of any ethical constraints or conundrums. Must be nice to be so worry free.

We have folks who are concerned by the human propensity to arbitrarily decide which creatures are "born to live", and which others are "born to die". News flash, folks: we, all of us, every human and every other creature, are all born to die. It's going to happen. If we utilize some animals to provide food for other animals...or for ourselves...that seems to me like a natural thing, not something about which to be ethically concerned. Far worse to keep carnivorous animals like dogs or cats, and then subject them to a life of eating artificial foods containing no meat.

I keep aquarium fish...I also sport fish...I am an ardent birdwatcher...I am an avid hunter...and all of these things are ways to connect with nature. Not merely as an observer, but as a participant. When I was a youngster growing up, I caught critters in the wild and brought them home as pets. I learned a lot about them, I lost some, and I would no longer do many of those things today.

But in today's world, in our fervent quest to protect nature and to be "ethical", we caution children never to do anything more than watch. Don't touch, don't interfere, don't experiment, don't do anything...just watch. And then, we expect them to somehow grow up with an appreciation and respect and love for nature. This will never happen. The interaction is extremely important, and it becomes more and more difficult to experience every day. Keeping fish as "prisoners" in our little glass boxes is one of the only types of contact that many urban people will ever have with nature. So, do it in a responsible manner, be humane, be ethical, and above all be thankful that you even have the opportunity and the desire to do so.
I’m not sure I smile at the cognitive dissonance, but I do shake my head. One example I see often in the hobby is an objection to feeder fish. People believe feeder fish are cruel, yet have zero problem buying food that is also made from dead fish.

Another example: There was a “monster” fish page that featured many videos of large carnivorous fish eating feeder fish or mice. No one objected, until the person posted a video of a two fish of similar size (can’t remember what kinds. one was a catfish and I think the other was a cichlid). The fish fought each other and the catfish took a large chunk out of the other one. Many people commented how cruel and innapropriate this was. How dare he put those two fish together and let one die! I found this very interesting, and a perfect example of people deciding which creatures have the purpose of dying.
 

-Mak-

Member
jjohnwm said:
I agree completely. I am not pretending that I have an answer for this problem, but I sure acknowledge that it exists. I question the use of the term "a lot"...I think that the vast majority of people are basically good, and will not willfully act in an inhumane or destructive manner. It's that 1% degenerate population which is the problem. The tiny group of hunters who act like unfeeling slobs and give the impression that we are all that way; the minute percentage of birdwatchers who trample sensitive areas and stress rare birds in order to add a checkmark to their lists; the sport fishers who pay no attention to size restrictions or bag limits; and so forth. The damage that is done by people like this lives on.

A century-old tree grows in a yard. Thousands of people see it and admire it and appreciate its beauty. Then a single person cuts it down...and it is gone forever, for everyone. How do you solve a problem like that?
I think hunters/fishers/birdwatchers are actually some of the most responsible people out there actually! They are the ones that have direct motivation for preservation of nature, like us fishkeepers want to protect water systems all around the work where fish live. I believe the most irresponsible and unethical things humans do are factory farming, overfishing, or fish farming in open pens, which the vast majority of people have no involvement in besides creating demand for the continuation
 

Piscesorkillerwhale

Member
AquaticJ said:
There are a TON of invasive species, a lot of them aren’t really a problem. For example, Texas Cichlids can be found all the way in Tennessee. That said, some of them are big problems.
Which ones are problems
 

Back40Guppy

Member
Piscesorkillerwhale said:
Which ones are problems
Generally a creature in a habitat creates problems. We create problems. Why! Because we have one biological drive in life. Breed. Not talking ambitions here. Talking deep programming. Multiply and thrive. As habitats adjust and become accustomed to its inhabitants, a cycle naturally starts to take place. A balance if you will. That “balance” is pretty delicate and it doesn’t take much of a ripple to cause a crash. That ripple is usually an invasive. That invader in its drive to survive upsets a something in the balance. Safe bet it’s the food chain but it could be other things. Many other things. Invasive is a name we give it. But when you think about it, life is pretty invasive all around us. Invasive plants come to mind. Insects. Right down to microscopic dudes that are planning to rule the world some day. Ok that last one was a stretch.
 

david1978

Member
Piscesorkillerwhale said:
Which ones are problems
The two big ones right now in the us are common plecos in Florida tearing up river banks and Oscar's in Texas. Being they have no predators they multiply and take over giving the previous fish no habitat or food to survive.
 

goldface

Member
The biggest problems are lionfish and Asian carp.
 

coralbandit

Member
I used to have a snake head years ago.
I often wonder where he is today. He was only about 16" in 1986 ??
 

