Fertility Clinics

[SHRED]

Why hasn't Shrub spoke out against them if he feels so strongly about blastocysts?

They experiment on, and destroy, human embryos at an astonishing rate.

[raccoon]

1. Also he ought to be against IVF.

Because if a woman is implanted with embryos, and several of them "take"
doctors will do a reduction so the others will have a better chance of surviving.

Strange, I've never heard Bush nor the religious right complaining about this.

I personally have no problem with this, but if somebody claims to be against abortion, it seems they would object to this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. I have a problem with it...

not for any religious reasons (I fully support abortion rights), but because I regard it as amazingly selfish for someone who isn't able to get pregnant through normal means (due to ageing or for other reasons) to go to such lengths, especially considering that the planet is ALREADY overpopulated (IMO, anyone who wants a child so badly ought to adopt...there are certainly enough needy and deserving children ALREADY who don't have parents).

[gollygee]

3. Adoption isn't easy either

I know someone whose husband is quite a bit older than she is and therefore they aren't able to qualify for any kind of adoption, including foreign adoption. They are doing IVF now but they tried to adopt first.

This is a really complicated issue. It's hard to understand what people are going through if it isn't something you're facing yourself.

[leftchick]

6. both of my boys are from IVF

and I don't consider myself selfish. It took almost five years before I finally became pregnant the first time. Adoption was not an option for us, it is extremely expensive, much more so than IVF.

[WildClarySage]

8. How about people like me who had to use fertility meds?

That was beyond the "normal means", though not nearly as expensive or energy/time intensive as adoption or IVF. Taking one pill a day for five days may seem very simple and innocous, but I guess since it's more than the 'normal means' that we were selfish.



Sorry you don't agree with me that the world's a better place because he's in it.

Sarcasm aside, there are lots of fertility options that span the spectrum from simple pills to IVF. Why do you get to decide who is selfish for choosing what? Have you ever faced the heartbreak of infertility? Have you ever had the adoption conversation with a spouse who correctly points out that it's an unaffordable goal? Have you ever smiled and told your best friend that you're happy for her when she's pregnant AGAIN and you still aren't? Have you ever stood in line at the grocery store and seen the cart of the person behind you filled with junk food for her pregnant self and her four screaming, dirty kids and wondered why this was your lot in life? Have you ever stared in disbelief at a positive pregnancy test and cried because after 10 years, you finally got a second line? When you've been there done that, I'll accept your judgement that using assistance to get pregnant is selfish.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Ah, an appeal to emotion (see: logical fallacies)

Never mind the strict utilitarian principle of the greater good, which is most decidedly not served by selfishly reproducing, through any means necessary; certainly not on a planet where the human population already far exceeds the natural ecological carrying capacity, and most certainly not when fertility treatments and IVF are reproductive options solely available to residents of industrialised nations (each of whom has an ecological impact equal to as many as FORTY people living in an undeveloped nation).

Regardless of how you feel about it at an INDIVIDUAL level, from a GLOBAL perspective it is NOT a good thing.

[WildClarySage]

10. A logicall fallacy is to eschew technology

because it is not available to everyone on the planet. You do consume clean water, don't you?

The term "selfish" is an emotionally loaded one. And the decision whether or not to have children is entirely an emotional one. We do not live in a strictly utilitarian world, nor would I want to. We (collective 'we') do not value the worth of a person based solely on what that person contributes to the world.

But if that is your utilitarian criteria for who gets to reproduce and who does not, your logic again fails, because my child has not yet reached an age where his contribution can be accurately assessed. His potential for contribution, given the values, intelligence and skills of his parents and the conditions of his upbringing, suggest that that what he may contribute to the world may be significant. All emotionalism aside, my child may well grow up to be an extraordinary and gifted child, and you, having no information upon which to determine what the odds of his contributing to the world more than he takes from it, should accept that people like his father and I are more qualified to make that assessment than you are, and that your emotional judgement of "selfish" is illogical and unwarranted.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. I'm not making an emotional judgement of selfishness, but a FACTUAL one.

'Selfish' means 'motivated by one's own desire or interest'. That is the sense in which I use the term (and it's certainly accurate in this instance).

And you continue with MORE emotionally based arguments. This isn't about YOUR child. This is about MILLIONS of women who make the same decision. The fact that you are one of them, and seem to feel that this somehow makes you special and different, is irrelevant. You insist on looking at it from an individualist perspective. To do so is to ignore the broader impact of a multitude of such selfish decisions.

[WildClarySage]

12. Every action a human takes is motivated by their desire or interest.

You are excluding the meaning of 'desire' and 'interest' as irrelevant- but those meanings are not irrelevant. In chosing to use Femara to get pregnant, my interest is in bettering my family and the world in general by bringing into it someone of value who will make it better. My interest in having a child is based on the welfare of my family and the welfare of the world around him. "Interest" and "Desire" are the heart of what makes us human and therefore having a vested interest in the ecology of the earth.

