When I had my vasectomy, I thought it was going to be a much bigger deal than it actually was. I thought I'd be made to do 6 weeks of psychotherapy or something, to make sure it wasn't a rash decision or that I wasn't in my right mind.

What actually happened is the doctor asked me, "You realise this means you won't be able to have children, and that reversing the procedure isn't always effective?" I said "Yes" and signed a document to that effect. Half an hour later he was hacking away at my balls.

Eventually I felt a sense of relief. It wasn't really bad, not as bad as I would have imagined, it was more the thought of it than anything else. It was finally over and I could relax.

"That's one done, I'm just moving to the next one now."

Fuck! How could I have forgotten how many balls I have?

The after effects weren't nearly as bad as I thought either. I had a bag of frozen peas on my lap for a day or so, and the odd twinge, but apart from that it went smoothly. I'd recommend it. 4 stars out of 5.

(August 7, 2015 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: When I had my vasectomy, I thought it was going to be a much bigger deal than it actually was. I thought I'd be made to do 6 weeks of psychotherapy or something, to make sure it wasn't a rash decision or that I wasn't in my right mind.

What actually happened is the doctor asked me, "You realise this means you won't be able to have children, and that reversing the procedure isn't always effective?" I said "Yes" and signed a document to that effect. Half an hour later he was hacking away at my balls.

Eventually I felt a sense of relief. It wasn't really bad, not as bad as I would have imagined, it was more the thought of it than anything else. It was finally over and I could relax.

"That's one done, I'm just moving to the next one now."

Fuck! How could I have forgotten how many balls I have?

The after effects weren't nearly as bad as I thought either. I had a bag of frozen peas on my lap for a day or so, and the odd twinge, but apart from that it went smoothly. I'd recommend it. 4 stars out of 5.

I had the same experience Rob!  It's not as bad as I thought.  Do it on a Friday afternoon and back to work on Monday with no issues.

Nice Yeah, I'm sure the techniques have got better. It probably used to be a bastard.

It's an awesome feeling to never have to worry about any accidents happening. It would be ridiculous of me to have children anyway given all my health issues I am likely to pass along to it.

(August 7, 2015 at 3:48 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It's not the end result that we think is immoral, it's the act itself.

If you need $10 you can either attain it by stealing, or by shoveling snow off your neighbor's driveway. The end result is the same... you got $10.

Likewise, it's not having a kid that we think is immoral (obviously lol), it's the means by which you went about it.

That is the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read regarding an objection to IVF.

If you disagree with the means, fair enough. However, to date, you have failed consistently to provide a valid or even comprehensible reason to this general membership as to why you hold this objection. "Because reasons" is all I can deduce at the moment.

I can only conclude back to my original conclusions regarding the knee-jerk to 'It's sinful (or whatever)' when confronted with an ambiguity following on from technological advance.

That may be because it wasn't an analogy to show an objection to IVF, per se. You have to remember where that analogy originated from. Someone said they don't understand what the problem is with IVF if the end result is the same as having sex (...that you get a kid).

My analogy was simply to show that there can be a right and wrong way of going about the same end result.

That's all that was.

I have several times now given my reasons as for why I think IVF is wrong, so I don't think it's fair for you to say that I have not. I will try to look for one of them and repost it.

(August 7, 2015 at 5:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 3:48 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: That is the most ridiculous analogy I've ever read regarding an objection to IVF.

If you disagree with the means, fair enough. However, to date, you have failed consistently to provide a valid or even comprehensible reason to this general membership as to why you hold this objection. "Because reasons" is all I can deduce at the moment.

I can only conclude back to my original conclusions regarding the knee-jerk to 'It's sinful (or whatever)' when confronted with an ambiguity following on from technological advance.

That may be because it wasn't an analogy to show an objection to IVF, per se. You have to remember where that analogy originated from. Someone said they don't understand what the problem is with IVF if the end result is the same as having sex - you have a kid.