Crazycoryfishlady

Member
david1978 said:
The two big ones right now in the us are common plecos in Florida tearing up river banks and Oscar's in Texas. Being they have no predators they multiply and take over giving the previous fish no habitat or food to survive.
Also carps and snakeheads.
People brought snakehead into the hobbyand released them in the US, and now, being a massive carnivorous fish, it is destroying species, and their habitats as it digs/burrows to an extent moving around the land killing native plants.

Honestly the most invasive species is us.
We would build homes inside!!! IN the ocean if we were allowed.
If it wasn't regulated to hunt, many species like the seacow wouldn't exist as they don't.
We search and destroy for pleasure, and decimate entire populations and ecosystems.
 

goldface

Member
Crazycoryfishlady said:
Also carps and snakeheads.
People brought snakehead into the hobbyand released them in the US, and now, being a massive carnivorous fish, it is destroying species, and their habitats as it digs/burrows to an extent moving around the land killing native plants.

Honestly the most invasive species is us.
We would build homes inside!!! IN the ocean if we were allowed.
If it wasn't regulated to hunt, many species like the seacow wouldn't exist as they don't.
We search and destroy for pleasure, and decimate entire populations and ecosystems.
So what should we do? Infiltrate the CDC, then find and release some of the deadliest viruses in the world unto humanity ? Nah, I might be cynical, but I'm no misanthrope.
 

FiscCyning

Member
scarface said:
So what should we do? Infiltrate the CDC, then find and release some of the deadliest viruses in the world unto humanity ? Nah, I might be cynical, but I'm no misanthrope.
I think there’s probably a middle ground option between “do nothing” and “genocide”
 

goldface

Member
FiscCyning said:
I think there’s probably a middle ground option between “do nothing” and “genocide”
That is? Government regulation, like China? Castration?

I'm just entertaining myself here. I'm on a Greyhound bus, and I'm bored.
 

Crazycoryfishlady

Member
scarface said:
That is? Government regulation, like China? Castration?

I'm just entertaining myself here. I'm on a Greyhound bus, and I'm bored.
I've thoight about regluation.
When I was about 12 I joined a group on facebook called VHEMT.
It's the voluntary human extinction movement lol
Most of them are just antI child and refer to us as the virus/parasite.

I honestly think regulation like with other invasive species could cut down on planetary loss.

While every once in a while I get baby fever, I like to believe now, I'm going to do my part and not repopulate.

I mean...
Do you think it's natural/okay for one person to pop out 20 copies of themselves just because they want to, and because they feel their bloodline is important?

If we think about it like fish breeding, you'll want to cull most of those babies and keep only the best and strongest.
You wouldn't want weak or bad genes to start becoming more prevalent than strong ones.

Also if we think about how angry we get about invasive species humans put places, then why don't we get so mad about the environments we destroy or put ourselves in?
We don't bat an eye if humans ruin an entire species.
But if an animal threatens to ruin a species, we usually see that animal as heinous and needing to be removed.

When I was younger I found a piece of "information" that stated something like every second a few hundred plants and animals go extinct.
Obviously not ones we concern ourselves with like pandas, but ones just as helpful like plants in our rain forests, or smaller micro organisms who are extremely beneficial or possibly hold cures to our diseases.

There is also a 'statistic' that has to do with childrens lives.

It states, since we have no idea who a person will grow into, we can call the upper intelligence of something like 3% of the whole population, as an endangered species.

If intelligence is endangered, I don't think we should be getting rid of it before it becomes intelligent, though I also don't think we should be saving everything, because as we've noticed, most born specimens are not, on the upper half of anything, be it intelligence or gene wise.

I don't know. I feel like if I continue trying to really describe my ideas I may get in trouble lol
 

goldface

Member
Crazycoryfishlady said:
I've thoight about regluation.
When I was about 12 I joined a group on facebook called VHEMT.
It's the voluntary human extinction movement lol
Most of them are just antI child and refer to us as the virus/parasite.

I honestly think regulation like with other invasive species could cut down on planetary loss.

While every once in a while I get baby fever, I like to believe now, I'm going to do my part and not repopulate.

I mean...
Do you think it's natural/okay for one person to pop out 20 copies of themselves just because they want to, and because they feel their bloodline is important?

If we think about it like fish breeding, you'll want to cull most of those babies and keep only the best and strongest.
You wouldn't want weak or bad genes to start becoming more prevalent than strong ones.

Also if we think about how angry we get about invasive species humans put places, then why don't we get so mad about the environments we destroy or put ourselves in?
We don't bat an eye if humans ruin an entire species.
But if an animal threatens to ruin a species, we usually see that animal as heinous and needing to be removed.

When I was younger I found a piece of "information" that stated something like every second a few hundred plants and animals go extinct.
Obviously not ones we concern ourselves with like pandas, but ones just as helpful like plants in our rain forests, or smaller micro organisms who are extremely beneficial or possibly hold cures to our diseases.

