Getting sterilized before you have any children: C/D?

xp unfortunately true

Some people are against it because they have at one point genuinely felt the same way, only to change their minds at a later date, either when they're in a new relationship/different relationship/getting older and thinking about it again.

I don't think it's wrong, it's just a drastic decision to make, and one that is hard to reverse, almost impossible for females.

In the uk you need to have really serious convictions to persuade them you're not going to change your mind.

The closest you can probably get is the birth control implant, that can make you virtually sterile for quite a long time.

I've heard no, but I'm sure it varies.

I didn't, but I had friends on the inside at Planned Parenthood.

Yes. Vasectomies are still considered irreversible despite several cases to the contrary. Certainly if a man was asking to be rendered completely sterile while unmarried and childless he'd have the same problems. A friend of mine has encountered this, and he's married, and they don't want kids.

Some of you may be familiar with the oath that doctors have to take upon assuming the profession, there's a portion of it that comes right after the word "First" that could explain a great deal of the issues here.

nice comeback!

For You: Classic.

Then he was like "that's where they were wrong, I had my wife pregnant in 3 months!"

The way he said it was just so disgusting, I could easily imagine him being in a bar and telling the story to a bunch of his mates. You'd swear he drove home at breakneck speed and non stop had sex with his wife until she was pregnant, "you better get pregnant honey, aint nobody callin' dr phils sperm yella"

Horrible.

Also you decide you were wrong later, well there are approximately 20 trillion children in the world without homes.

It's asinine not to let people do this.

In the meanwhile I've heard of some pretty unbalanced people purposefully injuring themselves in, um, meaningful fashions that worked to render them sterile but that type of thing probably also results in death like half the time.

Awesome!

It really does surprise me that doctors might not want to do it based on liability down the road if the partient changes his/her mind — people have elective, questionable surgery (butt implants, anyone?) and this doesn't seem to rankle anyone. Wouldn't just requiring that they be counseled on the surgery's permanence and a signed waver be enough to chill everyone out? Eh.

Luckily I've always been methodical about taking my birth control pill, so an "accident" isn't a major concern for me. It just bugs me that the government wants to keep trying to limit access to the "morning after pill," which chemically it isn't any different from a birth control pill. It really is enough to make me want to sterilize myself so i won't have to jump through any crazy, Bush-administration-hatched hoops if something accidental did happen. Hey, I can always adopt.

(I'm also inclined to believe that child-rearing is somewhat overrated, but that's another issue.)

Man, child rearing might just be the most overrated thing ever.

No doubt. Most parents I talk to these days will openly admit (not in front of the little 'uns, of course) that they would have been just as happy childless, if not moreso.

I have to admit, I love this:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007Z11QK.01-A3KY0D3T6GMCQZ._AA350_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Also, she lost her job because she was too sick to work, leaving her totally dependent on her husband. She will not have enough money or time to finish her masters degree, which she was mere months away from getting. She calls crying, "I don't know why I got pregnant!" Serious, horrible regret.

This all reminds me once again of the overratedness of having children.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html

"I was walking through Gamla Stan, the Old Town in Stockholm, when it struck me that Sweden was the only country I’d ever been in with no visible crazy people. Where were the mutterers, the twitchers, the loony importunate?"

P.J. O’Rourke, Eat the Rich, Ch. 4

this line with adoption and things makes it sound like having a child is just a matter of allocating resources..... eg there are loads of parentless kids in the world, it is inefficient to have children when there are such children languishign the system (wtf?!)

but children are not just interchangeable units that you move aroudn to those that need them, you forgot genes, dna etc.

second, im not sure who ally is referring to as "those fickle people", but if you mean people who change their mind, that is a bit harsh. every decision you make, no matter how sure and hard you have thought about it, might turn out to be one you would like to go back. situations change, opinions change, and being " totally, totally certain of their choice" doesnt always = there is no way i wil never change my mind. tio change your mind about a major decision like this is not necessarily "fickle" wtf!

for the record, i am looking forward some day to having children myself.

Well for me it's a matter of having a heart. If you want to raise a child and there are children in need of parents, why not consider them? *Especially* if you have difficulty having one of your own. I do think we are all responsible for the type of world we live and unwanted children are a problem for us all.

This is OTM, and I don't understand how "you forgot genes, dna etc." is an argument against this reasoning.

