On a related topic...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jul 28 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]293767[/snapback]</div>

It's also selfish to eat more calories than your body needs to survive per day. It's even MORE selfish to own a Prius when you could have purchased an Echo and donated the difference to the local orphanage. Better yet, it's FAR more selfish to go travelling around the world all the time, all that $ spent could sure benefit a lot of orphans, or feed a lot of other people....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 03:35 PM) [snapback]292223[/snapback]</div>

That is precisely what happened to me. All my life I was so sure that I never wanted biological children, even as recently as a couple years ago. Suddenly something just clicked and, well now look at me. If you told me 2 years ago that I would be pregnant right now, I'd probably have died from laughing. But I'm 100% sure (now) that we're only doing this once....I never want to be pregnant ever again, so long as I should live. Now I've just got 4 more months to get through, ugh. :blink:

I'm all for adoption if we feel the need to further expand our family, as there are so many children out there in the world without families and without homes~I've always been very pro-adoption. I grew up with friends who had been adopted (heck, my paternal grandfather was an adoptee himself!) that I always thought that would be such a special situation to be able to take someone in like that and give them the love and family they need and deserve.

ITA with what PP's said about IUDs. I've heard nothing but good things about them firsthand from friends who are currently using them, as well as from doctors I've spoken to about the subject. My ob caught me reading a 'female sterilization' pamphlet while I was in the waiting room at our last appointment. She asked me if that was something that I was interested in, and I told her that if my husband refused the vasectomy then I wouldn't mind getting my tubes tied after I deliver. If they refuse to do so, then the IUD is definitely something I'm very very interested in for long-term birth control.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 28 2006, 06:20 PM) [snapback]294002[/snapback]</div>

1. You are the one who eats more calories than your body needs. That's why you are fat. Unless you just come out fat on pictures then I apologize.
2. If it's more selfish to own a Prius than it's even more selfish to own a motorcycle.
3. Your jeolousy shows right through.

Hope you are not wipping your little one, you wouldn't want intentionally, on a pre-meditated basis, effectively rob a life of it's existence, would you?

Just curious, do you ever get laid?

 

Have you looked into the Essure procedure? I believe it is less invasive than a tubal and just as effective. I believe www.essure.com has info, and a list of doctors who support the procedure. Most of the stories I have heard about it say that the doctors on the list are willing to do it on women of any age who have thought through their options and are SURE that is the way they want to go. IUDs are another good option, but from what I have read, there are just a few too many risks/grisley side effects for me. Often, younger women have trouble getting IUDs as well, but persistance in finding a doctor who doesn't immediately dismiss you based on your age is the key. Don't try to convince a doctor that already has their mind made up, just leave and go calmly explain your situation to a new doctor.

In case you want to learn more about any of these methods or get recommendations for doctors that will listen to you, the livejournal community Vagina Pagina (www.livejournal.com/community/vaginapagina) often discusses these topics and has specific stories about Essure users. Childfree communities also talk about the issues you raised here.

--
Hillary

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(seeh2o @ Jul 26 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]292587[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the Mirena is good for 7 years. It's just that it's only been approved for 5 years use by the FDA.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Jul 25 2006, 01:36 PM) [snapback]292093[/snapback]</div>

It's a subdermal implant and if it has the same effect as Norplant, it will be off the market by 2010.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(heavenleigh @ Jul 28 2006, 07:59 PM) [snapback]294089[/snapback]</div>

I've put a bunch of IUDs in young women without children. It may be a little more painful during insertion, but they are generally happy with it. One of the main contraindications to an IUD is multiple sexual partners, which you're more likely to see in younger women.

I've done a bunch of Essure sterilizations also. It's a nice, slick procedure, but to the dismay of many on this board, not on young nulliparous women. And I've had discussions with our legal department and they said there is no way you can absolve yourself from legal action later in life. The courts strongly favor the woman in reproductive rights issues.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(M. Oiseau @ Jul 28 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]293802[/snapback]</div>

Interesting, our group will generally do sterilizations after the age of 25.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 28 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]293810[/snapback]</div>

Realize it is not illegal for me or any doctor to do a tubal on a 22 year old. It's just performing too many questionable procedures may have you dragged before the state Medical Board, and sorry, I have to keep food on the table for my kids.

