Super Caring Medical Student Designs Super Caring Uterine Assault Rifle, for the Ladies

Because when your heart is just full of pain for the plight of women, the first thing you do is design a medical assault rifle that fires a copper barb through her cervix


producing a continual low grade infection which will cause her uterus to expel any fertilized eggs, on the off-chance that sperm survived and an egg was released.  Your goal is to make it so easy to use that you don’t even have to be a doctor.

Of course, she may still want to follow up with a doctor if she experiences any of the common side effects of IUDs, such as severe cramps, infection, heavy bleeding, weight gain, irritability, uterine perforations, anemia, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, and permanent infertility.  One woman discovered that the IUD had wandered right into her liver, the rascal. And one woman ended up having her sternum cracked open to retrieve the device that had migrated all the way into her rib cage.  Ha!  Ladies and their lady problems.

But basically, other than that, it’s one of the safest medical choices a woman can make.   Yes, it’s safe.  Didn’t I tell you it was safe?  Shut up and spread your legs, so I can aim this thing.

 

 

Print Friendly

  • Jeni

    OH. MY. WORD. NOOOOOOO…

  • joannemcportland

    And we’ll do it for FREE!

  • Emily

    I can only imagine how much more appealing NFP will look when compared side by side to the image of this scary gun looking thing coming towards your cervix. Alright Catholic Meme, get working on that one.

  • simchafisher

    I like how the hand model is wearing a jacket and dress shirt, like he’s the James Bond of IUDs. Poor Pussy Galore, she never saw it coming.

  • Jeanne G.

    The IUD in general scares the pants off me. But I’d better keep them on, or someone could put one in me.

    • Jordan

      It’s ok, Jeanne, the doctor interviewed in the second article link said if you polled physicians, they “just don’t have that opinion that it’s a defective product”. So don’t you worry.

    • MightyMighty1

      This is another reason why women are allowed to wear pants. Simcha, do you want to update your list?

      11. I wear pants so nobody can sneak an IUD inside me.

  • Jordan

    It migrated into someone’s rib cage?!?!? Man, I had no idea these things could get creepier than they already were. Just waiting to hear about it coming out of someone’s ear.

  • http://www.parafool.com/ victor

    “There she blows! There she blows! A hump like a snow-hill! It is Moby Dick!”

    • http://www.parafool.com/ victor

      Er, that’s what I’d say everytime I used it, if I were a medical student.

      • simchafisher

        “Why I’m Not a Medical Student,” by Victor Lams.
        Chapter One . . .

  • anna lisa

    Ugh, and yet they line up like dumb sheep for the slaughter. What amazes me is how much women will trust anyone who puts a white lab coat on. She probably sat through at least 20 commercials in the last month that the ambulance chasers run, drumming up damaged women. They wouldn’t be *paying* for commercial time if it didn’t reap them handsome rewards to get these women to come out of the woodwork.
    Safe and Legal!
    My mother-in-law was one of those victims but refuses to face that she was duped–not after early onset menopause, not after cancer,, not after getting her uterus cut out and not even now, as her brain tumors cause her continuous pain. Radical feminism is a lonely religion now.

  • CS

    Silly Simcha, the creator of this thing was *not* concerned with women! He just needed a senior project idea!!!

    “”I was just a naive engineering student,” said Cappiello, who was thinking, “‘I can come up with a better way to do it.’”

    Also this:
    “”We’re trying to really democratize IUD insertion, so that everyone can do them, anywhere,” Cappiello said of Bioceptive’s invention. “All you have to do is squeeze this lever.”

    Just think: If only that poor dead Ariel Castro would have had this handy device, he wouldn’t have received quite so many years for killing his unborn children.

  • Jenny Uebbing

    Did they have to make the thing Storm Trooper white?

  • A_scientist

    While I agree that this device looks terrifying, please do keep in mind that the FDA must approve any device used medically. Every company must show that using their therapy has health benefits, on average. In this case, on average, IUDs or birth control are “safer” than the risks associated with pregnancy. With regards to the case of an IUD device perforating the uterus or even making its way into the liver, that is undeniably scary and dangerous sounding (and also extremely rare). There are also plenty of cases of women dying in childbirth or botched abortions, which are tragic side effects of pregnancy. While IUDs and other types of birth control continue to be the safer choice than pregnancy, they will continue to be FDA approved. That being said, it will be interesting to see what the outcomes of the lawsuits are with regards to the IUDs mentioned in the linked news article.