There is also a 'statistic' that has to do with childrens lives.

It states, since we have no idea who a person will grow into, we can call the upper intelligence of something like 3% of the whole population, as an endangered species.

If intelligence is endangered, I don't think we should be getting rid of it before it becomes intelligent, though I also don't think we should be saving everything, because as we've noticed, most born specimens are not, on the upper half of anything, be it intelligence or gene wise.

I don't know. I feel like if I continue trying to really describe my ideas I may get in trouble lol
Oh boy. I didn't expect such a response. You covered quite a few topics. Give me some time to respond. I'll need my laptop.
 

Fish0n

Member
scarface said:
That is? Government regulation, like China? Castration?

I'm just entertaining myself here. I'm on a Greyhound bus, and I'm bored.
Fun fact if a married couple decides together they do not want children (no other medical issue or reasoning) and look for a permanent reliable form of birth control the doctors are unwilling to perform a vasectomy or tubal litigation. Doctors are even reluctant to perform a vasectomy on a 40yr old with 2 kids.
Proof the majority doesn't want population control.
 

AngelsAbove

Member
I think pets in general drive young people to have a passion for animals and preserving animals. Its hard to appreciate animals without up-close experience with them. I think if we stopped keeping animals all together, they'd be in greater jeopardy. We'd simply stop caring as much. And sure, some people would still care due to inborn curiosity, but the effect would be less then with those who grow up with animals and go off to become biologists and conservationists.

While I believe fish are more complex then we give them credit for, I think most animals are unable to comprehend the ''greater picture''. And even if they could, we have no means to communicate with them, so its rather pointless to speculate whether they'd like to remain in the wild or be kept safe and fed by humans. We can only ever guess. We can only compare it to what we'd prefer as humans, which is inherently flawed.
 

Dave125g

Member
Fish0n said:
Fun fact if a married couple decides together they do not want children (no other medical issue or reasoning) and look for a permanent reliable form of birth control the doctors are unwilling to perform a vasectomy or tubal litigation. Doctors are even reluctant to perform a vasectomy on a 40yr old with 2 kids.
Proof the majority doesn't want population control.
I was 30 with 2 kids when I got my vasectomy . Doctor didn't even question it.
 

Crazycoryfishlady

Member
Dave125g said:
I was 30 with 2 kids when I got my vasectomy . Doctor didn't even question it.
Nice!
Unfortunately here it's not so easy.
At least from experiences of close friends.
Not even my friend who is infertile could get her tubes tied.
Not sure why..
For some reason it's quite difficult in my city to control your own body.
 

goldface

Member
Crazycoryfishlady said:
I've thoight about regluation.
When I was about 12 I joined a group on facebook called VHEMT.
It's the voluntary human extinction movement lol
Most of them are just antI child and refer to us as the virus/parasite.
It sounds very self-loathing. I don't like it; it does not sound like a very healthy environment, especially for the young and impressionable. Keep in mind, I know nothing about this group you speak of, except that it refers to children as parasites. Very misanthropic viewpoint.
Crazycoryfishlady said:
While every once in a while I get baby fever, I like to believe now, I'm going to do my part and not repopulate.

I mean...
Do you think it's natural/okay for one person to pop out 20 copies of themselves just because they want to, and because they feel their bloodline is important?
I believe in autonomy, in free will. People should have as much control over their lives as they want. That includes decisions on whether they want to have children or not. I don't think it's right for that to be taken away or for someone else to have a say in that decision for others. There are special cases, like China, but for people to believe that everyone in the world take part in not doing the most natural thing--breed and have kids is wrong, I think. Should everyone have kids? Obviously, no. But, that's life.

I'm thinking you're very young, because you're correct: what you believe now might change in the future. There are things I've done that I thought I'd never do. I've had my beliefs change over the years. Yours will too, but not necessarily about this. But something will. Anyway, my point is that I don't think you should fight against having a baby just because of some sort of guilt for being a human being. If you want a baby, then by all means--if the time comes when you think you're ready--you should. More importantly, you shouldn't feel guilty about it either.

Crazycoryfishlady said:
When I was younger I found a piece of "information" that stated something like every second a few hundred plants and animals go extinct.
Obviously not ones we concern ourselves with like pandas, but ones just as helpful like plants in our rain forests, or smaller micro organisms who are extremely beneficial or possibly hold cures to our diseases.
I've heard something like that too and, honestly, I think it's bologna. It's absurd. Silly. Eco-terrorist propaganda. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating on the last one, but still: It is absurd. This reminds me of Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. If you've read it, which I'm thinking most people who went to school have, it is a satire. A lot of it is a satire on science, mostly that scientists and mathematicians have tunnel vision and that sometimes what they come up with makes no sense at all and has no rationale. Now I'm not anti-science like the author, but I do agree that sometimes very smart people have no common sense or that their findings lack it. I think this is one of those cases, and here's why:

Instead of a few hundred animals disappearing, let's go with a more reasonable 200. If what it's said to be true, then 12,000 animals are going extinct every minute. 720,000 every hour. Uh, 3.5 million every 5 hrs, I think? I haven't gone too in depth with the math. Regardless, I'd love to see a list of these plants and animals that are gone forever by the end of the year. I think you know where I'm getting at.

