I haven't, and the link didn't work. Though it does seem strange (and revealing) that tubal ligations are not as readily available as vasectomies.

But that Project Prevention group seem even more disturbing.

It was optional though, right? With the exception of the rogue hospital? These women were given a choice.

Less crack-addicted babies is bad, how? Isn't the drugged-out mother, minority or otherwise, just as much to blame for taking money as the person offering? Or does the act of being a drugged-up mess absolve one of not only all kid-related responsibilites but financial ones as well?

Too many people/kids and people/kids having babies for no good reason. Anyone willing to take money to stop procreating should be given the operation, a medal and a lollipop.

I do not want children. I had a vasectomy two years ago. The urologist who performed the surgery was herself a childless person who didn't give me the interrogation that I was expecting.

My brother had the exact procedure (except for the use of a laser) done many years earlier. Even though he already had two kids - it required a consultation and what he remembers as a two week "cooling off" period where he could think about whether or not he's done having children. His doctor tried relentlessly talking him out of it.

I don't know if it's a true gender bias for women because I wasn't born with ovaries (although...that WOULD explain those strange pains below my abdomen). It's possible that the cases cited are more about the individual doctor rather than anything else.

I don't know, I'd be more inclined to put the lion's share of the blame with the person that is dangerously manipulating someone in a vulnerable position.

You know, if I walked into a hospital and asked for someone to chop off my perfectly healthy left hand, I'd have a hard time convincing a doctor to do it. With the bizarre exception of plastic surgery, doctors are loathe to perform any operation that isn't for health reasons, particularly one that permanently stops any healthy part of the body from working.

Here.

I guess I'm assuming that the small percentage of people who actually 1) want to get clean, 2) manage the near impossible task of doing so, and 3) stay clean and eventually decide to bring a kid into this world, are probably strong enough people to turn down the money in the first place...

I dunno - I don't think they're big on giving 20 yr old guys vasectomies either, altho that is vaguely more reversable...

I've heard from a lot of women that they found it very-difficult-to-impossible to get their tubes tied before the age of 30. It made me realize how cool my OB/GYN was. I was 29, and heard no objection from my doctor, when I had mine done. I have (and only ever wanted) one child.

Are you 27? 33? 40? Do you act the same way and want exactly the same things that you did when you were 19 or 20?

No.

Not really.

When more informed and intelligent people begin to give less preeminence to "what I want" and more weight to "what the planet will bear" (i.e. does Earth really need one more human?), we may expect many changes for the better of all. In the meantime, let no one interfere with our sacrosanct "freedoms of choice" - be it the choice to have a baby, eat veal, or drive a SUV.

why not just not have the operation but use protection, then you dont have kids and also dont get nice fun dieses...sorry to obv?

A+

I myself cannot have children, and I couldn't be happier. Now, trying to have a malfunctioning uterus removed before the age of 40 is a much loftier task than getting your tubes tied, alas, that is a completely different ballgame.

PLEASE other people, stop having babies, bc I bred a whole ton of them.

Meanwhile, apesamongus that is funny that you said Dr.'s wouldn't want to perform this operation bc it isn't for health reasons? You must not have a woman friend and must not know of the trials and tribulations of having active reporductive organs and the hassles, side effects, failures and medical consequences of birth control...