    • simchafisher

      I’m sorry, I must not have been clear. This device doesn’t frighten me, it enrages me. We’ve been hearing for the last several decades that we mustn’t say “mailman,” but “lettercarrier,” since the word “mailman” carries a subtle sexist connotation which is degrading and oppressive to women. And yet when we have something that literally looks exactly like a gun, and is designed to be inserted into a woman’s vagina and make her insides stop working, I”m supposed to believe that this is progress, there’s no underlying animus against women, and it’s all just about keeping us healthy and happy.

      Remember when pre-abortion ultrasounds were called “rapey?” Because they went into your vagina (and don’t ask me how people expected the doctors to get the baby pieces out. Through the ear, perhaps). But this thing isn’t rapey, because feminism.

      Anyway, it’s irrelevant whether I like it or not, because the whole point of this project is to export it to third world countries, where those dumb brown ladies keep popping out excess population. Soon we’ll be able to squeeze off a few thousand of these between their legs, and they’ll be right as rain. Of course there will be no doctors around to remove the IUDs when they do inevitably go wrong — there are hundreds of thousands of complaints to the USDA against MIrena alone — but so what? They’re just brown people.

      Finally, you call yourself “a scientist,” but you refer to abortion as “a side effect of pregnancy.” Worst. Scientist. Ever.

      • LisaTwaronite

        “Rapey?” If a woman consents, it’s not rape. If she doesn’t, it is. While insertion of a medical device isn’t sexual, her consent means it isn’t “rapey.”
        And IUDs are actually very simple to remove.
        I am indeed an IUD enthusiast, and this is based on my personal experience with one.

        • LisaTwaronite

          Also — the moment one of these is used to insert an IUD into a woman WITHOUT her consent, mine is the first voice you will hear protesting this. Because feminism.

          • simchafisher

            Oh, my God. Don’t you live in China??

          • LisaTwaronite

            No, I don’t.

          • LisaTwaronite

            ….and if that was a reference to forced abortions in China, I find them just as abhorrent as you do. The government has no business inside anyone’s body.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Ha, I guess our messages overlapped. I oppose forced abortions, and would oppose forced use of contraception, too. The number of children a couple has should be left up to the couple (or, if they see fit, up to God), but not up to the government.

          • simchafisher

            Sorry, I thought you did. My mistake.
            You are aware of what goes on in China, though. Forcing a woman to insert an IUD would be child’s play compared to what happens. Your thoughts?

          • simchafisher

            Okay, we were commenting at the same time. You find forced abortions abhorrent. I’d love to see the things you’ve said, speaking out against them.

            I don’t suppose there’s any point to this discussion. It’s very obvious to me that the pro-contraceptive point of view is just a higher rung on the ladder, and it’s a straight shot down to the bottom, with forced abortions etc.

          • LisaTwaronite

            What I said, on my now-defunct personal blog (and in comments on other blogs, almost always under the first initial of my first name — using my real name is recent), is that I oppose forced abortions in China because I don’t believe governments should be able to force someone to remove something/someone from her body, or compel her to keep something/someone in there.

      • daisychick

        Your ignorance is showing. The doctors don’t take the dead baby pieces out, at least not in an uncomplicated early abortion. Nature and drugs do that. No one needs to poke around in there.

        • Emily

          Have you seen pictures of abortions? Seriously, the doctor has to reassemble the child to make sure no limb or “pieces” are left inside the uterus that would cause infection. I believe this is usually a D&E in the 2nd trimester. But yes, those suction or drug-induced abortions in the first trimester are so much more humane. *sigh*.

      • Emily

        It kills me when people say abortion is necessary because it’s “safer” than pregnancy and childbirth. Get your asses to the places with high maternal mortality rates and give the women better prenatal care and better postpartum care. Sheesh, now men are saving women from the “dangerous” business of what their bodies were made to do.

        • MightyMighty1

          Here’s a sad fact: The US spends more on foreign contraception aid than it does on foreign maternal care aid. As in, more money for condoms/pills etc. than they spend on doctors/nurses/meds for women who have children.

          No wonder childbirth ain’t so safe over there.

          Incidentally, Ireland has no legal abortion and has the best maternal health numbers in Europe. So…how do we explain that if pregnancy/childbirth are so much more dangerous than an artificial surgery designed to disect a living human being inside another living human being?

      • kenofken

        Pre-abortion ultrasounds were more than “rapey.” They were straight-up, “big R” rape, as much as anything that happens in Darfur or the dark corners of a frat house. More abhorrent in some ways, because it was rape that was to be done by the coercive power of the state under the guise of medicine. These bills were explicitly intended to deter women from seeking abortion by making the experience as intrusive and humiliating as possible.

