To ask if people today don’t agree with ivf?!

I would tell anyone who doesn’t agree with ivf they can f@ck off. IVF (which I paid for with my own money) gave me the family I desperately wanted. I honestly feel that if I wasn’t able to have children, then I would have ended up killing myself. I feel grateful everyday for the two beautiful children I have. Anyone who says ivf shouldn’t be allowed is heartless and cruel.

I seem to be alone here but I’m uncomfortable with the idea of IVF as it doesn’t actually fix the cause of infertility. And I wonder what that means for subsequent generations…will we end up creating a population that requires IVF in order to reproduce at all?

Also for the people who are saying that ivf shouldn’t be available on the nhs, but they don’t disagree with it. So should ivf be only available for those rich enough to pay for it ??

Is there any proof being taken from the surrogate and being given straight to the biological mother causes separation trauma?

Its notike the baby is going into care and being passed around from pillar to post until it is adopted like in babies who are given up and obviously will have separation trauma. They are given straight to their biological mothers whom they stay with for the rest of their life. Will they even know the weren't carried by their mothers if they weren't told?

What about the costs involved in continuing an unwanted pregnancy?

Pre-natal care? Delivery? Neonatal care? And so on?

Looked at that way, abortion saves the NHS millions.

Possibly egg. I don’t see any human cost or risk to life from sperm donation.

Happy to learn more though.

I haven't read the whole thread (yet) but I wonder what people's opinions are on the postcode lottery of a lesbian couple trying to conceive, funded (a little) by the NHS?
I can obviously guess the opinions of those who don't think IVF should be paid for by the NHS, but I'd be really interested in hearing the opinions of those who agree with NHS funding or those who are on the fence. Do you think straight couples should have better access to fertility treatment than same sex couples?

Surrogacy is illegal in most countries in the world and should be here. It’s cruel to the child who bonds with their mother at birth, and reduces women to incubators.

Gestational surrogacy is 3x higher risk for severe pregnancy complications.

IVF enables clinics to make huge profits by basically privatizing our reproduction; women are often harmed by the egg retrieval. I know it’s made a lot of people parents who otherwise wouldn’t have been - but it has real societal and individual downsides.

I wouldn’t have been able to have my child if it wasn’t for IVF. It was not a choice I made, it was a last resort and those who don’t think it should be allowed on the NHS are people who have not experienced the stress, upset, invasion of your body by professionals doing everything they can to enable you to conceive naturally. This was a 5 year journey, failed transfers and people judge that it’s an easy route or something people are choosing against natural conception or do those who can’t naturally conceive and need help don’t deserve a family? I’m telling you now, IVF is not as simple as take an egg and sperm and transfer the fertilised egg back in. Please people research this and educate yourselves.

I am entitled to access a service that is offered to me, that has very strict protocols in place and through tax and national insurance have contributed to.

Are the people against destroying embryos also against abortion ?

Are you also against egg and sperm donation (donating and accepting)?

Yes

So you agree with experimenting on humans?

There are far more abortions done than IVF though, so the costs may not be that different.

Heterosexual couples needing IVF have a medical issue, often PCOS.
Why shouldn't they have a medical issue treated?

Very often the treatment for painful periods caused by PCOS is throwing the pill at women. Which obviously doesn't help trying to conceive a baby.

I don't agree with donor eggs, sperm or embryos ethically they just don't sit right with me. Which in turn means I don't agree with homosexual IVF.

I’m uncomfortable with the destruction of embryos that happens in IVF as I believe life begins at conception. This is a common view amongst other m Christians that I know

I don't have children and would never have gone the IVF route. I just wouldn't have wanted to put my body through that. In those days I had puritanical ideas about how if you didn't have a baby it wasn't meant to be and you should just accept it (I didn't think other people should feel this way. It was a personal view). I am not so puritanical these days but I still wouldn't do it

So do we not treat lung cancer in smokers?

Addiction, nah you’re on your own you made your choices.

Broke your leg skiing? Not the NHS’ problem mate, don’t do such risky activities!

Imagine if that’s how we treated people? I am happy to fund IVF as a taxpayer, there’s so much money wasted in the NHS and on other things that helping infertile couples is low on my list of things to cut.

It’s an interesting one re: embryos, I mean depending on when you believe life begins? I know through friends who’ve done IVF that one of their options was to donate their embryos to science research, to try and I guess improve practice and new techniques?

Out of interest, what documentary is this? I know there’s a drama on Netflix but I’m not very into dramas!

I personally don’t think IVF should be free on the NHS.

I don’t think anyone has a right to have a baby.

Just like I don’t agree that cosmetic treatments plastic surgery or gender surgery should be available, please it’s something you are choosing.

Abortions are in a different category because they’re preventing an unwanted child.
What would happen if the mum had to have the unwanted baby.
It would cost the NHS more with midwives, scans, birth etc and then the child could end up neglected and in care etc.

Diabetes is the same.
No one chooses to have it.
They may get it through lifestyle choices but most of the time that’s not their fault.
And untreated diabetes is going to cost more in the long run too.

These are just my personal opinions and I do see where you’re coming from but I think having a baby is not a right that every woman must have, even though I can completely understand the devastation of not being able to have a baby and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

How would you rate sister to sister surrogacy?

Around 100,000 embryos are frozen each year in the UK and there are about 16,000 frozen embryo transfer cycles a year. So even if you assume multiple embryos at a time are transferred, you're still looking at probably around 70,000 frozen each year that will never be used and will ultimately be destroyed.

'Natural IVF' is a process where no fertility drugs are taken, and the only egg removed is the one that was ovulated by the body naturally, and collected by the fertility Dr, mixed with sperm outside the body and then (hopefully) put back in the uterus as an embryo days later.
It's a way for religious or prolife women to still try to have a baby. It reduces the chance of success if course, but is much easier on the body (no drugs) and can therefore be tried more if the funds to do it are available.
Good solution to the not destroying embryos argument.

I don’t see surrogacy as a bad thing either, again if it’s done for the right reasons.

What are the 'right reasons' to subject a child to separation trauma at birth?

I know of someone who was carried by their grandparent as the mum couldn’t have babies and she’s a very well rounded woman with no attachment issues etc.

Sorry, I think that's appalling and should be illegal.

Termination is simple and in a lot of cases can be brought about by medication. By contrast IVF is massively moe expensive so kind of blows that argument out of the water.