Reversal on the Table?

This is new. After all of the fighting and carrying on when we decided to have a fourth child about why having a reversal was a terrible idea, and totally out of the question, Tony is saying that he's thinking that it may be the better option.

Wait, what? When did that change?

I'm not opposed to the reversal. I think that it would be a great thing to do, in theory. But in reality, it's more expensive, and it opens up the possibility of having more than one more child. I guess the more than one more child isn't entirely bad, but that's not the point. Also, I have secondary infertility. I am likely going to need to go to the RE anyway for that, and have to pay for the medications too. So that's like paying for both processes.

I'm just confused. I don't care to do it "the old fashioned way," but I'm just having a hard time figuring out what exactly changed. This is going to be a long process either way. But I think that the reversal way is going to take that much longer. We would have to wait to have the surgery, wait for the recovery, wait for the sperm count to increase, and then wait cycle after cycle to finally get pregnant. Who knows how long it will take for me to actually get back to normal anyway? Not to mention, if Tony is fertile, they may make me wait 12 months until they will put me back on the meds that I need.

Again, confused. I don't know what's going to happen next, but a very special thanks to a good friend who gave me the name and number of her hubby's urologist in case we should decide to go on with the reversal.