Further, you are classifying my husband and I as selfish and then asserting that our motivation is irrelevant because we are part of a multitude. Multitudes are composed of individuals- in this case, individuals whose motivations are unknowable to you. "Selfish" is a moral judgement based on utilitarian criteria and it is hypocritical, unless you have never chosen any course of action based on emotional criteria. Insulting someone as 'selfish' and defending that judgement as 'logical' is disingenuous. I won't accept that emotional considerations are invalid, but even by your own stipulation that logic is the only valid consideration, your argument fails.

You want to specify that logical, rather than emotional, arguments for having children are valid in this discussion. Ok. It is illogical to describe the value of people in solely ecological terms. It is illogical to exclude individuals from a discussion of the morality of a 'multitude'. It is illogical to assume that your 'logical' criteria are the only acceptable criteria when judging the appropriateness of reproduction. It is illogical to insult someone as 'selfish' and defend your insult by claiming that it isn't 'personal' because it is intended as a judgement of a multitude.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. It ISN'T personal; it's YOU who chose to interpret it so.

I wasn't speaking to you when I made the original comment. Nothing illogical in my saying it's not personal, because I wasn't specifically speaking to ANYONE when I said that. You're the one who chose to take what I said personally, which is YOUR problem and not mine.

I'm classifying ANYONE incapable of reproducing through conventional means who goes to great expense to do so through unconventional means as selfish--because self-serving, in the fulfilment of their desire to reproduce. What those reasons are is irrelevant; it is STILL an essentially selfish act. The fact that you happen to be one of those people means nothing to me; again, I was not addressing my comments at any one person.

Discussion of the issue on an INDIVIDUAL level is totally irrelevant and tangential to what I'm saying, and it certainly isn't 'illogical' to consider humans in ecological terms (as far as the planet is concerned, those are the only terms that matter; any other perceived 'value' in an individual human life is a function of human society and has no meaning outside that context).

[sutz12]

15. Sorry, but....

The whole "Global Overpopulation" argument sounds too much like my mom telling me to eat my spinach because there are starving children in Africa. The first and only response is, " :wtf: does that have to do with me?"

My only problem with IVF is that it, like adoption, tends to be so expensive that only rich people can get it done, thus furthering the problem of too many spoiled white rich people. (Present company excepted, of course :)).

How does preventing local couples from having the children they want do anything to alleviate overpopulation in Bangladesh?

For a little perspective, I'll state unequivocally that I was a reluctant parent at best. I just spent a weekend at a family campout where my 3 nieces spent most of the time crying that they wanted s'mores or mashmallows for breakfast, birthday cake for lunch, etc. Parenting, above all else, is hard work if you want to do it right. Life's not fair, and anybody that wants to have children that much deserves some assistance IMHO. In general, I think people deserve a bit of slack when we get into discussions like this, and not silly admonitions that they shouldn't try so hard to get pregnant because the world is overpopulated. To me, that smacks of typical black and white thinking that doesn't allow for a little bit of moral relativism.

[IdaBriggs]

14. Ah -- the old "the infertile are second class citizens" line.

Allow me to explain the "reality" of this stuff to you.

For every INFANT in the United States up for adoption, there are THIRTY COUPLES begging for them. While this means the "best interests of the child" will get taken into consideration, it also means normal lower and middle class people aren't as apt to be able to adopt as those whose incomes are over $100,000 per year.

If you don't have forty or fifty thousand dollars PER ADOPTION ATTEMPT available, give it up now, because that's how much this stuff costs. If either surrendering parent changes their mind, those costs aren't recoverable. You can, however, go over seas for under twenty grand or so, and various levels of paperwork. (You do have several weeks to spend in a foreign company a couple of times, right?) Just remember that close to 50% of adoptions from one country ended up being returned a few years ago due to "attachment disorder" due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Willing to take a "damaged" child -- one who is in the foster care system due to neglect, abuse, sexual trauma, etc.? Good for you! Now remember that, while 80% of the children who end up in foster care EVENTUALLY get surrendered, on average it takes FIVE TIMES of them exiting/entering that system (at least in Michigan) before they are "released for adoption" -- and now, hopefully, you've got tens of thousands of dollars lying around to help pay for their mental health care, if they are able to get past the inevitable trust issues, etc.

Oh, and then you have to deal with the terror that "someone" is going to come back around to try to build their own "parental" relationship with your children. :eyes:

But, since you think adoption is such a good thing, may I kindly suggest you start doing some yourself? After all, the world is overpopulated, and there are "needy and deserving children" awaiting your home, and if *YOU* aren't willing to take them in, *YOU* are what can be politely called a SELFISH HUMAN BEING.

As for those of us who get all "crazy" and want to do those silly normal things like go through a pregnancy with a beloved spouse, experience the "joy" of childbirth, and then bond with our newborns, we will kindly thank you to keep your ignorant opinions to yourself until such time as you spend five minutes or so walking in OUR shoes.

While adoption can be a beautiful way to build a family, it isn't an easy path to walk, and while I hope to heavens you never need to experience the roller coaster that is infertility hell, a little bit of knowledge might help to keep you from sounding like a completely ignorant morAn.

Ida Briggs
Still on Bedrest from My Transfer
Hopefully Pregnant

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. I have no desire to either reproduce or to be a parent.

So most of what you say is irrelevant to me personally. IF I had any desire to be a parent, and were incapable of doing so, I would certainly consider adoption before fertility treatments or IVF.

One of your arguments is at least partially specious; how many 'normal lower and middle class people' have a spare $15-25K to spend on fertility treatments and IVF? That's an option that, like adoption, is more readily avalable to those with incomes of over $100K annually (which is still very much middle class, anyway).

And I never said 'the infertile are second-class citizens'; what I'm saying is that if you're infertile, then perhaps you shouldn't have children (because there is certainly nothing 'normal' about people who are physically incapable of reproducing doing so through medical intervention).

And the individual desire to reproduce despite infertility, despite things like overpopulation, despite the cost of thousands of dollars for fertility treatments or IVF, is an irresponsible and selfish one; it's rather telling that the only arguments you can make in favour of it are purely self-centred and emotional.

[IdaBriggs]

17. The urge to be a part of the creation process is not a "logical" one.

It is a biological, and therefore emotional one. You obviously have not experienced it yet, because I assure you there is *NOTHING* logical about wanting to experience pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing. It is a basic, instinctual drive, and there are thousands of years of literature dealing with the trauma of being denied participation in it. (If you are familiar with old testament lore, you will notice that one of the hardest things woman face is being barren, and they frequently "cry out to the Lord" about their plight.)

Currently, one out of five couples are experiencing infertility issues. Possible causes include "waiting" to reproduce, envirnmental issues, and medical issues being survivable that weren't fifty years ago, and sometimes just plain "bad luck".

From a biological point of view, it is "logical" to wish to nurture and support one own young above those of a stranger. The fact that human beings can rise above this is an absolutely amazing thing.

I repeat the charge back at you -- you have the financial resources to parent other people's children, but choose, for purely selfish, personal reasons, not to do so, and yet, with a hypocrasy that borders on Repulican in nature, you deign to offer critical judgment of other people. One hopes your excuse is simply youth, and that you will outgrow it. In the meantime, since your parents didn't bother to teach you basic compassion for the pain and suffering of others, I can only hope you learn a little humility from the experiences of *OTHER* people, rather than having your world turned upside down when you can't create a child "the old fashioned way" with someone you love.

Like it or not, this is not the "19th century" where those who have difficulty reproducing can wander down to a local orphanage and pick up a child or two, nor is this early Roman times, where "abandoned children" are left at the public fountain for strangers to claim. And thank heavens that people like you and Ronald Reagan (who denied funds for infertility research because "he didn't want people playing God") are now in the minority, which allows the rest of us to get on with our lives, and hopefully cherish the children we are blessed to call our own.

I won't be writing you anymore, and your name will be added to my ignore list. In the meantime, I appreciate the reminder you have provided today, of all days, that not everyone is a good and decent human being, and that it will be my job to make sure my children are raised better than your parents raised you.

[WildClarySage]

18. Well said!!! and I hope congratulations are in order!

I cannot fathom where this idiotic notion comes from, that only naturally conceived children are morally acceptable. I certainly don't believe my older son has a 'right' to exist and my younger doesn't. No human on earth was ever conceived for utilitarian, selfless reasons and it is the height of hubris to condemn as immoral ONLY those conceptions which use assisted technology because those children were desired by their parents. But I don't give a crap about the logic of my position. Human reproduction, assisted or otherwise, is not about logic.

If you place a moral imperitive on reproduction you begin to open the door to eugenics, forced abortion, forced pregnancy and other atrocities. People, flawed though our logic sometimes is, must have the freedom to control their reproduction based on their own values and motivations. To superimpose your moral judgements on who gets to reproduce and who doesn't is what is immoral.

[WildClarySage]

20. Fertility treatments don't necessarily cost that much.

The majority of fertility treatments in the US are in the form of medications like Femara and Clomid, which are simple prescribed pills taken for a few days during a woman's cycle. This is not the 'normal' unassisted way for reproduction, but it certainly is hardly out of reach for most lower-to-moderate middle class families.

The only arguments for reproduction of any kind are self-centered and emotional. Stop claiming that only those who must accept assisted methods are somehow more immoral. After all the earth doesn't care where the hell all these people came from. Either all conceptions are immoral, some are immoral and some are not, or no conceptions are immoral. But be careful. When you start deciding who should reproduce and who shouldn't you open a very nasty can of worms.

[gollygee]

4. I know people who are opposed to IVF for that reason

Not a lot but some. I also know some people opposed to abortion who have used IVF.

[julialnyc]

5. I may be wrong about this

but I thought that I head that Laura conceived the twins with some assistance.

[Bridget Burke]

7. "Ma Bush with a turkey baster" ?

An image from the infamous Our Dear Laura thread at Salon--before membership.

I believe that Laura did have problems getting pregnant--& didn't have an easy time in pregnancy. And I'm SURE that Ma Bush was understanding that she couldn't keep popping them out until a male heir appeared. (Yeah, right.)

[leftchick]

19. I think so too

those kids I believe are a result of IVF.