... sterilization?
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists weighed in on the topic last year with an updated policy statement on the benefits and risks of sterilization. The statement concludes that it's both a safe and effective means of permanent birth control. "Women who have completed their childbearing are candidates for sterilization," it says — without elaborating on what, precisely, that means. Does it refer to women who have already had a child, or several, and have now decided they're done? Or could that category also include an 18-year-old woman who has determined she's "completed" before ever getting started?
A major area of focus for ACOG, and the OB-GYNs it seeks to counsel, is the question of regret....
Via
Metafilter, where somebody says:
Kinda don't get why this is so controversial - there's nothing like the same sort of outrage over guys getting their tubes tied, even if they do it young.
(I joke, of course I know that endemic sexism is why.)
And somebody responds:
I think it's worth saying out loud, nevertheless: the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men. A young woman wanting her tubes tied is explicitly refusing to cooperate with her assigned role, and that is not looked kindly upon by the men who take it upon themselves to regulate women's bodies.
Should young minds be making such permanent decisions? Here's a BBC article
"Is 25 the new cut-off point for adulthood?"
"Neuroscience has made these massive advances where we now don't think that things just stop at a certain age, that actually there's evidence of brain development well into early twenties and that actually the time at which things stop is much later than we first thought," says [child psychologist Laverne] Antrobus.
One usually sees this sort of expert opinion in the context of discussions of criminal sentencing, but it sprang to my mind as I read about a woman "explicitly refusing to cooperate with her assigned role" and resisting "the men who take it upon themselves to regulate
women's bodies." That sounds as though it might be a somewhat immature way of thinking about your personal life, a temporary stage that you might develop beyond. But the decision to have a child is also permanent, and we completely accept young minds making that decision, and tubal ligation can be reversed (and IVF is also still possible).
पोस्ट्स
८६ टिप्पण्या:
When the government runs out of other people's money, you'll be glad you had some kids to help take care of you when you're old.
Remember, the principle of bodily autonomy includes people refusing to take care of their non relatives.
Yeah. That's what this world needs. More old spinsters hoarding cats.
But the decision to have a child is also permanent, and we completely accept young minds making that decision, and tubal ligation can be reversed (and IVF is also still possible).
Well, the way it really works it's only "permanent" if you are a man. And the only way you have a right to make that "decision" in the first place is if you are a woman.
...and when she turns 30, and realizes that maybe a couple of kids would be nice??
She's going to sue the physician that sterilized her.
A young woman having her tubes tied seems to be a good example of someone available for sex and with no risk for the men of being expected to pay child support for a child that was not their choice. I expect a number of professional athletes, like Adrian Peterson, would be enthusiastic about this.
Oh, that dreaded patriarchy! The Horror! The horror...
When I was a young doctor, the County Hospital would offer tubal ligation immediately post partum to women who had had four or more children. It was really easy to do the procedure then with the uterus still large and the next time they would be seen by a doctor was when they were in labor with the next baby.
The Democrats in California considered this anti-something and passed a law that banned the practice and there was a mini-scandal about the practice in the newspapers in Los Angeles. I believe the entire OB department was fired.
I see the Democrats have changed their minds. Good to know.
Oh, that dreaded patriarchy! The Horror! The horror...
Yes she should. People often make decisions they come to regret. Better than having multiple abortions.
Restrains on self destruction among the young seems so Patriarchal.
If we think of this sterilization as an early stage of the highest ethical standards of a Death Panel management of our surplus people problem, then it will be approved immediately.
I see the Democrats have changed their minds. Good to know.
Technically they just changed it back. Progressives have long been fans of sterilization, as long as the "wrong" sort of people were the ones being sterilized.
It's hard to imagine anyone arguing that women don't have the right to be sterilized at any age they choose, particularly given the political movement that encourages them to slaughter their offspring while still in the womb.
Among the arguments for: a. Early sterilization of women with this mindset will likely diminish the number of abortions; b. If, indeed, a women decides she is "completed" at such an early age, it is probable that the world will suffer little by the loss of her progeny.
I'm straining to see why self-selection for extinction from the gene pool is bad for humanity.
