Gemma Potter and her husband, Glenn, could be the most fertile couple in the entire world. I'm serious. The 23-year-old mother of three (currently pregnant with her fourth) has gotten pregnant seven times in the past five years, despite using pretty much every form of contraception under the sun -- condoms, the coil, progesterone injections, an implant. (Three of Gemma's seven pregnancies resulted in miscarriages.)
While having no difficulty whatsoever conceiving may seem like a dream to some, to Gemma, it's actually kind of a nightmare.
Not only can the couple not be intimate without it, you know, resulting in a child (they've only had sex three times since September -- while Gemma was on the pill -- and she's currently pregnant), their "condition" has had a huge impact on Gemma's social and professional life. She told The Sun, "I can’t stop getting pregnant. I love my children but I don’t want more. I can’t go out with my friends and have a drink, as I’m constantly pregnant. I’ve also missed out on having a job or any career." Doesn't sound very fun. But here's what I'm wondering: If the couple is 100 percent sure they don't want any more children -- which, that's how it seems -- why doesn't Gemma get a tubectomy, or Glenn have a vasectomy?
They've been spending lots of time, energy, and money on various forms of contraception -- not to mention the emotional toll the miscarriages must have taken -- why not just put an end to this "problem" once and for all? I fully understand that operations like these aren't something to be taken lightly, but Gemma said herself that she doesn't want any more kids -- and it seems that Glenn echoes her sentiment. Why not "fix" this and try to move on in life with their soon-to-be four children?
What do you think about this?
Image via efleming/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 159
Good question. Seems like a pretty "duh" solution to me.
It's stressful to have that many children that close together. My brother and SIL had their first two only 14 months apart and it was tough with just two!
I too am wondering why they don't do a vasectomy or get tubes tied. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm curious as to what those reasons are.
Ah. This is true, Kathy S. Though their cirucumstances seem a little special! LOL
Many doctors won't give a tubal no matter how many kids you want or have if you are under 25, some even say 30. It's also an elective surgery, which means if you don't have healthcare to cover it you have to have the money up front. Same with a vasectomy. Instead of judging this women, why don't you judge the American healthcare system.
I call bullshit. Condoms are 99.99 percent effective. Oral bc is 99.99 percent effective. There is no way in hell she has been using bc correctly. She obviously needs to take a class.
FYI it's called a Tubal Ligation. I was thinking the same thing. The only thing I can think is they are young and it's awful permanent to have either surgery. Both are expensive to reverse and generally when reversed the chances of actually conceiving are super slim, although in their case it sounds like it might not be so tough. Even if I was that fertile I might have problems with a surgical procedure meant to be so permanent at that age. The only other option they'd have would be for her to have a Tubal, but save a few eggs which can be expensive. Egg storage isn't cheap. I would guess with that many small children money would be hard to find for egg storage. I know it would be for us. I have the EXACT OPPOSITE problem and I need a Hysterectomy, but @ 35 I am not ready to give up all hope, even though I know the chances are stupid slim I'll ever conceive naturally. So I could see her resisting that idea.