Large families and the Christian environmentalist (Erin)

The Christian environmentalist doesn't see humans as pollution, and welcomes large families as well as smaller ones into the ministry of humble stewardship, an approach to the planet and its resources that remembers that all of it is God's gift to us, and seeks to care for the earth and its treasures accordingly. So the Christian is at odds with the mainstream environmentalist when it comes to appreciating the conservation and recycling efforts that large families are capable of achieving; the Christian environmentalist sees all the members of the family as valuable and welcomes their contributions to greener living, while the mainstream environmentalist may tend to think that the greenest thing the family could have done was fail to bring into being at least half of the children in it.

There is no such thing as a definitive "Christian environmentalist." Many of us Christian environmentalists believe in practicing responsible family planning so as to not overburden the planet with unnecessary large families, even as we respect the right of others to make their own family choices, misguided as we may believe them to be. Your tenets of "Christian environmentalism" may indeed apply to many Catholics and other Christians, but try not to paint with such a large (and self-serving) brush.

As a Christian, and a graduate student in an environmental science field, I honestly can't say that most environmentalists I know see 'humans as pollution'. There is a difference between saying 'Children are a good thing, but it's possible to have too many', and saying 'Children are a bad thing'. Come on Erin, you're better than this schoolyard mode of argument.

I've struggled with my thoughts about a preferred family size, given that I love children and also am seriously aware of the problem of overpopulation. Personally, I think that the _aggregate_ family size, worldwide, should be around two children. For myself, however, I plan to have three, and I'm comfortable with that decision because I know that world fertility rates are dropping and that in the United States, the fertility rate is already at or below replacement.

A morally and intellectualy serious environmentalist would not tell you, Erin, that you shouldn't have six children, or that I shouldn't have three. They would say that, in aggregate, it would be better if the global and national fertility rate were around two, but that doesn't mean such should be the case for every single family. As long as plenty of other people have only one, then you can have six and I can have three. It's very possible to make a morally and intellectually respectable argument that the only moral way to deal with the threat of overpopulation is through natural family planning. While I might disagree with that, I respect it, and I do respect and credit the efficiacy of NFP. It's not possible, I think, to make a respectable case that _in principle_ overpopulation is not a serious threat.

Then there's the push for smaller homes, with the accompanying view that a larger home is a wasteful luxury

Too bad St. Al Gore, the Patron of the Environmental Movement, never heard about that part!

(Spambalaya, first type a . All this at the beginning. Don't forget to close the tag! At the end of your quote, type .

Also note that this site is THE WORST for not warning you that you've made a mistake. Most civilized sites will tell you ahead of time that you muffed the HTML, and then will even give you a chance to edit. Beliefnet is still operating sometime in the 1980's.)

Spambalaya

<em> works for italics for me. If you want bold <b> works.

I'd really like to see a study analyzing the per-person Carbon footprints of large families versus small families.

BobN - I am still chuckling over that.

I grew up in a large extended family - 29 kids by the time Mom and her two siblings were done. Pre mini van days. Several times a year the whole tribe would descend on a state or national park ( which is why I suspect we are all ranting environmentalists now). I loved being part of a big family. I think it is easier for big families now - mini vans are better than station wagons and stores where you can buy in bulk are more readily found. Thrift stores are everywhere now.

I have been active in environmental groups for most of my life and I do not see the "humans are pollution" mentality you have experienced. I see a concern that the failure to be stewards of the land and our resources may make it impossible to maintain our current population levels. I also think that more fuel efficient vehicles are an absolute necessity - but that would include fuel efficient mini vans too. There are hybrid SUV's that get great gas mileage. We do have to use gas more efficiently - if we don't - larger families will be hurt more by the rises in gas prices than by fuel efficient vehicles.

The smaller house thing - is not about 2 bedroom homes - it is about the use of space more efficiently. All these two story entry halls and great rooms waste space and more important - waste fuel to heat space that is not being used. And truthfully - I see little evidence that people are suddenly going "small" regarding homes - we hear a lot about it - but those faux chateau's are still being built.

The warehouse stores - it is now just me and the husband - and we love the warehouse stores. Bigger crowds there than at the pricey organic food stores. I think buying in bulk is not only economical - it is environmentally friendly cause you are cutting down on packaging. No one forces anyone to go to the organic stores and there warehouse places are more plentiful than the organic grocery stores. As for the reusable bags - I buy them - and then forget them at home. So I end up buying more. I now have so many reusable bags I could easily haul groceries for a family of sixteen. I do think - because of the landfill issue - we will see much more pressure to eliminate the plastic bags and use the reusable ones. Some European countries because of the landfill issues charge for bags - which creates a financial incentive to remember the reusable bag. So I agree you may be presurred to go in that direction.

