New Abortion Restrictions Driving Sterilizations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padres1969
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For many insurance coverage is how they can pay for such things. Besides the matter of government overreaching into private healthcare.
 
Padres1969 said:
Thought this might be an interesting food for thought topic that I came across quite by surprise this week.

Full disclosure I’m in that oft criticized Millennial generation, albeit at the oldest edges of it as are many of my acquaintances give or take a half dozen years or more on either side. And most are quite liberal in their views. However I came across a trend among several I wasn’t aware of until just this week. In light of the recent moves by several states to effectively ban abortion (since virtually all pregnancies, particularly unwanted ones, are not discovered until after 6 weeks), and States like Ohio going even further and trying to ban most birth control like IUDs and the Pill… that several acquaintances are electing to be sterilized lest they be forced to carry a baby against their will. No less than 5 in just the last 24 hours have made it known they have tubal ligations or vasectomies that have been recently performed or scheduled. The number who’ve been driven to this quite frankly shocked me.

Made me wonder what the response to that would be here that laws (which will almost certainly be struck down anyway) are driving people into surgeries to protect themselves from what they are expressing as our drive to dystopia.
Click to expand...
A few thoughts

Abortion is an act chosen to end life that is there, sterilization is an act chosen to prevent life from even beginning.

AND God teaches

Dt 30:

19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days,

All life is constant choice. It’s what God gives us, and He will judge us on, the choices we made.
 
Last edited:
$4 or even $10 a month is very easy to come by. If someone is low income and truly can’t get $4-10 extra a month, family planning supplies of all sorts are passed out free at all local health departments. It is hardly an inconvenience or a tragedy if insurance doesn’t cover the cost. For a huge amount of the US, their copay is more expensive for prescriptions than $10. Our copay is up to $30 and often I pay full price for medicines because the price is well under $30. I just picked up amoxicillin for my baby and it was $3.46 (full price at Walmart)
 
None of which matters in the slightest whether a doctor could morally provide a sterillization on account of an obviously irrational fear, which has lasting and dramatic consequences, especially if she should change her mind down the road. Granting that there are even a noteworthy number of women who actually are that rash, still the doctors have a duty and moral obligation not to be. Hence why I said any doctor providing a sterillization under such ridiculous pretexts should have their license to practice taken away. It’s a rather blatant violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
 
I have a friend with no children, no gf or wife back then who had a vasectomy in his late 20s. He had to visit multiple doctors before finding one who would do it, and that one made him wait a few weeks.

Catholic theology aside it isn’t a rash decision to be made. Presumably the permanence of this is discussed during consultation and a number of doctors do not do certain procedures on those who haven’t had children.
 
Okay, so we can set aside your earlier post about the number of people who want this done. That’s not a factor for you.

I pointed this out in one of my earlier responses to you. Having a child is just as much a no-turning-back situation as sterilization. That means we can toss aside the argument that one shouldn’t be allowed to become sterile because it is permanent.

You claim that sterilization violates the Hippocratic Oath, specifically that it does harm. The thing is some people would be more harmed by having a child than becoming sterile. I wish more people would consider whether they truly want children before having them. Parenting can be one of the greatest most loving things to happen a person, but it’s not for everyone. Some people just don’t feel that way. Again, maturity comes first from realizing that what might work for me may not work for others. Even parents who love and adore their children will readily admit that it is also the toughest job they’ve ever had. Imagine doing that, raising a child, without the want or desire of having the child.
 
Very true. I was watching something the other day with my older kids and it dawned on me how much worse in many ways the high schools were in the 1980’s than they are today.

I don’t think worse is quite accurate. Definitely each generations has their problems. Some never change and others disappear while some new are introduced. I am not sure any generation is better or worse, but certainly different.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Okay, so we can set aside your earlier post about the number of people who want this done. That’s not a factor for you.
Click to expand...
Except
Granting that there are even a noteworthy number of women who actually are that rash…
Click to expand...
Mike_from_NJ said:
Having a child is just as much a no-turning-back situation as sterilization.
Click to expand...
Were you also the one who compared sterillization to fire insurance? Because it’s the same thing: a woman risks permanently being incapable of ever having a child if she sterillizes. To do so on the basis of an irrational fear of being impregnated because of a rape (even when contraception is still available, from a doctor’s perspective, making it all the more irrational) is just irrational. Further, a woman who chooses to have a child can abstain from having further children: if she sterillizes herself, and changes her mind later, she may never be able to have a child. So even in the very example you gave there is in fact no analogy.
Mike_from_NJ said:
some people would be more harmed by having a child than becoming sterile.
Click to expand...
And they would be even much worse harmed if they ever changed their mind and discovered because of sterillization they aren’t able to have any children. So again it is once again prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath.