I know that I haven't covered everything. It's getting late. Maybe tomorrow.





 

david1978

Member
I wish mrsa would go extinct.
 

Lynn78too

Member
Fish0n said:
Fun fact if a married couple decides together they do not want children (no other medical issue or reasoning) and look for a permanent reliable form of birth control the doctors are unwilling to perform a vasectomy or tubal litigation. Doctors are even reluctant to perform a vasectomy on a 40yr old with 2 kids.
Proof the majority doesn't want population control.
I'm not sure where you live but I don't know a single person whose doctor hasn't been willing to do a tubal or vasectomy. I'm talking about married couples with children since those are the people I know. My husband got a vasectomy a year after our 3rd baby was born and they made sure he understood the permanence of it, which I appreciated, and understood that the days of reversing a vasectomy are pretty much over. I know many women who had a planned c-section with a tubal with their last pregnancy. Not only were doctors willing to do the c-section, they were willing to do the tubal.

The one woman I know who is married and doesn't want kids is now 40. Her husband had a vasectomy about 10 years ago. The doctor recommended her husband have the vasectomy vs. her since it can alter her menstrual flow. There is also a greater chance of the fallopian tubes reconnecting than the vas deferens.

It also made more sense since a tubal is surgery with general anaesthesia vs. a vasectomy it is a 30 minute outpatient procedure. I waited in the car while my husband had his.
 

goldface

Member
Lynn78too said:
I'm not sure where you live but I don't know a single person whose doctor hasn't been willing to do a tubal or vasectomy. I'm talking about married couples with children since those are the people I know. My husband got a vasectomy a year after our 3rd baby was born and they made sure he understood the permanence of it, which I appreciated, and understood that the days of reversing a vasectomy are pretty much over. I know many women who had a planned c-section with a tubal with their last pregnancy. Not only were doctors willing to do the c-section, they were willing to do the tubal.

The one woman I know who is married and doesn't want kids is now 40. Her husband had a vasectomy about 10 years ago. The doctor recommended her husband have the vasectomy vs. her since it can alter her menstrual flow. There is also a greater chance of the fallopian tubes reconnecting than the vas deferens.

It also made more sense since a tubal is surgery with general anaesthesia vs. a vasectomy it is a 30 minute outpatient procedure. I waited in the car while my husband had his.
I was going to say something similar, but Dave125g beat me to it. I know a few ppl in the army getting the operation done for free. They said it was easy. I'm not sure of this is true, but one guy complained he still got his wife pregnant.
 

Jellibeen

Member
Vasectomies can reverse themselves, even when done correctly, so the dude may have gotten his wife pregnant even after the surgery.

...This discussion has indeed become very general.
 

Fish0n

Member
Lynn78too said:
I'm not sure where you live but I don't know a single person whose doctor hasn't been willing to do a tubal or vasectomy. I'm talking about married couples with children since those are the people I know. My husband got a vasectomy a year after our 3rd baby was born and they made sure he understood the permanence of it, which I appreciated, and understood that the days of reversing a vasectomy are pretty much over. I know many women who had a planned c-section with a tubal with their last pregnancy. Not only were doctors willing to do the c-section, they were willing to do the tubal.

The one woman I know who is married and doesn't want kids is now 40. Her husband had a vasectomy about 10 years ago. The doctor recommended her husband have the vasectomy vs. her since it can alter her menstrual flow. There is also a greater chance of the fallopian tubes reconnecting than the vas deferens.

It also made more sense since a tubal is surgery with general anaesthesia vs. a vasectomy it is a 30 minute outpatient procedure. I waited in the car while my husband had his.
It must be just where I live then! It was about 7 yrs ago when the 40 yr old I referred too had it done and he got tons of questions that had to be answered to the satisfaction of the doctor his wife also got questions and a mandatory wait time to think it over. And I know other couples with kids with that experience as well. (Our hospital system is quite terrible in my town so maybe that has something to do with it.) Glad to hear that isn't the situation everywhere.
 
  • Moderator

Coradee

Moderator
Member
As this thread has wandered way off the original topic it’s now run it’s course, thread closed
 

Most photos, videos and links are disabled if you are not logged in.

Log in or register to view



Top Bottom