I do agree that if we don't get a handle on our garbage and resource use we may end up restricting family size - or at least creating an environment where large families are stigmatized. So there is another incentive to be enviornmentally friendly.

Certainly in an agricultural enviornment big families are more normative. Yes there are people who stare and get all "how do you handle all those kids" - but who cares what they think ? If I feel comfortable that I am living my life in a way that is consistent with my values - that is responsible - that is all that matters.
Your name's comments about aggregate population are to the point - since some choose to have no kids or only one - that means others can choose to have more - the aggregate remains the same.

Erin, did you read Simcha Fisher's series on how green large families are? Very funny. I just tried to find a link, but apparently her original, personal blog is now private since she started blogging at Inside Catholic.

Anyway, I think that in many ways, larger families are greener by necessity. I don't really see the problem with larger families using reusable bags, either.

I also see that my husband is the youngest of twelve and they were raised in under 2,000 square feet. Given that the average size of homes has gone up as family size has gone down, it would seem that downsizing is still reasonable for larger families to consider. We have three active boys in 1050 square feet without plans of going anywhere soon and hopes of having more.

I agree it is super hard to find an ideal vehicle for larger families. It also seems backwards that the answer given is to space your children so that you all will fit comfortably in a standard sized vehicle (obviously contrary to the Catholic worldview). Hardly seems a natural measure for determining family size even if one isn't opposed to artificial birth control.

"A solution here would be to space the kids out a bit. Which has the added benefit that the older kids can then babysit the younger ones when the latter come along."

How do you space them out after you've already had them? It might be good advice to someone just married (although spacing them enough to allow them to babysit one another -- 12 years between each kid -- either limits your total family size or requires you to continue having kids to a pretty advanced age) but it would have done little to help Erin at the time the dilemma arose. And, not all child planning is perfect, which is just as true for people who welcome them even when they're not planned.

The reason that reusable grocery bags for eight is not very practical is that storing a couple of dozen of those things takes up more of that space that old-time people didn't need in a house, and about half-fills your cart before you've even bought groceries, let alone fit a carseat into it.

What meh lacks the guts to say openly is that he/she believes Obama to be an oreo...black on the outside but white on the inside.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrox (For those who do not remember the cookie)

there's the notion that we should all purchase reusable shopping bags, which is pretty silly to anyone who has done a week's shopping for eight or more people

Enlighten me, please; why is this silly? If you've got room to store food for eight people, surely you have room for storing bags as well? How about under one of the eight beds?

And the rant about warehouse stores vs. organic ones; you're really stretching here for things to complain about. Organic stores are not displacing the warehouses.

Yes, sometimes there are costs to things we choose. Regardless of the mileage standards, you aren't going to fit eight people into a sedan, car seats or no.

If they are able to pay for the support of all their kids, it shouldn't matter if christian families are large. I applaud it.

This comment thread is proof positive that Crunchy Con is hardly a conservative blog, and FOR SURE, its readers are the furthest thing from conservatives. Erin, I really don't understand what the attraction in hooking up with Mr. Dreher is. Talking to these people about subjects like this is like talking to a wall. It may generate discussion, but in my opinion, it's pointless discussion. Without disclosing your belief and bias (which I agree with) that as a conservative Catholic you don't believe in contraception, birth control, and abortion, etc., I don't think the readers truly get your take on this subject.

I think the issue of environmental impact probably has more to do with income and ethics than family size. Wealthy people with large families can be wasteful and many small families live on modest incomes and practice frugality.

The "issue" is a straw man argument on both sides of the environmental/religious divide. I appreciated Bill's post on working together.

Lisa(?): "But people who have children, also often have grandchildren, and even further generations. Parents produce a future benefit for society that non-parents do not."

I'm not saying that having kids is not beneficial. Bringing a new business into a town is beneficial as well. Both actions are worthwhile, and a benefit to our nation.

But, if a city tells a business that they do not have to pay 10% of their property taxes for the next 20 years if they move into the city, we call that a subsidy, not a deduction. The government is subsidizing the costs of providing services to that business, services that other businesses pay for with their taxes.