No one denies that parenting is a lot of work. But can you compare that to the pain and distress and anguish in a woman who must live with the fact that she deprived herself of ever having children by her own choice should she choose to have them, and find she cannot? Could any doctor seriously excuse themselves from any guilt or responsibility for sterillizing a woman when he or she knew perfectly full well the obvious possibility they may change their minds and want to have children and the riskiness and uncertainty of success in an attempt to reverse the procedure?
 
SeraficLeo said:
To do so on the basis of an irrational fear of being impregnated because of a rape (even when contraception is still available, from a doctor’s perspective, making it all the more irrational) is just irrational.
Click to expand...
Not sure where or when the rape scenario was introduced into the thread. Most people who get sterilized do so due to their very personal, rational fear of becoming pregnant.

I don’t think it is really a realm where we should be deciding what a rational fear is or isn’t for someone. If someone fears having children, I am willing to give that Person the benefit of the doubt that it is a rational fear. I have no clue as to why they have that fear, and because it is such a personal thing, it isn’t my business.
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy

4h

Padres1969:
Ever bought meds at full price? And what business is it of the government as it pertains to private health coverage?
Click to expand...
Sildinafil, generic Viagra, is about a dollar a pill, or so I’m told on numerous emails a day, ads and radio commercials that I hear daily. Viagra I think was uncovered at somewhere near 100 a pill. So much so that a black market existed for Viagra that rivaled Extacy. Now, that is gone and it is cheap**. so a generic version of a popular blood thinner Warfarin is extremely cheap, maybe 8 dollars a month where the newer different drugs like xaralto or lovenox or eloquis run my wife around 1100 a month…

The point is that the market will dictate availability. Offering a drug off insurance is about the fastest way to get prices down…

My wife is on Eliquis…to get it here in the US is around $530 a month…she gets it through a pharmacy in Canada…the cost…$230 a month…they ship it from overseas …it’s the same drug manufactured by the same company as here in the US…same ingredients…may be packaged differently or the pills may be a different color…that’s it…big pharma companies here put fear into people claiming all sorts of horror stories…my wife has been getting them for the last year…her AF has been stable all that time…her heart specialist is perfectly happy with her…
 
Those Boomers had lobster and prime rib then left us the bill.
 
Only because the Greatest Generation raised the Baby Boomers poorly who in turn led Generation X astray thereby putting Millennials at a disadvantage.

Now, my Generation must Save the world and Generation Z. 🙂
 
Padres1969 said:
I mean that… or if they just don’t want kids. A not uncommon position among my generation. A bit over a third of my friends have absolutely no interest in children, with most of those outright hating kids and actively avoiding them when even forced into the same room. And again these aren’t young twenty somethings, but folks in their late 30’s and early 40’s.
Click to expand...
In that case why did it take the law (or fear of Roe v Wade being overturned) for them to get steralized? If I did not want children and believed sterilization was moral, legal, and affordable for me I would get sterilized regardless of the law on contraception and abortion.
 
As I understand it, the laws on the table about IUDs and the Pill would simply keep them from being covered by private insurance. It doesn’t amount to a ban. Just means that it may now cost people more money.

But setting that aside, people are gravely sinning either way whether they’re having surgeries, using contraceptives or having abortions. So at most the laws are causing them to commit grave sin A rather than grave sin B. If they’d simply look at their lives and live right, then they wouldn’t be “driven” to commit anything.
 
Last edited:
Padres1969 said:
Their fear of coming changes that would force their having a baby against their will in no way equates or relates to my second comment which is refuting the concept that all women want children.
Click to expand...
Who said “all women want children”? I know plenty of women who weren’t jazzed on the idea or decided they wanted something else more than children.
They handle it in a variety of ways. The most foolproof way is to simply not have sex. Works for lots of women including those in religious life.

The real issue here is that all these people want to be able to have sex regularly without a risk of procreation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top