        The question turns on consent. Real consent, not the coerced “you brought it on yourself” kind. From that standpoint, this invention and the ultrasounds in question are not even in the same moral universe. The use of IUDs are a choice made by women along with their doctors. It may or may not be the best option for any given person, and every device, drug or procedure has risks.

        Birth control is not the only reason IUDs are chosen. In fact, I would say two-thirds or more of the women I know who have used them have done so primarily or entirely for reasons other than birth control – excessive and irregular bleeding etc. They work fine for some people and cause problems for others.

        My wife tried two and both had to be removed. That treatment option was tried after medications failed to alleviate a problem which cost her many days of work and life and which required ER trips and high-power painkillers at times. The only other alternative offered was permanent sterilization. I have trouble seeing how the good faith attempt to use an IUD, despite its ultimate failure, constituted “animus against women.”

        The device in question, if it lives up to its claims, has the potential to reduce the injuries and complications caused by improper placement.

        • simchafisher

          No, they were explicitly intended to deter women from seeking abortion by giving the women clear information about what they were doing, so they could have informed consent. It’s standard procedure for abortionists to lie to women and tell them their child is just tissue, even far into fetal development. I personally know several women who had abortion and were horrified to see what came out of them: limbs, faces. If they had had a clear ultrasound beforehand, they never would have chosen to go through with it.

          Myself, I never thought these bills were a good idea. When a doctor doesn’t want a patient to see something (as abortionists would not, because abortions are lucrative; women changing their minds is not), it’s very easy to hide it from them. Just turn the screen away, move the wand around quickly, etc. Early ultrasounds are not easy to decipher.

          I do understand that it all turns on consent. I’m not trying to claim that individual women are routinely being forced into getting IUDs, at least not in the US. What I am saying is that women are not being informed about the risks of IUDs. Women are being used as lab rats while medical corporations make money off their suffering. And women are told, over and over and over again, that their lives will be ruined if they give birth, and that childbirth and childcare makes them second rate, and the only way to escape that fate it to put themselves through one type of physical and emotional torture after another.

          This IUD device may very well reduce injuries and complications through caused by improper placement. And I guarantee you it will cause more injuries and complications when it’s used, as it’s intended to be, by non doctors, on women who don’t have access to doctors when the inevitable complications arise. Some woman in a refugee camp in Darfur does not have access to an ER and painkillers. They will die in excruciating pain as a direct result of this device.

          • kenofken

            The ultrasound bills were crafted on the assumption that women aren’t competent adults and so need the state to act as parent/father for them. The state has no business trying to manipulate them into making one choice or the other. If we are to use the state’s power to deter abortion, it should be done cleanly through legislation, court rulings or amendments, not by toxic manipulation of the doctor-patient relationship and physical assault. A coerced physical invasion of a woman’s body for a medically unnecessary procedure to gain their compliance is a form of rape. The element of state power to compel a choice puts it in the realm of torture, which is not dependent on the degree of injury or the fact that the procedure is used by consent in other contexts. The ultrasound bills, at least those specifying TV ulstrasound, were monstrous in their implications, and fortunately even most conservative lawmakers came to see that.

            Medical corporations, and corporations of all kinds, do push their wares and downplay risks. It falls to us to reign that in with a good regulatory environment and ultimately due diligence as consumers and patients. Women need to do the same homework for an IUD as they would for a surgery or new medication. They are fully capable of doing so.

            Your last point goes to questions of the standard of care provided by governments and NGOs in developing nations. Adequate follow-up care is a concern with IUDs, and with any other treatment. We should not, of course, be using treatments which will cause more problems than they solve.

    • jenny

      By any chance, is FDA working on a similar device for men ???

      • Jordan

        Somehow I don’t see that catching on, lol.

  • LisaTwaronite

    I used an IUD for several years, with no problems, and I highly recommend it — side effects are quite uncommon, and the alternative to contraception (childbirth/pregnancy) can have some pretty ghastly side effects, too.

    • simchafisher

      Wait, hold the phone, Lisa Twaronite comes out in favor of IUDs. Startling!

      • LisaTwaronite

        Ha, yeah — do you see a pattern here? Seriously, since I am the only commenter here likely to ever have had experience with one of these devices inside my body, I added my two cents.

        • Zelda

          Oh please. I had a good experience with acid. I still don’t recommend it because it isn’t actually good for you.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Sorry, never tried acid, so I can’t personally comment there. My IUD was indeed a wonderful choice for me, but I know what’s good for me isn’t good for everyone. One of my favorite phrases applies here, too: one woman’s blessing is another woman’s curse.

