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

Why wouldn’t you get to try again? You’d either transfer any frozen embryos or do a fresh round of egg pick up and fertilisation. Surely that would only be limited by whether you could afford it? Publicly funded free IVF isn’t available where I live. You have to be able to pay. The UK does have private IVF doesn’t it, and not just NHS IVF?

I'm not sure about now but it used to be the case that you were not allowed to pay for surrogacy in the UK

I don’t like the idea of disposing of unwanted embryos seemingly inherent in the IVF process.

They're very different issues. I'm against IVF being available on the NHS, but as a service generally I think each to their own when it comes to our own bodies.

But surrogacy is using womens' bodies as a commodity to benefit others, and I will never be in favour of it. You don't often get very wealthy women opting to be a surrogate.

Its been very interesting seeing the discourse coming out of the USA about this especially the pro-life crowd. Its been interesting that DT courted them but has also gone to great lengths to stress he supports IVF and will actually make insurance pay for it.

I have no problem with IVF but if life begins at conception to the point that plan B should be banned then IVF should be banned. I do think its hypocritical to be pro-life/ forced birth and pro-ivf. Ive always been genuinely to understand how people reconcile the two.

IVF is a medical treatment for infertility. People can make a choice as to whether that is treatment they would use or not. They and abortions are two sides of the same coin, in my view. I support the right of access to both.

Surrogacy is a wildly unethical commodification of women’s bodies and babies. It should be illegal.

Source? Were they all healthy viable embryos that were willingly disposed of by the patients at the end of treatment?

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point here - its not just about a quick cuddle after birth, but the severing of an already formed physical and emotional attachment that the baby will have already formed with the biological mother. To remove a baby from its mother is always going to create a deep and lifelong wound. The post you answered mentioned ripping the child from its mother - that is what it would be like for the baby and for most mothers who are not surrogates.

There haven't been healthy newborn babies offered for adoption for decades now. Most of the time the kids are kept with birth parents as long as possible until they suffer some kind of physical or emotional baggage

Or they have foetal alcohol syndrome drug addictions or severe disability

Well Catholics are opposed to IVF as it's creating life, not letting God do it. Some other religious groups feel the same. Outside of religion, I've never heard of anyone opposed to it in general.

It's the same as how transgender people will be be accepted by 90% of society in 10-20 years. It's no different to me - it doesn't affect me, it doesn't hurt anybody, if someone wants to go and do it that's up to them.

I do think there should be a strict upper age limit of 40-45 for women (so the normal upper age limit for natural conception) and men should not be ancient either ideally but harder to police. I'd like to see donor eggs restricted to medical reasons only not "leaving it too late" but how you word it is tricky.

I'm not anti ivf basically but it should not be used to get around the natural time window for conception

I am suppprtive of IVF as I know several couples close to us who were struggling with infertility. However it’s brutal and seems to take a real toll on relationships and the physical and mental health of the woman. I don’t know how well it is regulated here in Ireland and if mother and baby’s generally enjoy long life and good health - sadly 2 out of the 5 women I know who had it died a few years later from cancer. I’ve no idea if there was any linkage but it has concerned me and I’d be cautious if my daughter wanted to try this that she be made aware of any risk.

Being pregnant made me very anxious, so being pregnant by ivf would make me even more anxious as I might not get to try again if anything happened.

I suppose I had 3 that were donated to medical research. I asked what that really meant, they would be used for the embryooligist to practice handling embryos.

But I was also told having 5 embryos making it to freeze was very unusual.
Two of the 5 were used only one took.

Commissioning a baby to be separated from her mother is entirely bad.

Sorry, linked to the wrong post.

I only agree with IVF if the woman is using her own eggs, not using sex selection, and is carrying the child she will raise. I don't agree with egg 'donation' or surrogacy.

A number are destroyed during the process. We also had 11 leftover which we donated to research so they will have been destroyed in that process I'm sure.

Shades of grey here. IVF for medical reasons (genetic screening for example) and/or where it is using the couples' own egg and sperm is not an issue for most people. Using donated eggs however is an issue as it has health implications for the donor due to the drugs required to hyper stimulate the ovaries to collect, unless truly altruistic I have issues, money changing hands could encourage women to donate without realising negative effects (I was offered $25k 20 years ago by a couple I vaguely knew, didn't because I looked at the potential issues.)

You can if it's only the husband who's in his 60s. (I made enquiries about private IVF one time. To my surprise, there was no limit on the age of the husband.)

People who think adoption or having your own biological child can even be compared are incredibly naive in my opinion, completely different experience. People who adopt and love and look after someone else's biological child with all the very sad problems they may bring are heroes.

I also know a lady who wanted to be a surrogate as she loved being pregnant and the idea of helping others, and another case of a friend donating her eggs to her sister who couldn't conceive naturally. Like with everything there are shades of grey, nothing is always entirely bad.

Over three quarters of embryos are destroyed I believe.

Why are so many here claiming that embryos are destroyed during IVF? Based on what? How many embryos per woman? How many healthy, correctly fertilised embryos are destroyed?

The only embryos of mine that were destroyed were the ones that fertilised incorrectly, eg two sperm instead of one, or that stopped dividing/growing. These would have never implanted or would have been miscarriages if they had implanted. They were never going to survive anyway. I had only two healthy embryos. Both were used. One resulted in my child. None were left over.

I'm against IVF in principle because I think infertility is nature's way of controlling population increase and shouldn't be messed with just because we can and global population increase is out of control however the problem with that is where do you stop - I've had my one child, happily welcome medical intervention when I or a loved one needs it, take antibiotics and vaccinations when required which also disturbs natural highs and lows of population fluctuation so entirely hypocritical in my thoughts process.

Surrogacy is wrong buying and selling of humans is not ok, the only time I think it is ever really slightly acceptable is 'in family surrogates, like a mother or sister carrying for another female family member however even then the room for issues if something goes wrong, for guilt and for familial bonds to be broken are high.

Don’t agree with it?