Does a wife have to get her husband's permission before being sterialized? In some states such as California, a husband has to get his wife's permission before he can get a vasectomy. Tell me again about the patriarchy and laugh once more. The patriarchy is a convienent excuse for whenever a woman fails to "have it all." I don't know any man who was told he could have it all, but then, men have responsibilities while women have rights.
And somebody responds:
I think it's worth saying out loud, nevertheless: the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men. A young woman wanting her tubes tied is explicitly refusing to cooperate with her assigned role, and that is not looked kindly upon by the men who take it upon themselves to regulate women's bodies.
Ah, yet another example of "not thinking a position through".
One could just as easily say: "A young woman wanting her tubes tied is explicitly saying that she is now reserved exclusively for the sexual pleasure of men". That doesn't sound particularly empowering to me.
Did that person even think before they wrote?
"the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men. A young woman wanting her tubes tied is explicitly refusing to cooperate with her assigned role, and that is not looked kindly upon by the men who take it upon themselves to regulate women's bodies."
A woman wanting her tubes tied is almost certainly not doing so as a refusal to provide sexual pleasure to men.
I wish the people spouting this bullshit paid as much attention to themselves as they want me to pay it.
The Vagina as Fascist State fully supports sterilization if it meets the woman's needs. However, the woman should be counseled that she will be removing herself from the emotional fulfillment and empowerment of having a future abortion, the ultimate expression of a woman's freedom from the Patriarchy.
"Does a wife have to get her husband's permission before being sterialized? In some states such as California,…"
That was the California law that stopped the postpartum tubals. Of course, the "husband" was never seen.
It is sad for a young woman to be sterilized, but I would not prevent her from making the decision.
Sometimes I think feminism was invented by men.
Let's see, sex without commitment. Got it.
Abortion, just in case birth control fails or we fail to use it. Gets a man off the hook of being a father. Got that.
Tubes tied at a young age so there's not even a chance to get pregnant. Score this for men too. Have unprotected sex all you want, no kid will result. Should the man change his mind and want kids, he just has to dump her for a fertile woman.
I see a long, lonely life with multiple cat companions.
How is this empowering women? They get to have a career, and nothing else.
Seems like the women that have already made this choice in the past decades are getting lonely for some friends. So, like Eve and the Apple, they need some more recruits.
It's sad.
"A young woman having her tubes tied seems to be a good example of someone available for sex and with no risk for the men of being expected to pay child support for a child that was not their choice. I expect a number of professional athletes, like Adrian Peterson, would be enthusiastic about this."
Because no one would ever lie about being sterilized. Bring on the enthusiastic splooge stooges!
Silly person ...the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men.
And cooking.
If someone seriously proposed that adult women be prohibited from getting sterilized, I missed it. That's a non-issue.
What IS an issue is what happens to our population if non-child-bearing becomes more common: Demographic suicide. That would be worth talking about.
Pregnancy is a very extreme thing to have happen to your body, and I could see the great psychological feeling of knowing it cannot happen to you. I can see not wanting to take any drugs to prevent pregnancy, not wanting to be put in the position of having to think through whether to have an abortion, and not wanting to subject oneself to the fuss, imperfection, and intimacy-impeding barrier methods. It's a decision for profound personal freedom, and I can see how a young woman could make that choice.
We make so many choices when we are young that bind us long into the future, such as what to study in school, how seriously to take education, where to begin a career, how to take the early steps in a career. There are so many ways that you as an older adult have been limited and hemmed in by You the Younger.
By the way, I was 22 the year Roe v. Wade was decided. It was also the year I got married.
It seems best to avoid making irreversible choices at a young age. So much changes as the years pass.
That tattoo of Betty Boop doesn't hold up as "edgy" in your 60's.
I started late being a dad. Almost missed the window. And as I knew that it was something I wanted to do, even though for many years I was positive I didn't want to, I started dating different women. You know, marriage and kid minded ones instead of actresses.
To decide at 18 or so that you know for certain that you don't want kids, is rather short sighted. Can you really be sure?
If not, then temporary birth control is for you.
Interesting that the same week we hear about companies paying for egg freezing we also hear about sterilization.
Somebody doesn't want women to have kids.
"It's a decision for profound personal freedom..."
...and extinction. But, y'know, whatever. It's all good.