          • CS

            or, another way: “One woman’s mild uterine irritation is another woman’s perforated liver”.

          • LisaTwaronite

            My uterus (and liver!) are fine. I had it removed after a few years and had another baby.

          • CS

            Righty-o, and because patriarchy isn’t making your life less-enjoyable in any way, then it’s definitely not a problem!

          • LisaTwaronite

            When it comes to the specific issue of my contraception (which is what I’m talking about), patriarchy has never been a problem. Are you perhaps talking about something else?

          • CS

            Yes, I am talking about something else. In fact, this whole post was talking about something else: the way in which women are subjected to violence linked to controlling their fertility. And also how that violence is marketed as in their best interests.

            And now I am also adding the topic of, how that marketing has worked so well that, even when it is unbelievably provocative and violence-shaped, people will still feel an overwhelming desire to muddle the discussion with how happy they were with their own, only-slightly-related experience.

          • CS

            …and, I might add, do that repeatedly, almost like a shtick.

          • LisaTwaronite

            I am indeed consistent. When I agree, I tend to stay silent (“Qui tacet consentire”). When I disagree, I tend to speak up.

          • CS

            ahem. So you do admit that your insistence on promoting your personal experience with an IUD is not, in fact, your-two-cents-lol, but a real and deliberate act of challenge to Simcha’s questioning this device, and the anti-contraceptive opinion that you know is part of it?

          • LisaTwaronite

            Yes, it is certainly “a real and deliberate act of challenge to Simcha’s questioning this device, and the anti-contraceptive opinion” — I have a point of view, and I share it, in blog comment boxes. What a concept!
            My personal experience aligns with my hopes that women everywhere who want contraception will be able to get it.

          • CS

            And MY hopes are that women everywhere who think of themselves as humble, kindly promoters of birth control will take the time to examine seriously the problems inherent in a patriarchal, exploitative world system that turns women’s health in to a business, uses birth control to further its own agenda of objectification, funds birth control distribution programs in the developing world but fails to provide women and children clean water, AIDS drugs, food, and assistance in ending domestic violence in their communities, AND climbs continually on the backs of vulnerable women who do *not* have the choices that First World Lisa has. Usually this climb is accomplished by manipulating those women into being research subjects for contraceptive companies.

            (Which, by the way, is part of every single contraceptive method that ever was invented in the modern age: testing on poor women with vague and problematic consent protocols.)

            If you have informed yourself on all of the above topics then you should honor that in yourself, and post your reasoned responses to the criticisms. I think you sell yourself short by trying to push your agenda in a kind of hair, twirling, “silly me, but I had a ball with my IUD!” kind of way.

          • LisaTwaronite

            I have indeed informed myself on all of the above topics (and it’s why I donate to Planned Parenthood International). I think contraception HELPS the vast majority of women who choose to use it, who want to avoid getting pregnant, and my personal experience supports my point of view.

            I didn’t say, “silly me, but I had a ball with my IUD!” — that was your bizarre interpretation. What I said was, “I used an IUD for several years, with no problems, and I highly recommend it — side effects are quite uncommon, and the alternative to contraception (childbirth/pregnancy) can have some pretty ghastly side effects, too.”

          • CS

            Ok, great. I will await your response to the feminist/humanist/personalist critique of the First World Contraceptive Industrial Complex. Please post it at the top of the thread where everybody will be able to see it.

          • CS

            I have been waiting to have this discussion with somebody well-informed, because I am really interested in how different people weigh out cooperation with, vs. fighting against, when the methods of said actions overlap, and the topic is giving women access to better health, in an exploitative materialist world.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Why would the “First World Contraceptive Industrial Complex” need to “manipulate” women into being research subjects, when there are so many women seeking contraception? The World Health Organization estimates 222 million women in developing countries would like to delay or stop childbearing.
            Copper IUDs have fewer side effects than hormonal birth control and are far more effective than condoms. If you consider artificial contraception to be morally illicit, none of that matters. But if you don’t, then it makes sense to improve women’s access to the most effective methods with the fewest side effects.

            Have you ever seen first hand the destitute poverty in a developing country? Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a start, but women need far more than contraception.

          • CS

            Why?? Money? a condescending attitude toward non-white, poor women? Even when women want birth control and agree to participate, they are often dismissed or in some other way become objects at the hands of a complex that will not test on White Women but has no problems pushing itself around the world.

