Beetkvass Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Baby #6 is on the way due to this method. I was VERY careful and had a diaphragm with spermicide in at a time when I should have been safe. I wouldn't trust this method. I'm against IUD's because I got pregnant and miscarried with Mirena. But I know they work for a lot of people and it sounds like the copper IUD might be your best bet, to the OP. Eh, every method has someone who got pregnant using it. If that's the criteria for not going with it then people are left with nothing. There's even someone in my husband's family who got pregnant twice after a hysterectomy before they finally took her ovaries out as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sounds like an excuse to me, given that he'd be OK with messing with God's design for you. Yup. If I am opposed to sterilization, I would be just as opposed for my spouse as myself. A lot of men are afraid of a vasectomy. If he were open to more kids, I could see his concern. Since he is not, I think he should reconsider his position. We chart and use condoms or focus on not-pregnancy-inducing activities during fertile periods but we are both young enough to not feel certain and my cycle is regular as rain and has always been unless I was on BC of some kind. You can set a clock by it. I previously had an IUD but it wasn't the best for me. I'd reconsider if my chart was unpredictable. Once we are really sure, he's ok with a V. He was set for it before but then I changed my mind and he admitted he wasn't sure either so we wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 We've been using condoms and timing. For now, that seems to be the best of a lot of not so great options. I will recommend Trojan's BareSkin brand. My dh does not mind near as much since we discovered these. I hated Mirena. I may be a freak, but I swear I could feel it. And my dh could feel the string. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I hated Mirena. I may be a freak, but I swear I could feel it. And my dh could feel the string. It slid up inside the cervix. Problem over for five years (x3). Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let's say you and dh absolutely want no more children. Imagine sterilization is out of the question b/c one spouse doesn't feel comfortable with it. Then, say wife does want oral contraception because of hormone/thyroid issues. What would you choose? Condoms! I don't mess with my reproductive structure or my hormones. Never have and I only have 2 kids (I did get married late and start having them late though). The rhythm method worked just fine for us. I always knew when I was ovulating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I hated Mirena. I may be a freak, but I swear I could feel it. And my dh could feel the string. Eww. That's painful just to read about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Yup. If I am opposed to sterilization, I would be just as opposed for my spouse as myself. A lot of men are afraid of a vasectomy. If he were open to more kids, I could see his concern. Since he is not, I think he should reconsider his position. . Yes. Vasectomy is easier than the female options. By far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It slid up inside the cervix. Problem over for five years (x3). Laura That makes sense. My doc at the time (I have a new one now)said he liked to leave it long, and I'm not sure I remember the reason anymore. I think I remember, but I don't want to say cuz it sounds stupid.:lol: Anyway, I'll admit he wasn't the most informed doc when it came to this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonshineLearner Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 LadyComp.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 That makes sense. My doc at the time (I have a new one now)said he liked to leave it long, and I'm not sure I remember the reason anymore. I think I remember, but I don't want to say cuz it sounds stupid.:lol: Anyway, I'll admit he wasn't the most informed doc when it came to this stuff. .... to make sure that the IUD is still in place. I've never found this compelling: after thirty years of adult relations and two babies, I have a pretty good idea of how my body behaves/feels and I can't imagine passing an IUD without noticing it. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veritaserum Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Yes. Vasectomy is easier than the female options. By far. :iagree: Dh had it done outpatient on a Friday morning and was feeling pretty well by Monday. I've had childbirth recoveries that were way worse. He didn't even have any stitches. I was so happy to let him handle birth control. My body has done more than its fair share. :tongue_smilie: That makes sense. My doc at the time (I have a new one now)said he liked to leave it long, and I'm not sure I remember the reason anymore. I think I remember, but I don't want to say cuz it sounds stupid.:lol: Anyway, I'll admit he wasn't the most informed doc when it came to this stuff. Longer strings make for easier removal, but I asked for mine to be cut short. Proper IUD placement is very important. You want to use someone with a lot of experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TracyP Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Eww. That's painful just to read about. It wasn't painful...just annoying .... to make sure that the IUD is still in place. I've never found this compelling: after thirty years of adult relations and two babies, I have a pretty good idea of how my body behaves/feels