Likewise if we tell parents that for the next 19 years they do not have to pay 2%, 3%, or whatever percentage it happens to be of their taxes if they have a child, that is properly termed a subsidy. The amount may be small in comparison to the total cost of raising the child, just as the 10% property tax subsidy is small compared to the operation of the business, but it is a subsidy nonetheless.

To call it otherwise is silly.

To stefanie:

I haven't read that study, stefanie, but I will certainly take a look at it. I would also be interested in any corroborating or conflicting studies, if anyone here is aware of such.

However, even if I am mistaken as to the affluence of gay people, that's a very minor and ancillary point to my post. My major point was that people who have children contribute in a big way to the tax structure of the country for generations to come, and that any benefits received in the tax code to those parents are minor in comparison both to the costs that they bear in raising those children and to the benefits that those children ultimately provide to the society as a whole, and in particular, to the future social security benefits of those who produce no children and thus bear none of those child-bearing costs themselves.

I raised two daughters. I'm a baby-maker, and I made two more baby-makers (although they're only 22 and 23 so they don't know that yet, but they've both been paying social security tax since they were 16.) I did a good thing for society. I expect they will too. It used to be that when you saw a childless heterosexual couple, you just felt sorry for them, because of course, everyone wanted children. Well, I do believe there was a time when that was almost true. But I know that it no longer is. Much childlessness today (although certainly not all) is by choice. And, to listen to the conversation of couples like this, they definitely believe that they're among society's winners. Well, by material standards, I can certainly run the numbers and see that they're right.

To Jon:
You said:

"When it comes to things like healthcare and retirement we all of us end up paying, at least indierctly, for everyone, relative to our wealth and income. I don't see the fact that your children will, as adults, be part of this cycle, makes them (or you) special or virtuous in any way whatsoever. It's the common way for all of us."

No, I don't believe that's correct, Jon. We end up paying relative to our income, but not relative to our wealth, because people who raise children spend more of their income on that, and often end up with less. If they end up with the same, it's because those who had no children had higher discretionary spending during their earning years. So, if I raise children and someone else buys art and motorcycles, and we end up with the same wealth, have we both contributed equally to society? I think not. People who don't have children also don't have grandchildren, or further generations, you know. The buck really DOES stop there.

Raising good children is a net good for any healthy society, and raising more good children is a better good than raising fewer. (Obviously, raising criminals or terrorists is NOT a good thing! ;-))

"Meh, the democrats called republican Michael Steele an Oreo. They even threw Oreos at him. *Yet they claim everyone else is racist. Actions speak louder than words."

Wow. All 85 million Democrats threw Oreos at Michael Steele? Was that part of a bailout for Nabisco? Must have been a powerful big heap o' Oreos. When did this happen again?

But to make a serious point here (and I do apologize, Lisa if I've offended), let's look at the logical conclusion of this statement:

Raising good children is a net good for any healthy society, and raising more good children is a better good than raising fewer.

Let me ask a serious question: how many people do you think the planet can reasonably support? 2 billion? 6 billion? 10 billion? 50 billion? 100 billion? More? Because the logical conclusion one draws from your statement is that we ought to keep reproducing until nature slaps our hand.

And I need not remind you that when nature slaps our hand, it's not pretty: we're talking mass starvation, disease, war, basically every ill our technology has managed to keep at bay over the last few decades. Or do you think we'll be able to keep that up indefinitely?

And what kind of quality of life do you expect those 100 billion people to have? Will they all drive cars? Where will the water come from? The energy to power their homes? The land to fit all of those lovely two story homes on a half acre? The land to grow all the food they need, for that matter?

Should there be any limits on the growth of the population? Should we do nothing to head off the crisis before it comes?

Fundamentally, almost every single problem humanity faces today can be traced back to one single simple truth: there are already too many people on the planet right now, especially if they all want to lead a Western lifestyle (even an environmentally conscious, thrifty Western lifestyle).

It's the reason that oil prices are soaring. It's the reason pollution is a problem. It's the reason we eat reprocessed corn and soybeans instead of healthy vegetables. It's the reason carbon dioxide levels are increasing. It's the reason that species after species is simply dying off. It's the reason there's no peace in the Middle East. It's the reason we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the reason there's starvation and genocide in Darfur.

6 billion is too many people for the planet to support, especially in the way we in the US have come to expect, and we're heading for major problems if we do nothing to fix the fundamental issue.