There are two paths for this discussion. The first is in the context of whether or not it is a good idea for young women to do this and how we as a society can educate young women before they make their own choice.
The other way is to put it up to a democratic vote. The decision is made based on majority of people motivated enough to go to polls elect someone. The decision is left to all of the best parts of the electoral process including fraud, special interest money, ignorant voters etc. Bonus points if you get a majority of people to vote to make me pay for the procedure.
"One could just as easily say: 'A young woman wanting her tubes tied is explicitly saying that she is now reserved exclusively for the sexual pleasure of men'. That doesn't sound particularly empowering to me."
Or perhaps she want to empower herself to enjoy lots of sex with a minimal@ risk of pregnancy and the risk (small but real) of life-threatening complications or death. And perhaps she knows her own mind well enough to know that she's never going to want kids. It's possible.
She also be wrong, and regret her decision later in life, but adults are allowed to make decisions they may someday regret.
@ I know a woman had a tubal ligation...and then a baby. Then another tubal...and another baby. It's not a guaranteed solutions either.
"...and extinction. But, y'know, whatever. It's all good."
If you think it's a bad decision, you should celebrate the removal of bad decision-makers from the gene-pool.
You should only feel sad about the loss of these women as baby-makers if you think the decision is a good one.
An interesting conundrum!
RE: "An interesting conundrum!"
If she is sterilized the man no longer needs to use a conundrum.
My beef with abortion is not that I think women should be forced to be pregnant, but that you're killing a kid. if you getting sterilized prevents you from getting pregnant then there goes my objection.
And frankly, I thought women were already allowed to do it.
The "Patriarchy wants to control your body" is so much sexist horseshit.
Mark Jones wrote:
She also be wrong, and regret her decision later in life, but adults are allowed to make decisions they may someday regret.
"Wait, maybe i'm not a woman trapped in a man's body. Can I get my penis back?"
Put in quotes since it's not me speaking about myself.
It's their body.
Funny how people keep bringing up extinction. We are quickly approaching the point where nobody will die from old age. So get over that please.
It is also coming from the same statist point of view that we need to have government make this decision because it is just too important for a young woman to make. But that's the same reasoning it is too important a decision to decide where your income goes because it is not something you are qualified to do. As soon as you open the door to decision by majority it is over.
The answer is simply yes. Is it a good choice? I don't know. After the age of 21 we should be allowed to make bad choices that only hurt ourselves.
While I am not bubbly on people self-sterilizing themselves, still in Oregon you can blow your brains out legally, so why not sterilize yourself?
Not it's not a smart move if later you do want to have children but.. unlike abortion were you are killing babies, serialization you are not.
So if given the choice, yea let them sterilize themselves.
The female eunuch, bred as a concubine, voter, and taxable asset. This is neither a patriarchal nor matriarchal perspective. It is motivated by a minority fitness scheme. Perhaps planned abortion is deemed an insufficient method to reduce the competition. And threats of litigation are insufficient to prevent dreams of father and motherhood.
"the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men."
The matriarchy values men primarily on the basis of their ability to provide cash and sperm to women.
"We are quickly approaching the point where nobody will die from old age"
Upon what do you base this astonishing prediction?
As to fitness arguments-
Because even the most talented humans are not terribly rational, and are just as easily swayed by fashion, its very likely that valuable lineages (genetic patterns useful to humanity as a whole) will be cut off if this becomes a fashion. In fact it is more likely that the ambitious, motivated and talented will adopt such a fashion, much as they have adopted the fashion of homosexuality. And even if those motivated in this direction are not themselves fit, in a narrow sense, because of some genetically impacted personality defect, they are or should be part of the mating pool because of the other valuable genes they probably carry.
As for living forever - not in my lifetime or that of any of us. The engineering here is much harder than the science, and the experimentation is slow. And even if that bears fruit in the next 20 years the effect will be to prolong old age. That, generally speaking, is a very bad thing. Young people are valuable because they are young. Old people are no substitute.
There is nothing to celebrate. There is an interest to understand and treat the underlying causes of this condition or perspective. Society and individuals need to know if it is an outcome of extrinsic (e.g. communicable) or intrinsic (e.g. freewill) factors, and if it represents a progressive dysfunction in society, civilization, and humanity.