 

Edited to preserve thread integrity.



Some potentially constructive input:

Putting all the abortion arguments aside, what if your mom had thought just like you, and you were never born? Would you give up your existence for some seemingly arbitrary measure? Or, what if you were never born (assume, for a moment, you could observe yourself from some other plane of existence h34r: ), and your mom decided to adopt instead? Would you be happy, content, ok with, relinquishing your life now so your mom could have adopted instead?

Or maybe, in other words, if you could push a button, right now, that would make it such you had never been born, and instead, your mom adopted 1 kid, would you push it? Would you push it if she adopted 2 kids? 3? 4? 5?

...and, of course, what if your future kid is the one who manages to obliterate hunger and poverty? Or a slightly different spin, what if your future kid adopts 5 kids? Obviously, the inverse is equally possible, but for the sake of argument...

Now, with respect to the argument of having your tubes tied as some sort of deterrent into not giving into your hormones, Wth is that? Ok, so you want to live by this perceived *higher* ideal of non-selfishness, but where do you draw the line? How are you determining there will be an overall *net* positive resultant of not having a kid? I'll bet you for every argument against having a kid, there is a reasonable one for, so what's that make it? 50/50? Maybe look at it from YOUR standpoint. Do you think you've contributed more to the world than if you had never been born? On another tangent, does trying to "override" your hormones make you *more* or less human, and why? Theoretically, if that's the case, why stop there, if we were to imagine some device/concept/entity that would allow you to, let's say, oh, remove your taste buds, or control them such that you would only enjoy eating some weird vegetarian paste, the idea obviously being to "conserve" food sources, that sort of thing, would you do that too?... Seems like if you keep going down this path, ultimately, you'd be no different than a, solemn, functioning brain in a jar. Take it one step further, and you're in a position to regret your very own *consuming* existence...

'course, that's only my take on it after a few moments of thought on the matter... :lol:

 

After reading this thread, I have many thoughts -- probably some conflicting. First of all, I knew when I was 16 that I didn't want to have children. As a joke, I asked my parents for a hysterectomy for my 16th birthday, although a small part of myself wasn't joking at all.

At 22, I was diagnosed with endometriosis (around 1983)and was told by my male doctor that it would be unlikely that I would be able to become pregnant, and that I should try to do so as soon as possible, as it would become progressively more difficult as time passed. BTW, my younger sister about 10 years later had surgery for endometriosis and successfully had a child.

Now, this doctor I saw assumed that at some point in my life I would want to have children, even at the expense of having a baby at a very bad time in my life to have a baby. I found him to be extremely condescending.

My endometriosis never progressed to the point of having corrective surgery, but I did have painful periods. And that, coupled with my desire never to become a mother, I very genuinely wanted that hysterectomy. Of course, no doctor would perform it.

Now at 47, I have never regretted my choice not to have children, and one close call at 30 reinforced the conviction of that choice. Fortunately, I entered perimenopause quite early, so painful periods are no longer an issue. However, I resent the fact that I was not allowed to choose to have a medical procedure because of paternalism in the medical profession.

My feelings about children -- I love most of the children I know well. Others I do not particularly care for, and find them an annoyance most of the time. I admire those I consider good parents, not only because their children will be electing our leaders that will determine my well-being, so I want today's children to be good citizens and good leaders. Also, I wouldn't want to trade places with them!

