If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message oups.com... LOL Fair enough! I *do* wonder how they gather their info, though. Probably a longish term trial study where they track women and calculate the numbers from how many women get pregnant. Jess |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Nikki" wrote in message
... Circe wrote: "Catherine Woodgold" wrote in message ... "Circe" ) writes: I'm not opposed to vasectomies; I'm just opposed to forcing anybody to undergo a surgical procedure (or have an IUD or take BCPs or anything else) against their will. There are nearly always other alternatives. Nobody's being forced into anything. There's always abstinence. Well, there's "force" and there's "force". Telling your spouse you're not going to have sex with him/her any more until he/she does X is a form of coercion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling herself. Telling your spouse you are unwilling to do anything about birth control is just as forceful. It is just more passive. If Bob and Sally have a healthy sex life and want no more kids and Bob tells Sally that he will not partake in any type of birth control he is forcing Sally into a few options a) take care of it herself, b) risk pregnancy, c) avoid sex. In each of those cases Bob has forced Sally's hand, IMO, unless they have mutually agreed on one of those as a good solution for both of them. Lets say that there is no mutual agreement though. I take it most people here do not feel that the first option is any big deal as long as it is applied to the woman and not the man simply because she has more options to choose from. The second two choices are then bounced back and make the woman look like the manipulator. No, it's not a matter of the woman being the manipulator and the man not being one, it's just a matter of life not always being fair. It is not fair that there are only two methods of birth control that men control, and that of those, one is both surgical and permanent. It is not fair that only women get pregnant and give birth. It is not fair that a woman who IS pregnant has the final say on whether to terminate that pregnancy or not. What I think I am trying to say is that it is wrong-headed to go into a discussion about a decision that affects both partners in unequal ways with the idea that you can MAKE it "fair". You can't. In a situation like the one you've just described, Sally is responsible for what Sally chooses to do (or not do) and Bob is responsible for what Bob chooses to do (or not to). The CONSEQUENCE of those choices affects them both (although in different ways), but each person can only be responsible for what he/she is responsible for. So, in this scenario, Sally and Bob sit down and discuss what each is willing (or not willing) to do. If Sally states that she would prefer to risk pregnancy than to use contraceptives herself or have no sex, Bob gets to decide whether that changes his decisions about using contraceptives himself or having sex himself. If neither of them is willing to use contraception or stop having sex, then they will likely wind up having more children, but it will be a MUTUAL decision (because BOTH of them decided what each was willing to do based on what the other was willing to do). It may not be the choice either would have preferred (Sally might prefer Bob get the snip and Bob might prefer that Sally use contraceptives) and if may affect Sally in a more direct way (at least initially) than Bob, but in the end, it IS a mutual decision. BOTH of them are having their hands forced EQUALLY, IMO, although the choices each one has may not be deemed to be "fair" by either party. Marriages in which both parties expect absolute parity on every issue are doomed to failure. In all marriages, there are times when one party does "more" than the other. Attempts to keep a mental balance sheet to somehow ensure that each person does his/her "fair share" always lead to one or both parties feeling certain that he/she is doing "more" than the other. The recipe for success in a marriage is to do and give all you *can* do and give; no more and no less. It doesn't mean there won't be times when each partner feels some resentment that he/she is doing "more" than the other or "not a fair share", but if either partner starts thinking that way for too long, there will be problems. (Recent events in my 16-year marriage have driven this point home to me in ways I am not prepared to go into here, but suffice it to say that both my husband and I needed an attitude adjustment and we got it!) -- Be well, Barbara |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Circe" wrote in message news:j7Cqf.179$sA3.87@fed1read02... Of course, if there was no string at all, you wouldn't have any way to be sure it hadn't been ejected at some point (not that that's very likely after the first few months or so). I'm not exactly sure how they get it out when there's no string, either, although I'm sure they can since the strings migrating up into the uterus isn't unheard of. You would *feel* it if it expelled or perforated. It's embedded in the wall. As far as getting it out-I made the mistake of looking at the pointy he used to insert it, and I decided not to ask. Jess |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