          • CS

            Here are some links that graze the surface of why all women, regardless of their opinion on whether contraception is personally licit, should be concerned with the way birth control is developed, marketed, tested and wielded in a world that is absolutely shot through with the twisted impulse to exploit others for one’s own gain.

            I am posting these links for anyone who is NOT too convinced of their own condescending– excuse me, virtuous– concern for poor women to actually address what horrible actions have/are/will be taken in the name of said concern. None of them, as far as I can tell, is from an anti-contraceptive or religious source:

            http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2793.htm
            “One part of the birth control pill’s history that deserves special attention is how it was tested. Researchers chose to test the pill among the poor in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was far more accepting of contraception than the mainland United States, despite the country’s
            largely Catholic population. With five births for every death, birth control and mass emigration were the only way to keep Puerto Rico economically viable…None of the women were told that they were taking part in an
            experiment. The side effects were largely brushed aside by the pill’s developers.”

            This is one passage in an important work that explores the troublesome history, in the US and abroad, of using poor women as guinea pigs for experimental contraceptive procedures– also performed in the name of helping reduce suffering:
            “After the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit on
            behalf of the Relf sisters, the girls’ mother revealed that she had unknowingly “consented” to the operation, having been deceived by the social workers who handled her daughters’ case. They had asked Mrs. Relf, who
            was unable to read, to put her “X” on a document, the
            contents of which were not described to her. She assumed, she said, that it authorized the continued Depo-Provera injections. As she subsequently
            learned, she had authorized the surgical sterilization
            of her daughters.”– From Angela Davis’ work, “Racism, Birth Control and Reproductive Rights”

            On privilege and the problem of ignorance when trying to grapple with getting women contraception:
            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/05/14/celebrating-pill/

            Here is a little essay on the problem of historical racism and depo-provera and norplant, both of which were tested on disenfranchised women without proper consent:

            http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1176

            Here, women “consent” to using Depo-Provera in order to get what they want: retained Israeli citizenship:

            http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/israels-treatment-of-ethiopians-racist

          • LisaTwaronite

            The concept of informed consent took a long time to evolve in the West, too, not just the developing world (there was testing on white women, too — the Dalkon shield, for example), and there was a lot to be learned from past mistakes. Not just on contraception, either.
            I guess I still just don’t get why you think my views are “condescending” because I want to give women access to what they themselves want. I would think the opposite view is more so: “You may think you want this, but we know better than you and we’re not going to give it to you, so sorry, you just have to trust us that you’re better off without it.”

          • CS

            That paraphrased quote above is absolutely not my view.

            I think that you sound condescending because you don’t seem to care to address in any meaningful way the critique of how contraceptives are developed and marketed. Hand-waving about how “informed consent is evolving” dismisses the fact that it is STILL a problem, not to mention is *horrendously* ignorant of the pain that it has caused in communities who suffer/have suffered because of it. The essay by a woman from Puerto Rico above talks about that.

            I would like to see more people really address these problems– and, no, the liberal’s indulgence of donating to Planned Parenthood doesn’t count. That is not an intellectual act, it is a religious one, undertaken in obedience to a Higher Power that you have chosen to entrust with thinking about stuff too lofty for you. Which, ok, you know, just admit it for what it is.

            When privileged women want to focus exclusively on their own experiences (!great!) with something, and don’t attempt to engage with the possibility that there could be another reality for people with less power, they perpetuate the systems that exploit vulnerable people.

          • LisaTwaronite

            “Stuff too lofty for you” — oh, look who’s calling ME condescending.
            But you’re right — my views aren’t “lofty,” they’re about as down to earth as one can get. Have you talked to many “poor, dark” women in developing countries in person, or do you just link to stories about them on the Internet? And why don’t you trust them to know what they want for themselves, instead of protecting them from “the system?”

          • CS

            You know, I think using a condescending tone to a specific person in a conversation is a far cry from condescending to entire groups of people in your mind.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Congratulations. I think that’s one of the weirdest things anyone has ever said to me on the Internet.
            (And why don’t you comment under your full name? You’re not ashamed of what you’re saying — are you?)

          • CS

            Really? That is?

            Anyway, no, I am not ashamed. To be honest, I find that there is a certain subset of the commenters here that will make assumptions and respond based on gender.

            That annoys me, so I took it out of the equation when the site switched to Disqus.

          • LisaTwaronite

            I did the opposite. I used to comment under my first initial, and I was frequently mistaken for a man (that is, when I wasn’t relaying my firsthand reproductive anecdotes).