My thoughts on adoption -- it is true that there are many children who need and deserve good homes, but to many potential parents, sadly there is as shortage of "adoptable" children...read: healthy Caucasian infants. I see this as a shame for a couple of reasons. First, it just seems mean-spirited to me, but if this is how an adoptive parent feels, it's probably best for said "unadoptable" child not to go to such a family. Next, I believe there is a shortage of "adoptable" children because far too many teens choose to keep babies they are generally neither emotionally or financially prepared to rear. That doesn't include the many girls who CHOOSE to have and keep a baby, rather than have an accidental pregnancy. That cuts into the numbers of "adoptable" kids. I find the plethera of unwed young mothers as having as important impact on our society as the issue of abortion.

Needless to say, I am ardently pro-choice. IMO, the ideal situation for a teenager facing an unplanned pregnancy would be a center where all choices would be available under one roof. Supportive unbiased counseling including information on educational opportunities for un-wed mothers, financial support available, parenting classes, etc. for those who choose to keep the baby, an abortion clinic for those who choose that option, and an adoption agency offering both open and closed adoption. So you see, I am genuinely pro-choice, not pro-abortion. All choices concerning teen pregnancy should be supported legally and through proactive government policy. As I said earlier, these children, wanted and unwanted, are the future, and because they'll be making decisions that will affect me as a senior citizen, I'd rather all children have as good a start as possible. Call me selfish.

Peace --

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Jul 28 2006, 11:40 PM) [snapback]294181[/snapback]</div>

Medicine as a profession by it's nature is paternalistic...or maternalistic in the case of my female partners. If we're presented with an option that goes beyond the scope or belief of our training, we're under no obligation to carry out the patient's wishes. If you looked hard enough, I'm sure you would have found a doctor who would have done the hysterectomy.

I am presented daily with patients asking for things that are downright dangerous. And while the original poster may have written a well thought out argument about not wanting kids, it's the same story we've all heard from so many different patients. Patients who want something that they know the physician will resist giving(narcotics, surgery, disability) usually are very well versed in their condition, eloquent in their delivery of symptoms and come across as very intelligent.

 

Well, I read all the responses, and I thought I would add something about the "biological clock" thing. Its not an urge, but a long suppressed desire that sees a deadline looming. My sister fretted about having to deal with it until she turned 40 and realized she STILL didn't want to have children, even if she was 40. Her view of it never changed, and yours may not either. I wouldn't worry about a rush of "gottamakeababy hormones" or something on your 35th birthday. The people who fear the biological clock do so because they already want to have children, but are delaying it until the right time. I don't see that as your imperative.

But, what does happen is that our views change as we get new information. For instance, did you know that in Europe the problem is not a population boom, but a declining population? That's why France and Germany are importing workers. Some experts estimate that the US will face the same problem as families are smaller now than before. If the world is in a general population decline, would that challenge your position? If a technological advance ends our worries about environmental concerns, and real progress is made on that front, would that challenge your position?

If you don't want children, or would rather adopt for practical (health) or altruistic reasons, then I doubt these external factors would really change your mind. I suspect they are things you can put on the "Don't Have Kids" side of the list to help support what you may not be able to vocalize: you don't want to have biological children. You don't have to justify it any more than that, except to your husband.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 29 2006, 02:23 AM) [snapback]294225[/snapback]</div>

Question about the "biological clock" theme: How much of this pressure is biological, and how much of it is cultural? What's the general consensus from the female members? Being male, I have no similar "biological" urge (unless you count the often-used justification: "need to procreate to guarantee the survival of the species", or as I like to call it: horniness). Has anyone been able to discern between societal and biological pressure on this point? Just curious.

 

I am surprised to hear you say this, as I thought it was relatively easy (compared maybe to a full tubal) to get the essure procedure even if you are under 25. I haven't personally gone looking for a doctor yet, but people I have heard from seem like it is easer than even maybe getting an IUD, though Planned Parenthood has helped younger people get those recently.

I am also surprised that you would refuse to do it on younger women because of possible legal consequences of changing their mind later on. I'm not a lawyer, but people make similar life-changing choices every day without these types of legal outs. Plastic surgeons definitely do nose/boob jobs on people younger than 18 or 25, what if one of them comes back and says "I WANT MY OLD TITS/NOSE/nice person BACK!"??? Its not the doctor's fault the patient chose to go through with the procedure. Similar for gastric bypass, tattooing, piercings, etc...