My analogy was simply to show that there can be a right and wrong way of going about the same end result.

That's all that was.

I have several times now given my reasons as for why I think IVF is wrong, so I don't think it's fair for you to say that I have not. I will try to look for one of them and repost it.

Here was the first time I addressed it:

(August 5, 2015 at 5:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The short answer is this:

We believe reproduction is a very sacred act. And as all things sacred, we believe it should be guarded and protected and kept in the purity of its natural form. We think if a couple can't conceive, the more moral thing would be to adopt and give a home to one of the many homeless children of the world.

I later, in multiple other posts, added to this by saying that by "reproduction" we mean the actual conception... the actual joining of egg and sperm, which is the fixed point when a new human life begins.

Since we think human life is sacred, and thus the creation of human life is sacred, we believe it should remain guarded and protected in the confines of sexual intercourse. Remember, we also think sex is sacred. As is marriage, and as is the love between husband and wife. We think something as sacred as human life should come from a place that is equally as sacred - the lovemaking between husband and wife, where a human being can come into this world through love, literally.

We don't think masturbating into a jar and then having a stranger join sperm and egg together on a petri dish in a medical office, is the proper context for such a sacred thing as the beginning of new human life to take place.

Of course, none of this can even begin to make sense to you if you don't think human life is sacred, if you don't think sex is sacred, and if you don't think the love between husband and wife and marriage is sacred lol. But we do. So you have to see it through our lenses if you're genuinely trying to understand where we are coming from.

....And everyone else should be sick of reading this because I've already typed it out so many times lol. But I keep getting accused of not, and I keep getting asked the same questions, so that's why here it is, once again. My apologies lol.

If creating life were so sacred, God wouldn't fuck it up all the time for so many people. Infertility, miscarriages, doesn't look very sacred to me.

(August 7, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Alex K Wrote: If creating life were so sacred, God wouldn't fuck it up all the time for so many people. Infertility, miscarriages, doesn't look very sacred to me.

Some Christians will say to punish people.

But that is not what Catholicism teaches, and I personally think it's simply God letting nature take its coarse. That includes diseases, accidents, disorders, etc. I don't believe God functions as a micromanager.

(August 7, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 6:32 pm)Alex K Wrote: If creating life were so sacred, God wouldn't fuck it up all the time for so many people. Infertility, miscarriages, doesn't look very sacred to me.

Some Christians will say to punish people.

But that is not what Catholicism teaches, and I personally think it's simply God letting nature take its coarse. That includes diseases, accidents, disorders, etc. I don't believe God functions as a micromanager.

Is that how God shows us how sacred certain things are, by letting cruel dispassionate nature take its course in their fulfilment...

(August 7, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(August 7, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Some Christians will say to punish people.

But that is not what Catholicism teaches, and I personally think it's simply God letting nature take its coarse. That includes diseases, accidents, disorders, etc. I don't believe God functions as a micromanager.

Is that how God shows us how sacred certain things are, by letting cruel dispassionate nature take its course in their fulfilment...

No.

(August 6, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 1:45 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: No, as it happens, I can't.

The end result is exactly the same whether it's through actual intercourse or insertion of the fertilised eggs into the womb.

The difference is entirely arbitrary and moral objections to IVF appear to be an objection for objection's sake of to save face in the light of ambiguity of dogma and/or doctrine When confronted with technological advance.

Hell just have sex before/after the procedure and pretend. The procedure at least has a guaranteed % chance of starting the process (in that the sperm has met the egg) 'Normal' intercourse is hit and miss *at best*.

It's not the end result that we think is immoral, it's the act itself.

If you need $10 you can either attain it by stealing, or by shoveling snow off your neighbor's driveway. The end result is the same... you got $10.

Likewise, it's not having a kid that we think is immoral (obviously lol), it's the means by which you went about it.

You won't get a kid by shoveling snow.  Better brush up on biology.