[quote=qmvsimp]We don’t know the specific case that we’re being asked about. But we do know that neither Sarai nor Elizabeth had the luxury of modern medicine like we have today.
If the chance of having children is zero (not close to zero) based on the medical condition of the female in question, and if the procedure is being done for a reason other than sterilization, then it is not a sin.
If the surgery was done to treat a medical condition (I do not know of any condition where this would apply) then it would not be a sin. But under those circumstances, it wouldn’t be a sin before menopause either (such as when a hysterectomy is needed for a diseased uterus). If the tubes were tied as a kind of insurance against even a remote possibility of pregnancy, it would probably be a sin.
If it was done for no medical reason but after all fertility had definitively ceased, then it would probably be the sin of mutilation even if not of sterilization.
Is this entirely a hypothetical or are there some actual specifics that could shed some light onto why someone would want/need to have this done?