--
Hillary

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 25 2006, 02:24 PM) [snapback]292082[/snapback]</div>

While it seems you have given much thought to this, I'm not sure you are in the right place to give it the full though it requires. Right now, you don't want kids, so adopting in the future sounds like a great solution to you if you ever change your mind. BUT, if you later change your mind and want kids, you may also realize that having a child that resembles you and your husband is something you want.

I believe in adoption as I myself was adopted. But if my wife and I decide to have kids, we won't adopt. Maybe for me it's a stronger urge to have biological kids because they would be my only biological connection, but I think I'd likely feel that way anyway. You may find you feel this way someday too.

And as far as the population of the world is concerned, it's not the responsible couples who have 1-3 kids that cause these problems - it's the irresponsible familiys that probably shouldn't even raise 1 kid, but go on to raise 5+ kids. Adopting won't help this problem. And unless things have changed, there are typically more people looking to adopt than children ready for adoption. Why do you think so many adoptions are now of children overseas? There just aren't enough available locally.

So, as others have said, you are 22. Making a permanently life altering decision at 22 is just as foolish as doing many of the things you frown upon.

 

i have spent most of my life never wanting to have children. i was never the caregiver or the babysitter. i never cooed over 'cute babies' and, frankly children freak me out. i am now 32 and just recently have firmly stated my choice to my family, which was scarey, as they are mostly catholic...they were and are very supportive. i always wondered if that 'clock' thing would rear it's ugly head, fortunately it hasn't!!!! i am comfortable w/ my life, my marriage, my job, and my future. of course, i get the question often. 'when are you going to have kids'. i have simply begun responding 'i am not going to have kids. i am allergic. they make me tired and cranky.' not trying to be glib, but i am learning now that there is some backlash directed towards women who are basically looked at as breeding stock and frowned at when they 'negate their maternal responsibility.' but i am finding more and more women older than me and younger than me that feel and experience the same thing....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Maytrix @ Jul 29 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]294310[/snapback]</div>

mini-me complex?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jul 29 2006, 04:12 PM) [snapback]294360[/snapback]</div>

You can call it that if you like, but I don't know if I'd go that far. In my case, it would be the only person I know that is related by blood.

But I also think that's one part to the joy of having kids. If my wife and I are unable to for some reason, then option 2 would be adoption.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jul 29 2006, 04:12 PM) [snapback]294360[/snapback]</div>

yeah, 'cause anyone who wants their own kid MUST be selfish or narcissistic! :lol: Related by blood, what a foolish concept! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Maytrix @ Jul 29 2006, 04:56 PM) [snapback]294375[/snapback]</div>

You can have as much joy by having non-biological children.

Seems like you are bitter from the fact that you do not know your biological parents, and to make up for that you'd like to create mini-me.
There are many biological parents who do not feel any biological connection, and would disagree with you that that's a joy of having children.
There are many non-biological parents who would also disagree with you as they find joy in the fact that a child's life is improved, and not for the mere fact of a biological connection.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Jul 29 2006, 04:54 PM) [snapback]294411[/snapback]</div>

You may not have intended it this way, but I view this as one of the most insensitive posts I've ever seen in FHOP.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 30 2006, 12:30 AM) [snapback]294497[/snapback]</div>

:lol:

I wasn't going to say anything 'cause I'm always busting on her anyway, but since you brought it up, not ONLY is it insensitive, but downright insulting to presume someone must be emotionally damaged for wanting a child of their own. I think an apology is in order.... (although most likely we'll get some sort of back-spin)

Although it must really chap her arse that someone who is adopted would choose to have their own child 1st... :lol: It's like sticking a 5 1/4" floppy into the CD rom, it just doesn't compute for her... Oh well, since it appears she won't be having children of her own, her genetics are sure not to be passed on... How's THAT for insensitive? :lol: