BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids which is easier to get?

tubes tied or a vesectomy?

I have asked every dr I have ever had since I was 18 to get my tubes tied and they all say the same thing I have to be 35 or have two kids.... So my husband brought up Vasectomies. Is it easier for a man to go and get this done then for a woman to get her tubes tied?

I dont want to get pregnat because of health reasons and I have had many Doctors tell me that I cant get pregant and carrry a baby ful term but in the same breath they turn around and tell me that they wont tie my tubes until I have 2 kids.

My husband doesnt have any kids so will they tell him the same thing they told me?

Vasectomy. At least it was for most people I know. Men w/o kids were able to get a V younger than women w/o kids were able to get a tubal.

Vasectomy: less time, less expensive, less hassle with the doctor. less post-op complication or recoup time. Double standard is alive and well, isn't it?

I think it's also less "body interfering" for a man to have a vasectomy than for a woman to have her tubes tied, in terms of hormones and so on. So I think it's actually the more healthy choice for a couple. Also in terms of the risk involved.

I know several men who had vasectomies who are very active sexually and very happy with their choice.

I think I'd go with the vasectomy as easiest - I know a woman who had abdominal complications from tubal ligation.

I was thinking the same things myself. my husband is almost 50 so there shouldnt* be any your too young to have this done where I am almost 30 and the dr think at my age I will hear that clock ticking any day now.... I think my hubby is going to the dr in the next few days so we will see....

I asked about having my tubes tied. My doctor said it would never happen because I don't have kids. Then she gave me a referral for my fiance to have a vasectomy.

Three weeks later it was done.

cool! Congrats I wonder what the difference is? Why is it that men can have say over things like this but women cant? isnt that discrimination?

I don't understand why women can't have this surgery if they want. Do they do it for men because it can be reversed easier and they give women a hard time becase it can't be reversed?

Besides liking the idea of the man doing it anyway because it is less invasive (and the whole hormone thing, we really did get the raw end of the deal there), I still think it is discriminatory to women to not have the right. I don't understand how you can let women have abortions, but you won't let them tie their tubes.

It seems like this could be perfect for a class action suit or something. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if that is the right suit or not. LOL

Freespirit, especially for health reasons you'd think they would do this. Or is it only legal for the mentally disabled?

My next question, is does insurance cover either surgery? In particular the vesectomy? LOL, I'm not going under the knive again.

MOST Insurinces would rather pay one time to starilize a person then pay a out the medical fees of havind a baby and the medical care of the child although they may be able to get paid for having the kid on the insureince there is so much goverment help out there that the parents maynot pay out to have the child covered until there is something really wrong with them. So it is more fesible to have non parents or parents tied off then to let them have kids that they maynot want. it is also better health wise. if the mother has rick factors then the baby may have problems as well so getting tied is cheaper then havind sick mom and baby bills to pay out.

It is the same reason insurinces are starting to come around to alternative care and preventive care. if the person has back pain and they can be helped or cured completely by massage and chiropractors in a few months that is better then paying for surgury and pain pills that will cause more damage later down the road.