Re: Raising good children is a net good for any healthy society

Yes, I agree. But there are many such goods-- raising children is hardly the only one. Providing healthcare is a net good for society-- but that doesn't mean everyone has to be a healthcare provider. Name any truly useful, or even vital, human activity and the same applies: the people who choose to do this are providing something important to the rest of us, and that's good, but it doesn't mean that those who aren't doing that thing are somehow morally reprobate, or failing in their duty.

Erin, you bring up many good questions, but I think big families and environmentalism don't have to be at odds. Is the problem fuel efficiency standards or is it the booster seat requirement?

And, with regard to the transportation problem, I think much of it could be alleviated if we adopted a new urbanist/smart growth development pattern in urban and suburban areas. A lot of people associate smart growth with high-rise apartments, but it could just as easily mean a small town. Smart growth is basically the ability to walk or ride a bike easily to several of the common destinations of the family: the grocery, post office, drug store, church, maybe a cafe or restaurant, perhaps a small park ... normal, everyday stuff. An easy walking distance is usually defined as being within a five- to ten-minute walk. It really boils down to how the neighborhood is laid out and how a municipality zones areas. In the U.S. we've got an average of 1.9 cars per household, with an average annual expense of $5,000-$8,000 per vehicle. If we could reduce the need to have that many vehicles and take that to 1 or 1.2 cars per household, that would save families a lot of money and avoid a lot of this debate.

It would also save a lot of time. There are many parents, even parents who only have one or two children, who feel they have to be in the car constantly shuttling their children to various activities as well as their own daily necessities. And they do, because we've zoned small businesses out of that walkable area.

Oh, and on the shopping bag thing, the reusable bags are far superior anyway. You can hold in one reusable bag what is usually put in four or five plastic bags. They are easier to hold, too. No downside, really. I think you'd find that four or five reusables would do the trick for eight people.

TM--same here. Six weeks was the longest I ever went after birth before I was fertile again. And my babies were hungry critters who nursed CONSTANTLY, so it's not as if I didn't try hard enough. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that in developed countries, mothers get plenty of food, so maybe breastfeeding doesn't deplete their resources the way it does elsewhere. Or maybe my reproductive system is just unusually robust. I'm sure it works for some people, but by the time you find out if you're one of them or not, it's too late.

This whole thread seems a bit frivolous to me. Our ecological situation is a serious and complex problem. It can't be reduced to complaining because fuel-efficient cars and non-plastic bags are deemed inconvenient. It's kind of inconvenient to have respiratory distress because the air is filthy. It's inconvenient that plastic bags choke wildlife to death and desecrate the landscape as far as the eye can see. There are many inconveniences in this world. To me, it seems silly to invent useless mortifications like giving up chocolate for Lent, while neglecting to undertake humble but useful actions like eschewing plastic bags, just because they're inconvenient. Whatever happened to that good old Catholic spirit of self-sacrifice? ; )

Lisa's statement--"Raising good children is a net good for any healthy society"--may be valid as an abstraction, but in practice it's not so useful. How do you determine who is a "good child"? It will be years before the child is old enough to show whether they're going to be good for society or bad. And who is to be the judge of that, anyway? Once they're born, it's irrelevant whether they're good or bad. You can't box them up and send them back to the manufacturer.

Erin, Then there's the push for smaller homes, with the accompanying view that a larger home is a wasteful luxury

I agree with this, as a family of eight. A larger home is indeed a wasteful luxury. This is a moral social justice issue and less an environmental one. You simply don't need more than one bedroom for boys, one for girls, one for parents. Think of real poverty and Jesus for a sec.

there's the notion that we should all purchase reusable shopping bags, which is pretty silly to anyone who has done a week's shopping for eight or more people, and so on.

What? We shop using reusable bags for eight people every week. It's zero burden. Why do you think it's silly? It's actually easier, not harder, to do this with a large famly (I've done both), because it's simply makes a lot more sense to move 200 lbs in cloth bags with handles than with junk plastic or paper.

Fact: family size has nothing to do with using less, except it's eaiser to use less in large groups, as many people make for easier efficencies. I'm the largest family I know, and have never met another who uses less per person, and we don't see ourselves as put out one bit.

Oops, did it again! The post above is mine. Also, somehow my paragraph breaks got lost in posting, please excuse the run-on nature of the composition!