          • Certified Hamster Midwife
          • CS

            Interesting that you linked the Slate take-down of Griggs’ book. I am assuming that you 1) agree with it, and 2)are trying to conflate my argument that people need to take critique of a Contraceptive Industrial Complex seriously with Griggs’ metaphysical “all women must ovulate naturally to be women” manifesto on the Pill– a single birth control method.

          • Certified Hamster Midwife

            Neither. That was the first review of the book that I found, that’s all. It misrepresents her argument somewhat, but I haven’t found a review that doesn’t. The only reviews that don’t tear the book apart are from people trying to sell religion or natural remedies. Or possibly cloth menstrual pads.

            She does cover the contraceptive-industrial complex aspect, since an anti-Big Pharma slant goes down well with her target audience along with the arguments about natural ovulation. It’s probably the closest thing to the conversation that you want to have going on outside of Catholic/Quiverfull media right now.

            I’m a Pill-popping atheist and thought that how Yaz and Yasmin were marketed was borderline criminal even before we learned about the higher rate of blood clots.

            I have no experience with the testing of new contraceptive methods on poor and uninformed women and can’t speak to that.

          • LisaTwaronite

            How exactly is my experience “only slightly related?” Because I had one of these implanted in me, and it did NOT wander to my liver? Are you saying that only experiences that fit this particular point of view are relevant?
            As I said, and will say again, consensual use of contraception does not involve women being “subjected to violence.”

          • CS

            It’s not that you have a different point of view, but that you are missing the entire point of the post, and changing it to be about you and your IUD, in order to promote your point of view. Like you have something invested in it. Like you need to keep reminding somebody that your IUD was great.

            And you know, I am not even sure how to explain how privilege works to a woman who seems hellbent on ignoring that it is at play. Let me try: The fact that you didn’t feel any problem with your particular contraceptive use does not in any way negate the problematic uses and abuses of contraception in a patriarchal and paternalistic culture.

            Your repeated insisting that your experience trumps or negates the feminist/humanist/personalist criticisms other people are leveling at contraceptive guns (for example) is a perfect example of how privilege works.

            Sometimes people don’t know how to identify that as what you are doing, and engage with you because they just know they don’t like what contraception does to people. But no, this isn’t about (for me, anyway,) the fact that you have a different opinion about IUDs. It’s about your need to express it even when that is not really the topic, and try to make it the topic.

            And also the inevitable testing of a vaginal gun on poor women around the globe, whose ability to “consensually” receive contraception shot, injected, burned or added to their bodies through the water supply is debatable, to say the least.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Excuse me, but where you only see “the problematic uses and abuses of contraception in a patriarchal and paternalistic culture,” I see greater access to contraception for women who want it. And I think this is a very, VERY good thing (yes, based on my personal experience — there I go again).

          • Certified Hamster Midwife

            Even having a copper wire embedded in your liver is less violent than having an 8-pound person expelled from your midsection.

          • MightyMighty1

            LOL.

          • Zelda

            That’s not what you said. You said you (highly!) recommend it – knowing full well how it works, knowing full well what can go wrong. And given the number of lawsuits, side effects don’t seem to be that uncommon, But go ahead. Roll the dice. Lisa had a good experience.

          • LisaTwaronite

            It’s very easy to find data on side effects of different types of contraception, both from the FDA and from the individual companies who make them. Anyway, I’m speaking up about my positive experience with my IUD the way you’re speaking up about your positive experience with NFP. Individual experience may vary — as I always say, we don’t all want the same things out of life, nor should we.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Oh, sorry — I mean the way Emily spoke up about her positive experiences with NFP. We both highly recommend choices that worked well for us.

          • Zelda

            Yes, but NFP is not going to migrate to your liver.

          • Zelda

            There is no possible way inserting something into your uterus that causes a constant state of irritation and infection is good for you. At the very least, women should be informed exactly how these things work, and not have it couched in positive marketing terms. That’s propaganda. And sorry, but I don’t trust either government or manufacturer “data” on the subject given their terribly creepy interest in moving these products. If it didn’t have a significant risk, lawyers would not be pursuing lawsuits. It wouldn’t be worth their time.

          • LisaTwaronite

            You don’t trust the FDA, the manufacturer data, or someone who actually had one of these things inside her body (and believe me, I would have noticed a “constant state of infection”) — so who DO you believe? You think only the horror stories are true? The millions of women who use IUDs with no problems just don’t count?