and I can't imagine passing an IUD without noticing it. Laura Now that you say it, I think that is the reason he gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeganCupcake Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 My doctor said that she preferred to leave the strings on an IUD long so that they would soften and curl up around the cervix rather than be shorter and pokey-er. It was a moot point for me, though, because I expelled the IUD after about 3 weeks, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I asked him first if he would be okay with me having it done, and he hesitated. He said he wasn't sure. Later when we talked about the Essure procedure, he said he didn't feel comfortable with it. Your last paragraph has been us, and that's what we are scared of. (Not that it isn't wonderful for you). :grouphug: I know. I couldn't be happier with #4 but i'm not willing to see how well I can parent 5 children. 4 has pushed me quite far. Im only doing 5 if I have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think ultimatly couples have to reconcile themselves to the idea that there is no sure way to avoid and have sex as well. That is really the true issue. I would honestly be really frustrated if my dh didn't seem willing to face that. Personally I'd have a much harder time with moral issues around hormonal birth control than with sterilization. I don't know that sterilization is really what God wants us to do, but I don't see it as different really than other types of interfering in the process. Mind you, I am not sure what I'd do about it. My inclination would be to tell him to grow up, you can't have everything. If the options are sterilization, condoms(+ whatever), or abstinence, I'd say he is a lot better off than many people. On the other hand, becoming confrontational often makes things worse. So that isn't much help I'm afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The diaphragm worked well for us for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnsinkableKristen Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I was so happy to let him handle birth control. My body has done more than its fair share. :tongue_smilie: A. Men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngieW in Texas Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Diaphragm It's easy to use. The only issue is that Walgreen's is now the only local place where I can get the gel you have to use with it and they only carry it in pre dispensed syringes instead of in a tube like they used to. We've done well with the diaphragm for 14 years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I haven't read all the other posts. But my first thought when you asked what I'd use was: GUILT. (As in, I did the pregnancies and dleliveries, and you can't do this????) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim in Appalachia Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Has anyone heard of or used Essure? http://www.essure.com/is-essure-right-for-me/the-essure-difference I just came across this. It's hormone-free, permanent, and it's success rate is about the same as the pill. It closes your Fallopian tubes. You get an exam by your doctor 3 months after insertion to make sure it's working all the way. Interesting. I think it has nickle in it, so be careful if you have a nickle allergy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistyMountain Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 A cervical cap with spermicide is another option but I don't know that it is the best option for someone who really is done and does not want any more children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happyhomemaker Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Diaphragm It's easy to use. The only issue is that Walgreen's is now the only local place where I can get the gel you have to use with it and they only carry it in pre dispensed syringes instead of in a tube like they used to. We've done well with the diaphragm for 14 years now. I get a tube at CVS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I respect the hesitation because he is concerned that it is wrong messing with God's design. I'm okay with it because I feel nearly all methods are messing with design -- some by hormones, done by scarring, some by snipping. Yeah, sure, it's God's design he's worried about... :D I have never actually heard that particular body part called "God's Design" before, but I'm not surprised that a man came up with the term. ;) I think a lot of men are just big ol' chickens. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammi K Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 :lol: You could go to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. :lol: Nah, use a pair of kiddie safety scissors with the rounded tips. How deadly could those be? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Nah, use a pair of kiddie safety scissors with the rounded tips. How deadly could those be? :D I like the way you think... :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 Yeah, sure, it's God's design he's worried about... :D I have never actually heard that particular body part called "God's Design" before, but I'm not surprised that a man came up with the term. ;) I think a lot of men are just big ol' chickens. :tongue_smilie: Honestly, we talked about it again tonight, and he is concerned that something permanent is unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Honestly, we talked about it again tonight, and he is concerned that something permanent is unethical. I'm curious how he thinks it is more unethical then something temporary? ETA: From my POV, a permanent solution is more ethical then many of the temp options. Edited October 11, 2012 by Moxie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm curious how he thinks it is more unethical then something temporary? I was wondering about that, too. Either way, it's still birth control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Baby #6 is on the way due to this method. I was VERY careful and had a diaphragm with spermicide in at a time when I should have been safe. I wouldn't trust this method. I'm against IUD's because I got pregnant and miscarried with Mirena. But I know they work for a lot of people and it sounds like the copper IUD might be your best bet, to the OP. I don't want this to come across the wrong way, but no methods are perfect, and the IUD is one of the best methods in terms of low pregnancy rates. There are also people who've gotten pregnant after sterilization. That doesn't make any of these methods useless. There is some non-hormonal ring under trials. Different from the Nuva Ring, which is hormonal. I hope it comes out soon. I think the world needs more options. Eta: It's called the Ovaprene, manufactured by Ovatech. " Ovaprene is a 'one-size-fits-all' patented, female-controlled, intravaginal organic silicone ring barrier-contraceptive that is designed to continuously release spermiostatic and spermicidal non-drug agents over a four-week period." Everything I've read suggested it was due out in 2011. Btw diaphragms are about as effective as condoms, but cervical caps not so great for women who've had children. There is a yahoo group about these at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DiaphragmsAndCaps/ ; there are other spermicides you can make, the group has some. The author of Contraception Naturally tested his recipe, and it was more effective than some of the spermicides for sale. There is something called Contragel that is sold in Canada and Europe that is effectively a spermicide too. Edited October 11, 2012 by stripe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm curious how he thinks it is more unethical then something temporary? ETA: From my POV, a permanent solution is more ethical then many of the temp options. :iagree: As soon as we're 100% sure that we don't want more babies, we're going permanent. DH makes a show of putting up a fuss but he knows very well it wont be me - I've done my part. Its the non-barrier temporary measures that don't sit well with us personally. Im so close to knowing for certain that I don't want more children but its hard to make that final step of accepting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom2Es Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 this is true but its also time consuming if you go the full route of figuring out every single fertility sign. In the beginning, yes. There is a learning curve and it can be time consuming. After a few months, it's no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm curious how he thinks it is more unethical then something temporary?My former religion taught that men shouldn't have it done and couldn't have some appointments because of something to do with Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 23:1; 25:11, 12 and 1 Timothy 3:7 I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Diaphragm It's easy to use. The only issue is that Walgreen's is now the only local place where I can get the gel you have to use with it and they only carry it in pre dispensed syringes instead of in a tube like they used to. We've done well with the diaphragm for 14 years now. It has a high failure rate though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staceyobu Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 My former religion taught that men shouldn't have it done and couldn't have some appointments because of something to do with Deuteronomy Deuteronomy 23:1; 25:11, 12 and 1 Timothy 3:7 I think. I don't get the timothy verse... as for the others, I do not believe we are under old testament law anymore. If someone is following these rules, I would also expect them to not be eating pork or wearing mixed fibers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 It has a high failure rate though. A good number of users combine with fertility awareness to increase effectiveness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lab1 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Paraguard IUD. I'm beyond fertile and its been great. It did make my period heavier at first (or could have been having a 4th baby) and then leveled out to light average. I had the Mirina before. The hormones are lower, but still there. I had spotting like hormonal bc does for me and taking it out was horrible! The actual taking it out was fine, but then I had hemorrhage bleeding to reset my system. I. know several others that had the same experience. I haven't had the copper IUD removed. They were both easy to have placed. My OB that put in my latest one used Ultrasound to make sure it was placed in right. I'd recommend finding a Dr. that uses ultrasound for placement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) I'm curious how he thinks it is more unethical then something temporary? ETA: From my POV, a permanent solution is more ethical then many of the temp options. I have actually met many Christians who find permanent birth control to be questionable. We came out of a quiverfull movement, so I think these things take time. He actually paid for a consultation, had an appt date, and expressed his concern to the doctor. Even the doctor said he understood questioning it in view of one's faith. Edited October 11, 2012 by nestof3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Eh, every method has someone who got pregnant using it. If that's the criteria for not going with it then people are left with nothing. There's even someone in my husband's family who got pregnant twice after a hysterectomy before they finally took her ovaries out as well. Don't you need a uterus to get pregnant? What am I missing? Proper IUD placement is very important. You want to use someone with a lot of experience. :iagree: THIS. Do your research. Don't just go to the person you usually see because it's convenient. IUDs work amazingly well . . .better than ANY other non-permanent solution, but they must be properly placed. I went to a separate Dr. just for this on the recommendation of my midwife, regular gyn, and a female friend who is a doctor. It's important. I've never heard of anyone having an IUD in place for years and then getting pregnant. The stories are generally of people getting pregnant very soon after getting an IUD. Device failure and improper 'installation' are two different matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie in CA Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Has anyone heard of or used Essure? http://www.essure.com/is-essure-right-for-me/the-essure-difference I just came across this. It's hormone-free, permanent, and it's success rate is about the same as the pill. It closes your Fallopian tubes. You get an exam by your doctor 3 months after insertion to make sure it's working all the way. Interesting. If you search the general board, you will probably find one of my posts about my experience, which was extremely positive! Edited October 11, 2012 by Julie in CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monica_in_Switzerland Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 My last doula client's baby was sharing his space with an IUD... Nothing is 100%. Personally, we are in a similar state and will be using NFP (charting). We know that nothing is perfect... If you are absolutely, completely opposed to having more children, the only sure bet is abstinence... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lab1 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Don't you need a uterus to get pregnant? What am I missing? :iagree: THIS. Do your research. Don't just go to the person you usually see because it's convenient. IUDs work amazingly well . . .better than ANY other non-permanent solution, but they must be properly placed. I went to a separate Dr. just for this on the recommendation of my midwife, regular gyn, and a female friend who is a doctor. It's important. I've never heard of anyone having an IUD in place for years and then getting pregnant. The stories are generally of people getting pregnant very soon after getting an IUD. Device failure and improper 'installation' are two different matters. It's uncommon obviously, but I have heard of successful very high risk pg outside the uterus! The placenta attaches to the intestinal wall I believe. IUDs are more effective the longer you have it. I simply made it a habit to check the string ever morning like I would for NFP. If they expel, its usually on the first few months. The only IUD pg I know of personally were from it expelling without the woman being aware. Nothing is absolute, but the IUD is very effective. Checking the string was just me being OCD. I still check it once a month. It's a very low stress bc for me. Having an experienced OB place it is important. I've heard of a non experienced OB that didn't use ultrasound help that punctured a woman's uterus and sent her home unknowingly! I believe she had emergency sergery that night. I love my IUD and have no side effects. I did have ovarian cysts with Mirena from the hormones. I'm really sensitive to artificial hormones! I'm not ready to do anything permanent and the IUD has been perfect and painless to install. Painless removal of my last one too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I have actually met many Chrusrians who find permanent birth control to be questionable. We came out of a quiverfull movement, so I think these things take time. He actually paid for a consultation, had an appt date, and expressed his concern to the doctor. Even the doctor said he understood questioning it in view of one's faith. The thing is, wanting to have TeA without making babies IS messing with God's design. It's not like there are foolproof Biblical methods of effective birth control. To not get pregnant, you or he will have to have to physically stop conception, and if he truly wants NO chance of getting pregnant, barrier methods are not going to do that. Statistically there will still be a fair chance of getting pregnant. Plus it's easier to reverse it if he's snipped rather than you. Have you guys prayed about this choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted October 11, 2012 Author Share Posted October 11, 2012 The thing is, wanting to have TeA without making babies IS messing with God's design. It's not like there are foolproof Biblical methods of effective birth control. To not get pregnant, you or he will have to have to physically stop conception, and if he truly wants NO chance of getting pregnant, barrier methods are not going to do that. Statistically there will still be a fair chance of getting pregnant. Plus it's easier to reverse it if he's snipped rather than you. Have you guys prayed about this choice? I'm sorry, but I just