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

The determination to conflate the two is an attempt to decontaminate the optics of buying and selling babies. But let's face it, it's not much of a fig leaf.

I had just been referred to the fertility clinic and would probably have needed ivf if I hadn't fallen pregnant suddenly (unexplained infertility for 10 years and I am 32 years old)..

It is my only significant medical issue to date (and we pay a lot of tax) and a growing number of people are suffering from infertility. Even so many people aren't able to use ivf on the nhs due to the long waiting times (2 years), high bmi. I was relatively young and my ccg offered 3 cycles so I chose to wait on the nhs though I did fall pregnant naturally while waiting.

Of course there is controversy still around the destruction of embryos. That was the very reason we did not have it. In the same way as I wouldn't have an abortion, I wouldn't have IVF. I personally am happy for others to have it and for others to make those decisions for themselves.

Surrogacy has issues with using women's body's and attachment issues for the baby.

IVF using the couples sperm and eggs I have zero issue with. 100% solving a medial issue.

IVF using other people's eggs or sperm doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Be even more stretched dealing with mental illness if you stop IVF being offered though. Many feel suicidal due to infertility.

I actually don't have any issue with IVF being available on the NHS, but is this really the case (that it would cost more I mean)?

Plenty of people don't qualify for IVF for various reasons, so you'd have any mental health costs for them anyway. And then many others aren't successful with it, so for those people you have the IVF costs, plus any mental health costs. And for people where it is successful, you have the IVF cost, plus the pregnancy and birth, and an extra person for the NHS to provide care for for their whole life.

As I said, I'm not against it. I'm just not sure that the argument that it prevents there being an even bigger burden on the NHS really stacks up. I don't think that actually matters though, because I don't think that's how NHS funding should be decided (I mean, loads of things would be cheaper to simply not bother treating).

Why would it make you anxious, and anxious about what? Whether it’s actually baby and that there wasn’t an embryo mix up? Order a DNA test.

You’re right that it’s easy for you to say that you wouldn’t use IVF because you have your own biological children. IVF is the only way I could have my child. It was IVF or never have a child. Never having a child was unfathomable for me. My mental health wouldn’t have survived without at least trying IVF.

I think people considering ivf with a donor element need to consider how that child will feel when they find out. And have a plan to let them know so they don't find out in a biology class at school at 14/15 and their whole world is turned upside down when they find out. Seen it happen and its heartbreaking for the kids who find out that way.

It's very much an each to their own topic much like abortion imo. Nobody should be forcing their views about these things on anyone else.

No problem with IVF at all

I know that infertility is a terrible thing for many people, but it is hard to accept that someone would be suicidal even though they were in deep grief about loss of hopes of being a parent. It is about expectations being dashed, and not everyone can have children. As someone childless myself, it is something I had to come to terms with. It takes time but all there is is acceptance.

I think we have to look at this slightly as back then rather than now views. I personally have no issue with IVF but I had a conversation with my grandmother about it once ( now in her 90's) and she was very against it. She felt it was unnatural and of people couldn't have children naturally then it wasn't meant to be. I can distinctly hear her telling me nature shouldn't be messed with. This is a similar view to those that are against surrogates have. I have mixed views on surrogacy so this isn't me in favour or against it more of an explanation of the older generations view.

@IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that!

I looked into adoption on the early 1990’s whilst suffering infertility and was shocked. Just thing about it, if your 14 year old daughter got pregnant and wanted to keep the baby you would sigh and make the most of it, rather than force her to give up her child like 80 years ago.
This means generally the children up for adoption have very serious needs. They have often been physically or sexually abused or have severe special needs. It would take extraordinary parents to overcome what they have been through.
I thought I would only be able to be an average parent so went through IVF instead.

I have issues with women being coerced/persuaded into donating their eggs so they can have lower cost treatment. I'm also not sure about sperm and egg donation because I think how a child is conceived and comes into the world affects a child, more than most people realise.
At the very least they should know exactly who the donor is and have the option of being in contact with them if they wish.

Cross post!

Be even more stretched dealing with mental illness if you stop IVF being offered though. Many feel suicidal due to infertility.

... I genuinely don't understand the point you are making here. Are you saying it's okay to take a baby away from its mother as long as they have a quick cuddle first?

@Yaerry are you genuinely trying to argue that it's okay to remove a newborn from its biological mother so long as she's had a quick cuddle?

In most cases, no, the birth mother doesn't get to hold the infant and it's passed straight to the couple who've purchased the baby.

All of that aside, there's not an argument in the land that could be made that will convince me that the buying and selling of newborn babies or the use of any woman's body as a commodity (most often a disadvantaged woman at that) is anything other than abhorrent. No one is entitled to have a biological child. Is it sad that many people experience infertility and/or loss? Absolutely. Should an innocent newborn pay the price for that by being taken from its mother? No. Absolutely not.

No, birth mothers don't always hold the baby after birth in surrogacy cases. They are often passed straight to the new parents.

If a mother is in surgery or unconscious that's entirely different and not something you can compare in my opinion. It's also very temporary. The baby will be back with their mother as soon as possible, hearing the same heartbeat and voice they've heard for comfort for the last 9 months.

Not having skin to skin straight away isn't the problem. The ethical considerations come in as the baby is permanently removed from the one thing he/she has ever known. They don't even know they're separated from their mothers until months after birth, I find it appalling that people think it's ok to do it by choice.

There is a difference between destroying embryos that may or may not result in a baby and surrogacy where the baby doesn't get held by it's birth mother. I think most people are fine with IVF but not keen on surrogacy.

Couples in their 60s are likely using donated eggs, its not straightforward IVF.

There may have been religious concerns about the destruction of embryos, Jewish law gets around (I believe but I may be wrong) this by implanting any leftover emroyos in the woman at the 'wrong' time of the month.

I had a junior colleague express the view that lesbians should not be permitted to have children via IVF. So clearly some people have a problem with it. I'm a lesbian who has a child born through IVF.

I think the Catholic Church has always officially been against IVF, not sure if it still is (and I know many Catholics who have used it in any event)

I do have an issue with IVF in that viable embryos are destroyed. Also I am not completely sure about it being available on the NHS, given how stretched resources are for other conditions like mental illness and life threatening illnesses.

Totally agree with nearly everything you've said, except that it is unconscionable to remove a baby from its gestational mother, whether or not she is the biological mother. For example, the surrogate may be pregnant with embryos created from the eggs of the intended mother, making the intended mother the biological one, but it's the surrogate whose body the baby has grown inside for nine months.