          • Zelda

            I think the horror stories are underreported so that women deemed inferior by the government and intellectual class will get them and cease to breed their inferior babies. You are a useful tool in this regard. I had a terrible experience with birth control – just the hormonal kind – forget a piece of copper lodged into an internal organ, so your useful tool experience means nothing to me. I think people ought to have as much information about what they are putting into their bodies as possible. You want them to have anecdotal evidence of success.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Nope, I want them to have both — information, and my own experience. I didn’t like hormonal birth control, either. One size does not fit all.

          • Zelda

            Please. You don’t even know how your own IUD works. You don’t seem all that concerned with the dissemination of any information except your own useful tool experience. What on earth would you say to a woman who had an awful experience? “Oops?”

          • LisaTwaronite

            I know how my own IUD worked, and why would you think I would be sympathetic to anyone who had an awful experience?

          • Zelda

            Sympathy is cold comfort when you are infertile. And no, you don’t know how your IUD works – only that it works for you.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Yes, I do know how IUDs work. And I agree sympathy is cold comfort, but I would not say, “Oops.”

          • Conservative Catholic

            “producing a continual low grade infection which will cause her uterus to expel any fertilized eggs”

            “I would have noticed a “constant state of infection””

            Isn’t that what makes it work??

          • LisaTwaronite

            No, IUDs do not work by producing infection. (You can Easily Google them, if you want to read more, but somehow, I doubt you do.)

        • Certified Hamster Midwife

          Not installed with a harpoon, though.

          Did you have it before or after having children? they aren’t in common use in the US partly because of the misconception that you can only get one after having children.

          With my luck, I’d pay out of pocket for a Mirena and have to get it taken out right away. And I don’t even like tampons very much. But they’re a nice choice for other people. Without a harpoon involved.

          • LisaTwaronite

            After, and this was in the US in the late 90′s. It was a ParaGard, not a Mirena.

    • CS

      Not quite sure what the point of your comment is…..
      Maybe you have a comment on the gun shape? The “so easy a child could do it!” marketing? The un-ironic pictures of nicely-dressed, smiling young men who threw this thing together for a senior project? The already-in-the-works plans to ship them to poor countries to stop their women from breeding?

      • LisaTwaronite

        It doesn’t say “so easy a child could do it!” It says, “It still takes a health care provider to use it.” Why shouldn’t women in poor countries who don’t want to get pregnant not have access to contraception, if they choose to use it?

        The gun shape? Is that REALLY a problem?

        My point in commenting: I have personal experience with this kind of birth control. I am not claiming the Catholic Church considers any kind of artificial birth control to be licit — it does not. But not everyone in the world lives according to Catholic teachings on contraception. IUDs are an excellent choice for some of the many sexually active women who don’t want to get pregnant, and if I were the mothers of these “nicely-dressed, smiling young men,” I would be — un-ironically — proud.

        • gregcamacho8

          “The gun shape? Is that REALLY a problem?”

          Un-ironic? Are you sure?

          • LisaTwaronite

            I let someone pierce my young daughter’s ears with a gun-shaped device — was that evil, too? I don’t see a problem with the gun shape itself (nor do I have a problem with what this device does shoot). A real gun that shoots bullets = different.

          • CS

            ………See, folks? When feminists say that women cooperate with patriarchy with their vague, blithe indifference, this is what they mean. That the person doing it is incidentally endorsing her contraception is just a side note. Any repeated, chipper-but-blank refusal to engage with the mere question of problematic treatment of women is the classic clue.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Wait, what?
            Sorry, I see neither “vague, blithe indifference” nor “problematic treatment of women” here. No one forced me to get an IUD — I sought one myself. As I said in another comment, the moment one of these devices is used to insert an IUD into a woman WITHOUT her consent, mine will be the first voice you’ll hear protesting.

          • CS

            Where you see “Oh, look, a post about me and my happy IUD experience!” I see blithe indifference to the plight of millions and millions of other women in the world.

          • LisaTwaronite

            What, because it’s shaped like a gun, that means women will be forced to insert IUDs against their will? Is THAT what you mean?
            I’m not indifferent — I’m actually enthusiastic about this particular method of contraception, and I think it will HELP some of the millions and millions of women in the world who, like me, don’t want to get pregnant.

          • CS

            Oops! Your agenda is showing!

          • LisaTwaronite

            Since I never hid it, why are you feigning surprise?

          • CS

            Oh, no, I wasn’t trying to convey surprise.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Just showing off your keen grasp of the obvious?