If you get a vasectomy and you change your mind, you can adopt a child! I don't see why this is some kind of controversial argument. So what about DNA and genes?

And yes, I'm sorry, I think someone who would make a decision to undergo a painful, completely life altering major surgery* and then want to get it reversed a few years down the road qualifies as "fickle" and people who do that shouldn't be allowed to sue a doctor on the basis of "Oh I decided I didn't want this anymore."

* obv this is far more the case for women who want sterilization than men

Because some people might want to go through the *process* (or whatever you call it in English): being pregnant, birthing,... I can understand why someone would want to adopt, but I'd like to be pregnant. (That said, seeing a colleague fall into a depression... It scares me a little.)

As much as I can understand someone wanting to be sterilized, if you're refused by the doctors, why not just go on the pill or use condoms? (I know, it's easier... but if you're refused again and again...)

maybe im just some christian nutcase or something. anyway its not worth getting drawn into a discussion of that cos i think its just pretty impossible to reconcile the two viewpoints

Those couples who have the resources to go to extravagant lengths to defy the odds and conceive, then are on the news with their eight babies receiving donations from corporations really need to examine their consciences though.

I don't think being sterilized counts as common birth control. It's the nuclear weapon of birth control, and the decisions that go into doing it are vastly different than the decisions that go into using condoms or the pill. Also, the pill messes up your body, and while it may not be fashionable to say so, condoms fucking suck. So yeah, you use them if you have to, but that's not the issue. You shouldn't have to be turned down repeatedly for something that's your own damn business. It's being treated like a child, really.

And like Ally says, it's not hard for doctors to not get sued over this. Have them sign something.

"Are you sure you don't want to have any more kids?"
"Yep."
"Okay then."

The funniest part of the process was in the bushel of paperwork -- one of the forms said "the undersigned acknowledges that this procedure MAY leave him or her sterile and unable to conceive."

I don't think they used enough anaesthetic. It hurt like hell. "Could you relax your legs?" "Gaaah, when you get that knife out of my nuts I'll relax!"

I cant take dept (it gives me a depressive episode), I prefer not to take the pill (I smoke), and so on.

If a doctor refused me (and at my age, why the hell would he/she?) then well, I will just keep going to another and another til I find one.

I. Do. Not. Want. Children. EVER. I dont understand why people think everyone will "change their mind later on"! I WON'T.

Sam has been so OTM throughout this thread, I feel. Why is it that society still places much more importance on biological parenthood than they do in adoptive parenthood? Why is it that you see movie after movie and TV show after TV show that takes a negative view of adoption and the people involved with it? Why is it that the news people jump all over a story about so-called "black market baby brokering", but when it comes to a POSITIVE story about an adoption facility making a positive impact on a family's life, it only merits a one-minute mention on one broadcast on a singular local news affiliate? Why is it that the women who give birth to children and the men who impregnated these women are still being called the OH SO WRONG label of "real mothers" or "real fathers", while the REAL MOTHERS AND FATHERS WHO ADOPTED THESE CHILDREN, TOOK CARE OF THEM WHEN THEY WERE SICK, CHEERED THEM UP WHEN THEY WERE DOWN, TOOK THEM FISHING OR CAMPING OR WHATEVER, are called "adoptive mothers" and/or "adoptive fathers"? Why not call the former the sperm/egg/ovary donors and the latter "real mothers"/"real fathers"?

Why is there an insistence that this biological act that almost anyone can do is something wonderful and magical? Why do we elevate these people for either getting knocked up or having gotten someone knocked up? Why is it that we have so much trouble elevating, instead, the actual ACT of parenting, the sleepless nights, the worries, the concerns, the unselfish and glorious love that REAL PARENTS share with their REAL CHILDREN? Regardless of how these children came to be a part of their parents' lives? Why is it that when an adoptive child ends up tracking down the woman who gave birth to them (or the man who was the sperm donor), there's always this insistence that the child end up treating the woman as if she were a mother (or the man as if he were a father)? They were not mothers or fathers. They took part in this biological process, that's it. If the child wants to maintain a friendship with them, sure, fine, go right ahead. But anything else would scream of ungratefulness toward the people who adopted this child, who gave this child a loving, warm home.