If it is an individual choice (i.e. freewill), then sterilization or its equivalent, abstinence, are the preferred methods to respect individual dignity. But we have to consider the consequences of marginalizing or eviscerating the first level of social and biological organization: family.
The "choice" to become a female or male eunuch should obviously not be normalized. Well, there is always an opportunity to adopt.
"Because no one would ever lie about being sterilized. Bring on the enthusiastic splooge stooges!"
At least she would not be one of the girls trolling professional athletes for child support. Of course, they could choose vasectomy but maybe that doesn't go with the macho thing.
I'm pretty sure I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Can I go into the girl's locker room and showers now? Thanks.
The evidence suggests that brain development does continue well into a person's twenties. At these later stages, it's not so much growth as it is pruning. Lots of decisions that people make at twenty-one are later seen as regrettable.
traditionalguy nails the essence of the argument yet again, by the way. The Progressives will demand that assisted suicide, abortion and sterilization be covered by 'insurance.' Already in my state, developmentally disabled children are being shuttled into Medi-Cal. How long before the fascists divide us up into desirables and undesirables? It's already happening.
Actually, there is evidence of brain development throughout human evolution from the first month to natural, accidental, or premeditated death.
SomeoneHasToSayIt:
Gender fluidity or it's discrimination.
Tubal ligation can be reversed in between half and three-fourths of cases, and IVF is successful about 25% of the time per attempt -- and in both cases there are nontrivial ancillary risks: the first involves cutting your belly open for a real surgical operation, the second involves savagely warping your hormones to get eggs to harvest and the endometrium to thicken, with God knows what consequences later on.
In short, your probability of not getting Ebola if you travel to West Africa as a nurse and take care of patients is substantially higher than your chances of successfully changing your mind after a sterilization. It's a pity even a well-educated older woman would not take note of this in pondering the issue, but it is fully consistent with the gauzy You Can Have It All deceptive bullshit being fed to (and unfortunately consumed by) young women today by those who would profit from their delusional decisions, e.g. their employers or Democratic party leaders. On behalf of my daughters, who are being ill-served by a raft of self-serving irresponsibility-porn mongers, I find this contemptible.
I doubt anyone suggests statute prohibiting any legal adult from getting sterilized if he or she chooses. But should that be advised against by responsible older physicians? Indeed it should. And for the very same reason we advise young people not to have babies before getting married, to stay in school, to not do drugs, and to have a designated driver. The entire point of having social mythologies that emphasize respect for older voices is that the older voice are supposed to counsel and nurture the young, so the young do not have to repeat quite as many mistakes in their growth.
"Patriarchy" is a good and valuable thing. It consists of having your father (or mother) advise you of the outcomes of hard lessons he's learned in his much longer time on Earth than you, and it consists of strong social pressure on you to heed his words, regardless of how silly or overblown they may appear to you. Patriarchy is another word for intergenerational leadership, and without it we are just a bunch of pitiful tribal apes, incapable of learning from any experience other than our own.
And we could just as well use the word "matriarchy" here, too, because the real point -- for even the young fool posting that response -- is not the sex of the elder giving the unwanted advice. (We can be sure that if a mother gave the same advice he'd just say she was a tool of the patriarchy.) Rather the outrage for him is the fact of the advice itself, and the fact of the social pressure to take that advice very seriously. "Patriarchy" is just a code-phrase for "listen to your elders, bub."
Should people listen to their elders? Of course. Slavishly? Of course not. But fortunately adolescents and young adults are pre-wired by Nature with enough rebelliousness that it has never in the history of the planet been the case that young people listen much too closely to the advice of their mothers and fathers.
Vive le patriarchie! It's what keeps us from a squalid miserable existence as hedonistic Lord of the Flies nitwits.
Of course, a horde of hedonistic Lord of the Flies nitwits living a squalid miserable existence is an absolutely ideal employment opportunity for lawyers and politicians -- the people who specialize in constructive (one hopes) constraint and less violent conflict resolution.
So -- cui bono? -- it never surprises me to hear either type of person advocating for less of the traditional means by which people have governed themselves, without need for their services. If hyenas could talk to lions, I'm sure they'd be strong advocates for letting the lion cubs wander much further from the pride's supervision.
