# Birth Control Thread Offshoot: What about Non-BC Medical Procedures that Sterilize



## Theoretical (Aug 18, 2007)

From the last birth-control/child limit thread I realized there's another issue that seems to be at stake here, and that is surrounding operations that aren't used to make the person infertile (because they are far too aggressive) but in fact leave the person sterile. So just to make it clear, this thread is *NOT* about tubal ligation or vasectomies - as those fall in a very different category that has been well-discussed on numerous occasions.

I speak of hysterectomies and both testes being removed due to cancer in particular. Testicular removal seems comparatively rare, but there's lots of good reasons for hysterectomies to happen (fibroid tumors and abnormal bleeding). Again, it's extreme overkill for birth control.

The anti-birth control position would seem to argue that health-improving (and I'm not talking idly here, because anemia and staggering abdominal pain are serious problems) surgeries anywhere but those involving the sex organs are ok, but if it involves the sex organs, then too bad for you. 

Furthermore, I'm troubled by the issues of God's sovereignty being brought into this discussion. I've had two restorative laser surgeries on my right retina following detatchments in 1998 and 2000. If I hadn't had them, I would now probably be blind in my right eye. If the Lord wishes me to be blind, there are numerous ways He could sovereignly make that happen despite my desire to see and doctors' skilled care. What makes an anti-anemia hyersterectomy in a woman still of childbearing age somehow different from the standpoint of God's sovereignty. My retina has 250 laser burn marks that were most assuredly not there naturally, but for which I'm extremely grateful. If I had to have my eye removed to save my life, I'd do it - how are the sex organs so profoundly different?


----------



## bob (Aug 18, 2007)

My wife and I struggled for a time with the issue of birth control. We utilized one form or another a couple of different times but ended up being uncomfortable with our practice. My wife has had eight pregnancies, through which we have received 4 children.

Several years ago my wife had a variety of health complications that also involved a couple of surgeries. While these conditions were not life threatening, they were taxing on her physically and our doctors recommended avoiding pregancies. We abstained while she was healing, but ultimately did not fully comply with our doctor's wishes, who recommended she not get pregnat for a couple of years. While it is our desire to have as many children as God is pleased to grant, we are not so stringent in our position as to ignore the risks of serious health complication.

I have no difficulty in utilizing the advances of modern medicine. There is no sin in my view in utilizing the abilities and technologies that God has allowed man to discover as a means to improve/restore our health. It is our (speaking of me and my wife) conviction that a creation mandate exists for married couples to have children. We regard the opening and closing of the womb to be in the hands of the Lord and it is our desire to raise as many children as He deems fit to grant. It seems that even nature itself indicates a propensity for perpetutity. Having said that, if a physical ailment (cancer, for instance) would threaten our lives, we would certainly consider a treatment even if we were aware it may hinder or eliminate our ability to have children. It would be a sorrowful choice for us to make considering our desires, but in our minds we are willing to strike a difference between a procedure intended to potentially extend a life and a procedure intended specifically for the sole purpose of eliminating the ability to bear children.

My wife and I are not outspoken in our views regarding childbearing and we certainly hold no ill will toward those who differ with us. I am the oldest in a family of nine children and even though my parents were not outspoken in their views in this matter, I am amazed looking back at how critically some of the folks within the church viewed their position. My parents received more ridicule from those within the realm of the professing church than they did from those outside the church. I had a good laugh a couple years ago when we were out at a restaurant and someone nearby sarcastically complained, "Evidently nobody ever has spoken to them about birth control!" Considering my wife and I have 14 siblings between us, we had never really thought of our family of 6 as all that large!


----------



## SRoper (Aug 18, 2007)

I don't know of anyone who wouldn't allow such operations for medical reasons. The intention of the action is important. In the cases you gave, the intention is to treat disease. This is certainly a proper use of surgery.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 18, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I don't know of anyone who wouldn't allow such operations for medical reasons. The intention of the action is important. In the cases you gave, the intention is to treat disease. This is certainly a proper use of surgery.


----------