LOL Lisa - I'm glad you mentioned Ehrlich. Btw, when people ask me "Are all these kids yours?" I like to reply, "Oh no, we have more at home ;-)"

Observer,
Precisely. I would manage population by giving women more educational and work opportunities, by encouraging voluntary reductions of family size to around the replacement level, and by making contraception freely available. (I would educate people about NFP too, and I would keep abortion illegal). Experience has shown that not only are Chinese-style tactics immoral, they're also unnecessary. Latin American countries have achieved fertility rates as low as China's, without recourse to legalized abortion or coercive measures.

It is, as you point out, simply a mathematical necessity that population eventually must level off and be limited. If not through voluntary fertility reduction then through war, famine, and disease. The experience of Tikopia Island (and, truly, virtually every society at some level) is instructive here. There isn't a single species in the world which can increase its numbers indefinitely: fertility almost always decreases as population gets high. We live in a world of very finite resources, and it's simply irresponsible to think we can maintain a growing population indefinitely. Haven't you guys taken a look at the statistics on depletion of forests, fisheries, industrial metals, fossil fuels, phosphates, or species extinction recently? Again, it's perfectly acceptable (though I think, wrong) to hold that artificial contraception is an intolerable solution to the problem. It's not sensible to argue that the problem itself doesn't exist.

And again, not every family (obviously) needs to have only two kids. Since there are many families that only have one, and a lot of people have none, then it's perfectly OK for other people to have larger families. Personally I plan on having three.

Erin,

Interesting thread. However, I would suggest to you that having "big families" are actually a relatively new phenomenom - at least in the Catholic Church. Why? Simply because modern fasting requirements have abrogated the ancient disciplines which forbid sexual relations:

1. During all fasting periods of the church year.
2. During breastfeeding.

See Pope Nicholas I's letter to the Bulgars for reference. If these disciplines were restored, how large would a typical Catholic family be?

But even now, we personally know of families who have raised six or more children in homes smaller than 1000 sq. ft., and if they needed to go somewhere, they walked, biked, etc. Some of these families lived in rural areas, and some in urban. It can be done, but it requires sacrifice - and that's something very few of us are willing to do. It doesn't take a mansion and a mini-van to raise a family - we've simply made (bad) materialist choices that "require" this to suit our lifestyles.

-Matthew

There isn't a single species in the world which can increase its numbers indefinitely: fertility almost always decreases as population gets high. We live in a world of very finite resources, and it's simply irresponsible to think we can maintain a growing population indefinitely. Haven't you guys taken a look at the statistics on depletion of forests, fisheries, industrial metals, fossil fuels, phosphates, or species extinction recently?

Hector is completely correct about this. In fact, his whole post makes a lot of good sense.

A concept you all might want to look up and learn about is HANPP--Human appropriation of net primary productivity. This means the amount of plant material--stored solar energy--that humans take directly for our own use. It has been estimated that we're already using 40% of the planet's total resources. And we're planning to keep taking more. This puts downward pressure on the viability and resilience of all of the planet's systems. Biodiversity is not something like a hobby that's nice to have. When we lose another species, it's not like sacrificing the unicorn from your Beanie Baby collection. It's losing another vital link in a system we don't even understand, but are destroying anyway.

What would you think of a family where one individual had already appropriated 40% of the available space and money, and planned to take more? What would you think of a community where one family owned 40% of everything, and planned to take more?

My brother is a biologist who studies population genetics of plants, with particular emphasis on their response to environment stress. He's quite concerned about this. Maybe you should be too.

It must be difficult for you to know that your relationship with your loved one and your own family is deemed as unworthy or unequal due to soeone's personal or religious beliefs.

What was that about the status of gay marriage and their famlies again?

Firebird, you've nailed it. A lot of this is the fault of the Utopian dreams of the second half of the twentieth century when people were able to make sure, by force of law, that no middle class person had to see anything outside their windows other than their neighbor's lawns -- not even a corner market or drycleaner (not to mention in more extreme cases a laundry line or vegetable garden.) It's even still illegal to work a white collar job from home in some jurisdictions, though it's almost never enforced. If you zone everything so that unless you're an urban dweller (where adequate housing for a large family is hard to come by) it's ten times as hard to move multiple people around than in the "good old days," don't be surprised if people object that larger cars to move the family around and haul the groceries and whatnot are necessary.

I am a mother of nine.

We recycle. We use hand me downs, we use everything. We try to recognize that we are not the only ones on this planet by all that we do and all that we do not do.