So young women should be careful before deciding to be sterilized?
Sounds like good advice. Otherwise, the point is what again?
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"If you think it's a bad decision, you should celebrate the removal of bad decision-makers from the gene-pool.
You should only feel sad about the loss of these women as baby-makers if you think the decision is a good one."
So, should I be celebrating the removal of Michael Brown from the Ferguson gene pool? Or do you think there's something sad about it? I guess a little of both, actually. What is best for the species may not be best for the individual, right?
Since we all agree that a woman has a right to be sterilized, do we also agree that a man has a right to offer her money to do it?
"The future belongs to those who show up for it." -- Mark Steyn
If hyenas could talk to lions... advocates for letting the lion cubs wander
That's a perfect analogy for biologically and ideologically-motivated asymmetric behaviors.
"Is 25 the new cut-off point for adulthood?"
Not if one can remain on one's parents' insurance plan until one is 26.
I am surprised that you are even asking that question, pro [abortion] choicer that you are. OF COURSE women should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish.
Surely you are not arguing otherwise, are you?
It is a woman's body and a woman's right to do with as she pleases. Isn't that the pro-choice mantra?
Why would it be different here?
It may not be a good idea, though I have no opinion on that, but any consenting adult person should have the right to do with that body as they wish. Whether that be sterilization or cutting one's dick off.
Doctors should have similar rights too, of course. That is, the right to not perform these operations.
John Henry
Like matriarchy doesn't rely on strength of numbers. Totally. Fer sure. Really.
Pro-choice is a selective and therefore illogical standard. It is a policy or hope for mutual deference... on one, two, three issues. It is a legitimate policy for tolerable behaviors, but not for the commission or contract of premeditated abortion/murder. Women need better choices. Women and men need to accept responsibility for the consequences of their behavior.
She's going to sue the physician that sterilized her.
I've heard from a couple of doctors that that's the reason they won't do it for someone who hasn't had kids, or isn't over 30...
Putting doctors in a place not to heal or treat an illness or disease, but to make what is healthy (fertility) the ability to get pregnant in a woman's body and treat it like it is a problem.
The elitist matriarchy convincing women that their natural bodies on the inside need to corrected.....
'The word "permitted" should be stricken. There is always a pseudo-scientific rationale for not allowing people full agency. It changes with the times.'
This ignores the fact that a woman cannot sterilize herself. The question, then, is what procedures a physician is "permitted" to charge money for. There is a question of incentives here. I do not think a physician should be allowed to charge money for cutting people's legs, or hands, or dicks off, when there is no medical indication for that "treatment". Whether sterilization falls into that category is an open question.
Certainly, we regard forcible sterilization as a very serious crime.
We already have too many cats.
Hear, hear, Renee.
"m pretty sure I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Can I go into the girl's locker room and showers now? Thanks."
What if you're tri gender, shoudln't you be able to go into either?
One way you can tell that a transgender woman is not really a woman? She can't harvest her eggs because she never had them.
How about instead of having the right to an abortion women have the right to have eggs harvested, and then be made sterile? Remove the ability to get pregnant since you don't want to anyways, but also prevent abortions, but have eggs on hand in case you later decide to have babies. Which you then could not abort.
Really if you want to be resonsible don't make a fetus pay for your recklessness. tie your tubes.
"Paul said...
While I am not bubbly on people self-sterilizing themselves, still in Oregon you can blow your brains out legally, so why not sterilize yourself?
Not it's not a smart move if later you do want to have children"
But if you blow your brains out then you won't be around to change your mind later...
Fernandinande said...
Silly person ...the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men.
And cooking.
10/25/14, 10:42 AM
Getting sex is not that difficult, you don't need a wife for that but good cooking now that is something else!
Renee:
They conceived and birthed a living Hippocratic Oath in order to overcome medical standards of corruption. The ensuing confusion was predictable for both doctors and patients alike.
I suppose the better question is should doctors sterilize healthy young woman or young woman for whom pregnancy isn't a serious risk or should it be a violation of the medical code of ethics?
Although it is legal for a young woman to choose sterilization and it should remain that way why should doctors perform a procedure that is legal but considered unethical? Maybe plastic surgeons need a stricter code of ethics as well.