          • MightyMighty1

            Lisa, Just so you know, forced sterilization is actually a huge problem. And in many poor areas of the world, food aid is tied to contraception. Once a woman has her IUD in, she is often not able to get it removed because the people who lovingly provided it to her don’t want her to breed at all. She’s poor and dark you know. Villages are given quotas to meet, and they are loathe to let a woman bring their quota down.

            Steve Mosher of the Population Research Institute has witnessed a lot of this. He is the person who helped make the forced abortions in China known in the US. He has seen babies aborted during birth or killed just after. He has seen women who have horrible reactions to IUDs who cannot get them removed. It’s really not about women’s healthcare. It’s about managing what we view as “herds of humans” in the 3rd world.

            (For what it’s worth, I am making no comment/judgment on you using an IUD. You’re not a starving and illiterate person being bribed/coerced.)

          • LisaTwaronite

            So you’re saying that because some women are forced to use contraception against their will, that means contraception itself is the problem, and therefore women who want it shouldn’t be able to get it?
            It’s possible to both condemn the abuses and also work for better access to contraception for the women who seek it.

          • CS

            YES, MM. Exactly, especially on the last sentence. I feel the same way, Lisa, since my Annoyed A-hole self hasn’t been able to articulate any kind of charitableness so far.

    • Emily

      Ah, but no one mentions you don’t HAVE to have these man made devices to prevent the awful, horrible, scary result of pregnancy. It’s like it’s contraception (mankind’s savior) or endless babies. NFP people. For most people, it’s not that hard. I highly recommend it! 7 years and going.

      • LisaTwaronite

        Sure — and celibacy is always an option, too. To each her own!

        • Emily

          A few days of refraining from sex is hardly considered celibacy.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear — I meant celibacy is an option IN ADDITION to NFP and contraception.

    • anna lisa

      Lisa, I seem to remember that at some point you said that you are Catholic. –If you are, it seems that you don’t understand what the cross represents, or how short this life is. You seem to blindly advocate for “CHOICE”, when it was God Himself who gave it to humans as a gift. Has it ever occurred to you that it is precisely our *choices* that will spread before us like a web of acts and effects, which in essence will ultimately define who we were as people, in this blink-of-an-eye called “life on earth”?
      .
      You argue more like an atheist activist, who thinks we are simply an evolutionary blip. If you *do* believe in God, how is it that you think you are not offending God by advocating for the rights of the strong trumping the rights of the weak? This is simply diametrically opposed to Christianity. Christians understand that they must follow the master to have life: they must allow themselves to be the grain of wheat that dies to self and is buried, in order that others might have life. Dying to self is not a death sentence, it is what allows our soul to find happiness, and soar beyond the the inevitable pain that is found on this poor earth.

      • LisaTwaronite

        Hi, Anna Lisa. It would be disingenuous of me to call myself “Catholic” without some disclaimer (Not-devout-Catholic? Secular Catholic? Do these work?). I am living according to my beliefs, just as you live according to yours.

        • anna lisa

          Lisa, you need to realize that by being a prolific advocate for the rights of some to do away with the rights of others involves culpability. You will meet the souls that were victims of your steely philosophy. Don’t despair when it happens though, because God is greater than any sin, but it will be truly horrifying.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Somehow, I can’t believe it will be any worse than what I see on earth.
            Anyway, I’m better off spending eternity with my own kind. I’d rather be in hell with my non-Christian husband than in any heaven without him.

          • anna lisa

            I think there will be plenty of non-Christians in heaven–people who followed natural law by instinct. Also, your culpability for those who destroy life because of your advice or actions is mitigated by the fact that your conscience was not formed to believe that all human life is sacred. I would hope that when the truth is revealed to you, you will have a change of heart.

          • LisaTwaronite

            Anna Lisa, it’s very nice of you to think that, and I appreciate it. Seriously.

  • JT

    I actually had to sit through a presentation by the guys who developed this thing during one of my classes at Tulane. I thought it was a good idea……..

  • MyTwoCentsIn

    I read far, far down into the commentary left here before asking the question that is in the back of everyone’s mind: When will a counterpart “weapon” be manufactured to allow us to have a shoot-out at the sperm growing testicles and scrotum?! I mean sperm are the problem…they outnumber eggs at every sexual encounter. Weapons of mass destruction… Just sayin’.

  • Steve

    ….Jesus.

  • jenny

    Does that rifle works for men too?

  • Darryl Harb

    Ah, multitasking: Notice how it has a hose attachment on the bottom, so you can water your lawn, too.

  • Annette

    I work in the field of gynecologic oncology and Mirena IUDs are also used to treat some types of endometrial cancers. There are legitimate usages for IUDS


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X