We drive a 12 passenger van. We teach our children to be stewards of the earth and each other. The alternative to driving the behemouth is two cars to go everywhere, now which leaves a lesser carbon footprint?

There is hostility to larger families. I've heard them all. --the smug --well, you shouldn't have had that many to begin with...so what should we do now do you propose? We would never have opted to have so many if only we had consulted you first.

The sanctimonious, "you're very selfish." That's a bit hard to do in a family that prevents anyone from becoming an island unto themselves, much as the adolescents might try. But apparently, we're selfish to the whole planet, and every breath we take, drains the mother earth all the more than anyone else.

And the priggish, which say to each their own, but your family, that's just nuts. All lifestyles are acceptable except this one? Why this one? How do we hurt you? Given the small number of large families, it's not like we're going to take over the world. (Oh no! I gave away the secret plan).

It's a funny thing. Enviornmentalists who want apples and grasses and chickens and eggs and all creatures hormone free and organic, whether raised, grown or consumed, but think humans ought to be neutered with chemicals that literally readjust one part of the natural body systems via prescribed medication.

With the vast majority of fertile adults using some prescribed means of birth control, I'm fairly certain that even with the Duggars and Jon and Kate and some of us practicing Catholics and the Mormons, the earth won't burn away.

We're expecting #2 in August.

Between the booster seat for my toddler, which is now required by law up to the age of 8 (depending on the child's weight/height), and the new car seat for the baby, our vehicle is maxed (a 4-dr Saturn Wagon, 1999).

When I had my ultrasound, the OB asked if I wanted a tubal ligation. I of course said no, but one has to wonder if the cars we're driving are going to be severely limited and shrunk, how soon before it's mandatory (especially with socialized medicine) for women to have their tubes tied after #2?

sophie, it is not at all surprising that an OB would ask that. I had the same question posed to me after each of my first seven children. With the delivery of my last child we found an awesome Catholic pro-life doctor. Good luck finding that "OB with more tact and professionalism". I think they are pretty much all trained to push the contraceptive mentality while in school.

As a father of 5, thanks for giving us large families a voice. Our needs are often not considered.

Desires of the human beings are unlimited and it changes day by day as some time ago tubal ligation process is introduced for those couples who are willing to engage in the permanent birth but now the tubal reversal is process that offers those women who again desired to get the baby the tubal reversal fulfill their desires.

the tubal reversal results are almost hundred percent accurate.......
i hope u will get the more detail about the tubal reversal.\

This does not surprise me with the laws. I know of a state where a couple wanted to have IVF treatments to have a child due to a previous tubal ligation and the physicians would not do it because the couple was not married. Which the woman ended up having tubal reversal surgery performed at mubabydoc Tubal Reversal Center which was outside of the couples home state. Not only was it cheaper but the pregnancy success is much better.
There are people that change their minds but they should be the ones to make the decisions and not the government.
I would start by asking the physician if there is anyone else he/she can suggest to contact. If this does not work then I would be searching quite a bit. The answer is out there somewhere.
The suggestion are highly appreciated

Sterilization reversal surgery for women is highly successful if a enough length of tube remains on both ends of the ligation. Often the active report from the tubal ligation procedure is useful in identifying candidates who do not have a good chance for successful reversal. However, in approximately 5% of cases, the tubal reversal surgery cannot be performed due to unexpected findings in the pelvis at the time of the intended reversal surgery. These result include scar of the fabricated end of the tubes or absence of the fimbria. The fimbria are the tiny finger-like structures that sweep the egg into the tube from the ovary. The tubal reversal surgery is performed through a 3 to 4 inch “bikini cut” incision. The patient leaves the hospital or surgical center 23 hours later in most cases. Two to 3 weeks are needed to return to normal function. If the patient’s job involves heavy exciting she may need to take 4-6 weeks off work. In the situations where the scarring or length of the remaining tube prevents the reversal, the patient avoids the full incision with its resultant cost and recovery time. This is because we carry out a laparoscopic assessment of the tubes immediately prior to the tubal reversal while the patient is under general anesthesia (completely asleep). The tubal reversal surgery requires a certain amount of expertise; therefore, you should choose a reproductive surgeon who has undergone a fellowship in infertility and preferably is board certified in Reproductive Endocrinology. An operating microscope is used to reconnect the two ends of the tubes using very fine suture material to reduce the chance of scar formation.