"I suppose the better question is should doctors sterilize healthy young woman or young woman for whom pregnancy isn't a serious risk or should it be a violation of the medical code of ethics?"
Why should it be "unethical"? If someone doesn't want kids that's their choice.
Should it be legal? Sure.
Encourage? No.
Any 20-something man who gets sterilized is just as stupid as a 20-something woman who does the same thing. One would hope that doctors have enough common sense to counsel against such irreversible, stupid surgeries. This is not an area that requires legislation, however, since the number of young men and women involved is pretty tiny. If it were a matter of national survival, that would be a different legal question.
The is a small risk of an ectopic pregnancy after a tubal ligation. That increases the longer it has been since the surgery occurs. The body will try to repair the damage and get that egg into that uterus. I expect that a healthy 20-something would be at an even greater risk.
If I'm reading webMD correctly there is a 13 in 1000 chance of an ectopic pregnancy 3 years after a tubal ligation.
The is a small risk of an ectopic pregnancy after a tubal ligation. That increases the longer it has been since the surgery occurs. The body will try to repair the damage and get that egg into that uterus. I expect that a healthy 20-something would be at an even greater risk.
Real story, from someone close to me. Married (after completing college) at 21. First child nine months later. Second child 18 months later. They decide to have her tubes tied, since they were already raising three (their two and one from an earlier marriage of his), and he came from a very large Catholic family. They both wanted to give the three kids enough of everything. Then, she is widowed. Several years later she remarries, and she decides to try to have another. Tries to get the tubal ligation reversed, but appears to be failure. Then, an ectopic pregnancy.
Ultimately, she mostly thought it was for the better that she hadn't been able to have kids with the second husband, when it turned out that he had been unfaithful - it is often much harder to separate yourself in a divorce from someone you share small kids with.
Which maybe a long way of saying that I am conflicted here. There are good reasons for people to get themselves fixed. But sometimes things change, and permanent can mean permanent.
I don't know; in the "modern era" I just did what had been successfully accomplished for the last 1,960ish years without being screwed up with tweaks and changes that didn't really work out well.Got married (20's) had kids and did my best to be a good husband and father. The best way to succeed is to watch successful people and do what they did.
Huh?
"the patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men. A young woman wanting her tubes tied is explicitly refusing to cooperate with her assigned role"
So she's getting her tubes tied to provide sexual pleasure to women? Or is she getting her tubes tied not to provide sexual pleasure to men?
Should a doctor be required to perform a sterilization on a woman he judges is not mature enough to make such an irreversible decision?
I think there is some background missing. For some time, there was concern that tubal ligation had some side-effects beyond the slight risk of an ectopic pregnancy.
Some women have reported that their periods become much heavier and/or painful after tubal ligation. Unfortunately, the article I was able to read by the ACOG does not list this as a risk.
(They do point out that tubal ligation is a riskier operation than a vasectomy.)
It's conceivable that they might change their mind. Down the road. Decide they wants kids. And terribly regret not being able to do so.
[T]he patriarchy values women primarily on the basis of their ability to rear children and provide sexual pleasure to men.
I'd be interested in hearing all of the things besides sperm and child support for which the matriarchy values men.
It's awfully condescending to decide that the doctor/society knows an adult person's mind better than she herself does. If she gets sterilized and regrets it... That's her consequence. She made a decision as a grown up, and like any other grown up, must live with the results.
Also,what's with the attitude that a woman not having kids is horrible? Our world is overpopulated as it is. Millions of children are orphans and need homes. We aren't just baby makers anymore... And it isn't all about sex, either. Some women have horrible periods. Some have complications with their uteruses and ovaries. Even of those who are sexually active, some carry genes for nasty disorders. And even if they don't, they're still autonomous adults with full rights over their own bodies.
A few questions for thought:
If a woman can go out and get breast implants at 18, an elective and wholly medically unnecessary surgery, why can't she get a tubal ligation?
If a woman can be expected to choose her life's career at 18, why not her fertility?
And most importantly... If you truly think women are too immature in their twenties to decide once and for all that they don't want children, why on earth would you think they're mature enough to *raise* children? At least getting sterilized and regretting it doesn't leave a child stuck with a resentful parent in a potentially horrid situation.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा