To refuse to change my method of contraception?

[BlueFergie]

DS2 is 3 months. He is our third child and DH and I are agreed our last. In the past we have primarily used the pill as contraception. DH was happy to continue with this but I wanted something more permanent and lower maintenance. Before my last pregnancy I often forgot to take the pill and I want to eliminate any risk of accidental pregnancy. Considering I have an extra child now I didn't want to be relying on my memory for contraception. Ultimatly DH will have a vasectomy but it is a big decision and he is not ready yet.
With all this in mind I spoke to my OB at 6 week check and we agreed that the best option for me was the mirena implant. I discussed with DH too. He was happy enough to go with what I wanted.
Yesterday I got it put in. Last night we were discussing it and I mentioned that It didn't work in the same way as the pill, they werent sure exactly how it works but one of the ways is that it thins the lining of the womb and prevents implantation.
DH is quite upset about this. He is Catholic. Not super religious but pretty pro life and he is not at all comfortable about using a post fertilisation contraceptive. He wants me to get it taken back out. I have refused. I understand his concerns but the procedure to get it in was intrusive. I am not happy to rely in condoms. Pill is not an option as am breastfeeding and progesteron one operates on same principal as mirean. I have told him he is welcome to use condoms and I will at least have the peace of mind of the mirena as back up, or he can go for vasectomy and I'll have it removed once get all clear on that. We are going to talk tonight again about it.
AIBU to continue to refuse to have it removed?

Personally, IMHO, YOUR fertility, YOUR CHOICE.

His fertility, HIS choice.

I don't think he has a right to dictate to you how you prevent unwanted pregnancies.

For me, the fact he'd even told you to have it taken out would form the basis of the ultimate in birth control. i.e he wouldn't be 'getting any' forthwith.

The vasectomy can be reversed. Is he worried he might still want children?

Yes i suppose he is worried that one or both of us may change our mind and it is better that we wait a couple of years to be sure before a vasectomy. I don't think it is a good idea to have a vasectomy not viewing it as a permanent procedure. Reversal is not a simple thing. It is his body after all and I have no intention of pressuring him into a vasectomy until he is ready.

He did not tell me to get it taken out. He asked would I

"He wants me to get it taken back out. I have refused. I understand his concerns but the procedure to get it in was intrusive. "

Quite clear from where I'M sitting love.

^^ That is TELLING you to have it removed.

doesnotgiveafig

There is indeed a huge reform movement within Catholicism but obviously a 2000 year old institution is going to be slow to change, especially when it has a global constituency and lots of strict adherents still.

There are lots of sort of dissident Catholic orgs, like Catholics for Choice (I think it's called). The Catholic schools I went to were run by Franciscans, who are very liberal, we had sex ed and learned about BC.

It's just not a monolith. There are liberal, moderate and strict Catholics, like all religions.

Why become Catholic then? Well, probably because you're born into a Catholic family, raised with all the Catholic traditions, maybe go to Catholic school, maybe your whole family and much of your community is Catholic.

Would you really reject all those family and community ties just because you disagree with one or two things? Or would you just make yourself at home in the liberal camp? Especially when those few things aren't necessarily the key principles of the faith, but interpretations set down by the Church.

(sorry for the tangent OP!!)

houdininhissy saying he wants me to do something is not the same as telling me to do it. In our relationship we express our views to each other and often say what we would like from the other person in an ideal scenario. There is no expectation, pressure or obligation for the other person to do this. Regardless of how you read it I was party to the conversation and he did not tell me to do anything.

No worries about the tangent dreaming. Prob a very accurate description of DHs thinking on Catholicism and birth control

Would you really reject all those family and community ties just because you disagree with one or two things? Or would you just make yourself at home in the liberal camp?

There's a huge issue right there - why are you a reject if choose not to brand yourself as catholic, just as a christian instead? Why are you not free to choose and still be accepted in your community and family?

I struggle with the idea of branches of religion in the way you describe - a "liberal" as opposed to a "strict".

There are certain rules and practices within religion concerning morals and the way you live your life. Some of the main differences between religions are these rules and interpretations of. So, if you don't follow the "rules" of your chosen brand of christianity, what's the point in branding yourself anything?

It's picking and choosing that's infuriating within religions. As in rejecting the bits you don't like (birth control rules, sex before marriage) and keeping the bits you do but still calling yourself one particular brand. I'll keep the Heaven but get rid of the Hell as I don't like it.

Because you choose to say sex before marriage is ok even though your religion says it's a sin - how can you renconcile that with God? How will you get into Heaven? "Oh, I chose the easier branch Lord, so it's ok, it's not a sin?"

I find it all very bizarre.

betabaker my DH can often feel the threads of my mirena coil during sex. OP's husband could potentially tell the difference. But I don't think advocating dishonesty is a solution.

The thing about being a Christian is that you are meant to spend at least some time in fellowship with other Christians, generally going to organised church services on at least an occasional basis. To do that, you have to pick a "flavour" and can't simply say "I'm a Christian who has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, or the Baptist Chuch, or the Church of England, etc, etc because I don't agree 100% with the teachings of any of them"

So, you have to pick one version or another to have some dealings with. People choose from what's available, either because it's the flavour they were brought up in, or the biggest local one, or that church was welcoming when they were looking, or whatever. If you can agree with most of what that denomination teaches, and not disagree over the things you consider to be utter deal-breakers, then you generally label yourself as that for simplicity, while deciding which of the non-central beliefs you choose to disagree on.