don't believe God's design is for all women to conceive at all times, and I do not think tea's only purpose is conception. I believe God created the reproductive system, but I think people have to make choices regarding their family size based on many factors. With the age difference we have, my husband could be a father at 63, and I see no wisdom in that. I also only want to have children when I know I have what it takes to give them the best they deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm sorry, but I just don't believe God's design is for all women to conceive at all times, and I do not think tea's only purpose is conception. I don't either, and I think having conception possible for a few days per month reflects this. Also, human women are not like those animals that only agree to mate when they are fertile. I think it is a very important problem : decent birth control that is not sterilization. I know many people don't want to shut the door forever, in case they might change their mind, or otherwise feel uncomfortable with that choice. As I said, I have read about a couple different nonhormonal birth control forms that are "in the works" but haven't come out yet. There was another sort of diaphragmlike device that was pulled off the US market a few years ago (Lea's Shield). When I was at my midwife's office recently, there was a paper asking for volunteers to have a new form of IUD tested at Planned Parenthood. I wonder what that is. Other countries have more varieties of IUD, diaphragms, and the like. I've read abut two forms of diaphragms under development, esp for women in the developing world who need a one-size fitting method and a way to prevent pregnancies and hopefully HIV without the partner's involvement or ability to detect. I have also read about a couple different male birth control techniques, one being a sort of temporary, reversible vasectomy, and another I saw was being tried (in the Phillipines?) that was a pill. I may have read about another, but I forgot the details. There is a big gap here. I am glad you asked the question, Dawn. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinder Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Has anyone heard of or used Essure? I think it has nickle in it, so be careful if you have a nickle allergy. There is a non-metal version called Adiana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I'm sorry, but I just don't believe God's design is for all women to conceive at all times, and I do not think tea's only purpose is conception. I believe God created the reproductive system, but I think people have to make choices regarding their family size based on many factors. With the age difference we have, my husband could be a father at 63, and I see no wisdom in that. I also only want to have children when I know I have what it takes to give them the best they deserve. I'm not quiverful. :tongue_smilie: I'm just saying to prevent conception 100% you will have to alter your or his body. There is no 100% temporary birth control. There just isn't. I wish there was, so very much, but it's not an option yet. (Most of) our bodies are well deigned for that conception part. Blocking it effectively with non-hormonal methods just isn't close to foolproof currently. I just don't entirely understand being 100% okay with wanting not never conceive again, ever, but not being okay with altering the body in the only way to actually achieve that. I apparently didn't phrase that well, sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 There is a non-metal version called Adiana. Aren't Essure and this non-metal one essentially a non-surgical and less invasive female sterilization method? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 I'm not quiverful. :tongue_smilie: I'm just saying to prevent conception 100% you will have to alter your or his body. There is no 100% temporary birth control. There just isn't. I wish there was, so very much, but it's not an option yet. (Most of) our bodies are well deigned for that conception part. Blocking it effectively with non-hormonal methods just isn't close to foolproof currently. I just don't entirely understand being 100% okay with wanting not never conceive again, ever, but not being okay with altering the body in the only way to actually achieve that. I apparently didn't phrase that well, sorry! I'm sorry, I thought you were saying that there is no Biblically-approved birth control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I'm sorry, I thought you were saying that there is no Biblically-approved birth control. I'm not LittleIzumi, but my impression of her post was that she was suggesting that your husband have a vasectomy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Don't you need a uterus to get pregnant? What am I missing? To carry a safe and healthy pregnancy to term, yes. To get pregnant at all, no. Extra-uterine (?) and ecoptic pregnancy does happen, where the embryo starts to develop outside of the uterus. Sometimes this is called a "tubal pregnancy" because the most common form is where the embryo develops in the Fallopian tube. My aunt had 1 ecoptic pregnancy in her Fallopian tube. That tube was deemed severed/too damaged afterwards. Later, she had her other tube tied. She later had another ecoptic pregnancy on the damaged side. Ecoptic pregnancies are very dangerous and can result in infertility or even death. Ones resulting in a live baby and mother are extraordinarily rare, but I have read of a couple. Edited October 12, 2012 by kijipt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.