oups.com... Circe wrote: "Cathy Weeks" wrote in message oups.com... Circe wrote: The Copper-T (which I have) is 99.2% effective in actual use. The Mirena is closer to 98% effective. (I didn't know there was that significant a difference until I looked it up just now. I wonder why the Mirena is so much less effective?) I think you should probably trust numbers from an independent website. Those statistics are from the FDA's site, which one would think would be pretty independent! LOL Fair enough! I *do* wonder how they gather their info, though. Yeah, I'm not sure, either. After looking at that one, I checked Planned Parenthood's site and they quoted a 0.1% failure rate for the Mirena in both actual and "perfect" use. So I don't know where the numbers on the FDA's site came from. -- Be well, Barbara |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Cathy Weeks wrote:
What I objected to, is that it *seemed* like she had decided he *was* going to have a vasectomy, whether he liked it or not. I didn't take that away from the conversation because short of clubbing him over the head and hauling him in I'm not sure how she'd manage that :-) To be quite honest, neither is a particularly good situation. That is the truest statement in this thread. So, he has to decide which is worse - occasonally getting poked, and paying probably $1500 over the next 15 years or so to get them, or getting a free vasectomy. And for him, the jury is pretty much out still. Lucky for you guys there does seem to be a few different options open to you and while they might not be the ideal for either one of you, they are all acceptable to both of you. I know an awful lot of women who are squicked by having a foreign object inserted into their uteruses, and so they dismiss it out of hand. Why is that any different than a man being squicked by scalpels near his testicles? I don't know. I'm probably not thinking it through well enough. It just seems different to have something in you for years versus a procedure that is over in a short bit. There are quite a few things that totally squick me out that I do because I feel they are necessary and are over in a short bit so I put up with them. All the pregnancy stuff, pap smears, I'll need a colonoscopy in the next few years etc. All are awful shiver. I think it would be irresponsible of me to just dismiss them because I was squicked. It is my duty to my family to do what I can to deliver healthy babies and live long enough to raise them. If that's the case - I'm not sure that his getting a V is a good idea. Fertility depends on him, too, unless of course you are thinking ahead to his demise. (I'm kidding - please don't take offense!) ;-) Hee hee. We've never discussed the V. It hasn't been anything I've interested in, nor he AFAIK. Having said that if he was 100% sure he wanted no more kids ever and felt strongly that an accidental pregancy would be a very bad thing, I wouldn't stop him (or try to convince him) to not get it. I hope you don't mind my asking - but what method *did* you agree on? Condoms. Not his favorite, nor mine really, but the best of all our choices and we both agreed on it without any drama. We were always planning a third pregnancy so the reliability thing wasn't huge. This pregnancy did come about 6mos earlier then planned but they worked for us for many many years. I'm not sure how he'll feel after this pregnancy since we get two for the trouble :-) That is why we'll have to have a more intense discussion. We seem to be very compatible in the fertility department as it only took one actual time for us to conceive all three times so effectiveness is certainly part of the equation. It will really depend on how strongly he feels that he is done with having children. -- Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 Thing One and Thing Two :-) EDD 4/06 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message
oups.com... Hillary Israeli wrote: That's how mine was - the tip of the string was flush with the cervical os. You couldn't trim it any shorter - he TRIED, but it just wasn't possible. My poor husband said it felt like a razor poking him. It's much better now with the length about 2 cm past the os. Neither of us is bothered by it at all. Hmmmm... I wonder if Chris does decide against a V, if we can find a better length for the strings? And why couldn't the strings be removed entirely? Like before the thing is even inserted? If there's no string, then there's nothing to poke, right? Of course, if there was no string at all, you wouldn't have any way to be sure it hadn't been ejected at some point (not that that's very likely after the first few months or so). I'm not exactly sure how they get it out when there's no string, either, although I'm sure they can since the strings migrating up into the uterus isn't unheard of. -- Be well, Barbara |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Circe wrote:
What I think I am trying to say is that it is wrong-headed to go into a discussion about a decision that affects both partners in unequal ways with the idea that you can MAKE it "fair". You can't. My views aren't really driven by 'fairness' either. Even if men had an arsenal of birth control options open to them we are the one's who are pregnant and that will never change...which I'm secretly kind of glad about ;-) In a situation like the one you've just described, Sally is responsible for what Sally chooses to do (or not do) and Bob is responsible for what Bob chooses to do (or not to). The CONSEQUENCE of those choices affects them both (although in different ways), but each person can only be responsible for what he/she is responsible for. Yes. I'm just saying that in real life it doesn't seem that woman are given much respect when making their decisions. I'm not saying forcing a man to have a V is the right thing, just that his decision to refuse one seems to be given the utmost respect regardless of the factors behind it and that woman just need to find some method of birth control that works for them *yet keeps their husbands happy and marriage stable*. It is just a disparity and perhaps always will be but that doesn't mean I have to like it ;-) Marriages in which both parties expect absolute parity on every issue are doomed to failure. In all marriages, there are times when one party does "more" than the other. I think all intact marriages are living proof of that! It also depends on what sacrifices one is willing to make for the sake of their partner, marriage, and family. -- Nikki Hunter 4/99 Luke 4/01 Thing One and Thing Two :-) EDD 4/06 |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
"Jess" wrote in message
news:kDCqf.6737$NS.2524@dukeread04... "Circe" wrote in message news:j7Cqf.179$sA3.87@fed1read02... Of course, if there was no string at all, you wouldn't have any way to be sure it hadn't been ejected at some point (not that that's very likely after the first few months or so). I'm not exactly sure how they get it out when there's no string, either, although I'm sure they can since the strings migrating up into the uterus isn't unheard of. You would *feel* it if it expelled or perforated. It's embedded in the wall. I'm not 100% sure that's true. A fair number of IUD pregnancies apparently occur because the device was expelled without the wearer's knowledge. Also, I don't believe that the IUD is supposed to be embedded in the uterine except in the case of one brand (called the Gynefix, which I've never heard of before). An IUD that has accidentally become embedded in the wall is actually cited as a common reason for problems with removal. As far as getting it out-I made the mistake of looking at the pointy he used to insert it, and I decided not to ask. LOL. -- Be well, Barbara |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
In ltCqf.6734$NS.3243@dukeread04,
Jess wrote: * *"Cathy Weeks" wrote in message roups.com... * Hmmmm... I wonder if Chris does decide against a V, if we can find a * better length for the strings? And why couldn't the strings be removed * entirely? Like before the thing is even inserted? If there's no * string, then there's nothing to poke, right? * *My doc left the strings long for the first month because if I did a partial *expulsion or it tried to perforate, he figured having the strings there *would be better than not. Once that first month passed, he snipped 'em all *the way down. "all the way down" to where? Surely he couldn't have trimmed them so that they were shorter than flush with the opening of the cervix, unless he dilated your cervix? Because you can't open scissors inside the cervical canal really. Oh ouch it hurts to think of it... -- Hillary Israeli, VMD Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." --Groucho Marx |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Amy wrote: Hell, if reversals were easier, I'd have him get one now, and we could reverse it when it's time for the spare. I kind of wish they could install a little faucet on 'em, so if we want the swimmers on, they're on, and if we want 'em off, they're off. Hot and cold running sperm. Hahhaa... You mean they should install a stopcock? ;-) --Helen |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Feeling a big anxious about induction vs. c-section | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 66 | September 29th 05 04:07 PM |
Medical Illustrators to the rescue! (I hope) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | April 21st 04 05:54 PM |
Why my baby? Attorneys trolling bad births - GOOD...UBPN silence - BAD... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 14th 04 11:13 PM |
Arnold! (also: Channeling Gastaldo) (also: chiros/SACA/WFC) (also: Warning about usenet MDs) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 9th 03 09:21 PM |
Birth spikes (Do Jamaican women birth on their butts/backs?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 23rd 03 06:59 PM |