It's not "all or nothing, leave your brain at the door" - sorry but I haven't met many inside the church who think that's the way it is. It only seems to be those outside the church who get angry that we don't work that way.

fluff that made me shudder, but I am frightened of the coil.

fluffy it wasn't meant to be, hence the . Sorry for any offence, and I just learned something!

How do you decide what's a sin and what isn't? How do you decide what a catholic or whatever actually is? How is it defined if all the "rules" are blurred?

Was the outside meant for me?

Doesnotgiveafig, you can refuse to accept a great deal of Catholic teaching and still consider yourself Catholic without being ostracised by the community and your family. I do, and I'm a pro-choice, secularised agnostic! I identify as culturally Catholic and very liberal, taking inspiration from the social justice and activism within the church (for the avoidance of doubt, I am not asking for or interested in anyone else's take on my cultural identity or views on the existence of God and place of religion in society).

And nobody I know from my community has ever complained to me about this, or suggested that I'm doing it wrong. In fact, you've complained more in this thread about my approach than anyone in my community ever has to me! That's your choice of course: you're entitled to your views on religion just as I and OP's DH are, and you may also judge others if you wish. But it's odd that you are more judgey about this than anyone I know- and I know shitloads of Catholics- and yet are concerned about rejection from the community if one picks and chooses.

If you are sure you do not want more children, why not just go and get the snip yourself? It's not a big deal and it is the most reliable method. That way his conscience is not compromised and he doesn't have to fret about getting the snip himself. So you get to decide, as you should, what you do with your body and he doesn't have to sweat the ethical or physical stuff. It's a win win situation.

'I struggle with the idea of branches of religion in the way you describe - a "liberal" as opposed to a "strict".'

But every religion has followers that range from liberal to strict. And that's a good thing, otherwise religions would be made up entirely of fundamentalists.

As Catholics or Protestants I guess there is some luxury in that you can say, no I'm not Catholic anymore, I'm Christian -- but what about Muslims, or Jews? If you say that you cannot be a liberal Muslim, you are effectively saying they cannot be religious at all, which is unreasonable.

You say religion is made up of rules -- but in most cases, there is not one single interpretation of those rules. Look at Judaism, where you have Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews. I think basically the same thing has evolved in Catholicism, it just hasn't been institutionalised in the same way.

Strict Catholics believe the pope is always right and therefore they have to follow the interpretation of the Bible as set forth by the Church. Liberal Catholics tend to believe that the Church has not modernised enough, and that on a handful of issues they can depart from Church teachings, without having to forsake their entire religion. (And Catholicism differs quite a bit from other Christian traditions.)

I agree there is a lot of religious hypocrisy around, for example George Bush talking about what a good Christian he was while bombing countries back to the stone age. But having different branches within one religion isn't hypocritical to me, I think it's natural for different interpretations to evolve over the course of centuries.

(sorry again OP, but thanks for not minding the tangent so far! )

sportsfanatic I don't want to. I am happy with the contraceptive decision I have made. Of course in 4 or 5 years if DH doesn't want a vasectomy I will consider it as the mirena has to come out then anyway.

None actually understands what I am getting at all, and that's probably my fault as I am not explaining it very well.

The closest thing that anyone has come to getting what i mean is dreamings comment on religious hypocrisy.

I haven't said anyone can't be religious at all.

I am just giving up on this one.

Ok I am bowing out now as well. Thanks for all the input everyone. Will discuss again with DH and tell him that the thinning of the womb lining is a last line of defence and happens with he pill as well. Spoke to him a few minutes ago and he says he understands that I don't want to ge it out. He will research it a bit more and then decide for himself whether to go with condoms or escalate the vasectomy.
Will show him this thread later sure he will be interested in discussion Fig, dreaming and Frangelina were having.

beta, 's ok, no offence taken
Fig, aye, it is the only drawback i've found with it so far (he calls it the Alien ) but since the doctors apparently won't sterilize women any more - at least, not in my postcode - and he won't have a vasectomy (fair play, his body) and I want the least hormonal long term solution possible, it's about the only thing for me. I've had the threads snipped shorter but sometimes he still feels them (makes him sound mahoosive, LOL, though he is just normal).
Oh, and there was the recent palaver I went through when I thought it had dropped out and had to get the morning after pill and a scan at the local hospital.

Oops, x-posts with OP, hope my last post doesn't put your DH off!

The pill has a secondary action in that it lessens the chances of implantation if an egg does "slip through".

Your H is being unreasonable. If he has an ethical problem with certain contraceptives, he a) is responsible for researching the different types himself, and knowing which ones he is OK with, etc. and b) [more importantly] must start taking action for himself.

He could go and have a vasectomy tomorrow.
He could also use condoms every time.
He needs to take responsibility for his own ethical choices.

If he doesn't like it then let him not have sex with you.

Ask him if he thinks women with ectopic pregnancies should die rather than be operated on.

Most RCs I know have not actually thought through what being pro-life is and what conception is.

Not all fertilised eggs implant, many that do are rejected by the body because they are not growing properly.

Also if you do not use chemicals / condoms your body will naturally shed its lining every 28 days, ie thin the lining and prevent implantation.

Get him to look at it the other way. Without it, your body increases the lining of the woumb in order to make implantation more likley. If you do not become pregnant this thickening and shedding actually increases your chances of breast and uterine cancer.

The mirena works, partially, by keeping your uterus at a post period state.

Oh and YANBU