Um, anyway. That's what I feel. I will become a mother, I know it in my heart. But there is only way I will become a mother, and that's through adoption. Any other way would go against what I've known is right for me ever since I was 17 and pondering my first thoughts about such things.

Every single problem in the world is caused by overpopulation. Prove this wrong.

As an adoptee (and a transracial one at that) I have to confess the biggest legacy of my adoptive childhood is a complete and utter hatred for the conceit of the biological mother/father as 'real,' in spite of the much greater contribution of the adoptive parents. The notion of some genetic connection as biologically important (or important for the healthy nurturing of a child) is both categorically and logically untrue, yet it persists in informing the arguments of anti-adoption advocates everywhere.

Ally & Sam elsewhere - OTM.

That link is everything. Couples who are given remote chances of conceiving don't attempt to "defy the odds" because of societial "pressures", or whatever. They're driven to do it because millions of years of evolution have hardwired the need to conceive biological children into every person who has ever walked the earth.

Having said that, Sam and Ally OTM because when faced with the choice of going to superhuman lengths to conceive (with very little chance of success), and raising adopted children, more people would be wise to stand up to biology. They know the probabilities, so they need to make an informed decision: take the risk of never having children, ever; or adopt in the here and now.

Not being capable of conceiving is devastating because it's the sole biological purpose behind the existence of every living thing. Telling people to suck it up and deal and just adopt because who cares about all that DNA shit is unrealistic and wrong.

I have really, really huge issues with people who go through fertility treatments and birth enormous litters though. Or the high profile cases I guess.

Whether or not you ever knew your biological family, or whether or not they are still alive, isn't the key issue. No matter where they are, *you* still have genes to pass on, and biology wants you to pass them on. As for the people who don't want to have kids, it doesn't depend on whether they were adopted or not, or how large their extended family is. People decide against having children for lots of other reasons.

wanting sex is the hardwired biological urge, and plunking out a kid is just the expected result.

No. Sexual intercourse evolved chiefly for the purposes of procreation.

Biology wants me to stick my dick into anything squishy. Fuck biology.

When they met new partners, they both had their tubal ligations reversed and have given birth to three children between them. Waste of tax payers money if you ask me to sterilise people on the NHS who think they don't want children.

What if the woman who gave birth (I don't believe in calling them "mothers") goes through that money carelessly, spending it on foolish things intead of on things for the child? Not everyone is financially astute; unfortunately, I can count some of my very own relatives in this category. What if the woman is so not ready to become a REAL MOTHER that she ends up creating some massive psychological harm on the part of the child? What if the child's circumstances end up being such that, despite everything, he or she ends up not being able to go anywhere in life, achieve all that he or she is capable of achieving? You have to provide the best home for a child. My mother was raised in poverty but she benefitted from having two loving, attentive parents who worked their asses off to make sure that she was nurtured and cared for in a stable environment where she was encouraged to be all that she could be. And she made it.

I am pro-choice; I believe every woman who's taken the time to ponder the decision to have an abortion, who's gone through the heart-searching and made that hard decision, should have the right to a safe and legal procedure. I'm also pro-adoption; I believe there are a lot of so-called "unwanted" children (what a terrible label!) who need a good, stable, loving home to call "home". I believe in my heart of hearts that the truly selfish people out there are the unfit "mothers" and "fathers" who scream and cry about "keeping 'their' baby/ies" but who end up either not stepping up to the plate and becoming TRUE mothers and fathers or who don't give "their children" a chance to become all that they can become. These people are incredibly heartless, disgusting, unforgivable, and unthinking individuals, and unfortunately their ranks are massive in number. (Again, I can sadly refer to some of my own relatives for examples.)

secondly, i never said that people "WILL change their mind", i said that people can change their mind. that doesnt mean that you should never make a decision, but it struck me that to assume that people who make a decision and then change their mind as fickle is a bit weird

I used to be completely anti-children but I did change my mind. I think now I would be very sad to live my life without knowing what it was like to raise a child.

You'd think so, Alex. But I'm FREQUENTLY asked if my sister is my 'real' sister.

Anyway, sorry for misunderstanding you, Jonathan. I'm aware of the fact that there IS such a thing as a black market for adoptions, and there have been adoptions historically where the child entered a sad life, but I think that now, in the age of vigorous pre-screenings and regular screenings and waiting periods and the like (and stronger legislation), those days are kinda in the past.

to make sure the queers don't get them
.