People who are anti abortion from conception, how do you feel about IVF?

I'm still of the view that just because something can be fixed by using lots of cash and high tech it doesn't mean it should be fixed. That it is setting up an expectation that all demands should be met.
So if it was a cheap low tech solution would you be in favour of assisted reproduction? What if the barrier to conception is ignorance? What if it FGM, and surgery could overcome the difficulty? What the couple would conceive with IUI (squirting sperm into the uterus)? Is that a step too far? What IS IT about IVF particularly that is such a stumbling block?

Some societal implications perhaps with logical ends

I well remember discussing the first "test tube" when Louise Brown was born with a Catholic boyfriend who was very surprised I was opposed to it. He thought it was a good thing, despite his church's objections.

At the time it just felt wrong and unnecessary. I'm still of the view that just because something can be fixed by using lots of cash and high tech it doesn't mean it should be fixed. That it is setting up an expectation that all demands should be met.

I've said on numerous occasions that I am opposed to surrogacy- that applies to gay and straight couples. Commercial surrogacy only exists because of IVF.

I found the comments about Babylonian slave masters and that surrogacy is nothing new and women have always been used as incubators trite. The right of a slave owner to rape , impregnate and steal a slave's child ended at the latest in the 19th century. Yet in the 21st century wealthy men paid to airlift their surrogate babies out of an earthquake zone leaving their mothers behind.

I have also said on here that animal rights concern me greatly. The thought of the number of female animals who were tortured and killed to ameliorate something which is not life threatening (and it is not as if we are running out of humans ) bothers me. The current research on womb transplants is horrific for the same reason.
No one needs a womb transplant but that is just the extension of someone wants and science can do it.

Lass

I misread your post - my apologies (first read of the day, comprehension was apparently lacking). I now get what you were saying as per your clarification. Thanks for your patient and clear explanation.

Can you please expand for me your position (pro-choice/anti-IVF, right)? Some societal implications perhaps with logical ends (not justified of course just actual/potential)? Just trying to wrap my head around the pro-choice/anti-IVF perspective for real-life consideration.

We (DH & I) came to our conclusions about IVF/ART as a couple long before we decided to try to have children (10yrs before), so our circumstances did not impact our perspectives beyond refinement. Trying to consider everyone the world over and every scenario is difficult as a team of two... FWR voices are very helpful. After all, FWR helped destroy our last vestige of altruistic surrogacy consideration based on logical facts and logical societal implications.

I'm off to handle some things for a deceased friend so I'll catch up with you later.

Thanks in advance!

I am trying to give you an explanation of what the reasoning might be for those who are anti- abortion but pro IVF.

I might be terribly wrong in their motives but , yes, I think if one's position is abortion is wrong but IVF isn't , that the element of women going to extraordinary lengths to be mothers makes them good women and those choosing abortion, i.e those killing their babies, are not.

The anti- abortion/pro- IVF stance is illogical- you are free to come up with your own interpretation of how they square that illogicality.

The person I mentioned who succesfully used IVF thinks abortion kills babies and she would ban it.

My stepmom and dad are anti-abortion/pro-IVF and I struggle with that too

Logically if one is anti- abortion one should be anti- IVF as Caro who has posted here is In the US, however IVF is big money.
And logically the opposite is pro-choice/pro-IVF. With my SM and dad money has nothing to do with their perspective, they just believe as devout Christians that more babies (born to parents that want them and sacrifice to conceive them) is a blessing. They also believe science is a gift from God and that it should be used ethically.

I also imagine that for the more strident anti- abortion side women choosing IVF are good women.
Are you implying that pro-choice/pro-IVF women making the choice to employ IVF/ART aren't "good women"? What are you trying to say?

They are going to extraordinary lengths to be mothers- fulfilling a woman's destiny as they see it.
Okay so because they eat the patriarchy sandwich and smile their decision is somehow more righteous than the pro-choice/pro-IVF crowd? Or did I read between the lines of your post too much?

They are certainly not, as they see it , feckless women having irresponsible casual sex who deserve to be punished for it.
What does that even mean?!?!? This is part of the reason I have an issue with conservative perspectives that are self-serving... how does this justify their use of IVF over any other woman?

All of this stuff is ideological value judgement - not logical reasoning so it isn't helpful.

"Given the relatively low rate of success, this seems to be such unfair pressure to put on a couple. Particularly as it is a postcode lottery which disproportionately favours the wealthy."

Is that a nationwide statistic? It's certainly not the case in my local area. In my closest 3 areas the "poorest" gets 3 cycles, the richest gets zero and what would be middling gets 1.....

We went private but whatever is available on the nhs needs to be sorted out (and that doesn't just go for fertility). It needs to be the same nationwide and nothing to do with where you live

Given the relatively low rate of success, this seems to be such unfair pressure to put on a couple. Particularly as it is a postcode lottery which disproportionately favours the wealthy.

Also, when people who are already alive are turned down for life prolonging cancer treatment due to expense, it seems unethical to say that the NHS can sometimes fund the creation of new life, but not afford to meet the medical needs of existing humans.

I'm American, we don't have NHS or postcode lottery. We have Medicare for the poor covering IVF as well as other ART for the medically infertile. We have private insurance - some states have IVF/ART coverage some states have zero and some companies cover the cost for employees or cover it via insurance as a benefit. TRICARE (military insurance) covers IVF/ART for soldiers and bills them for their spouse's treatment (approx. $5k if the spouse is female).

And then there are the rest that pay out-of-pocket via cash/credit/financing ($15-30k per round).

IVF/ART doesn't affect or intersect the cancer treatment funding - they are separate pots of money.

I don’t know if people really understand what infertility feels like and the long term toll it takes on your mental health, even when they have “grieved”, but it feels to a certain extent that some just like to “kick people when they are down” and feel morally superior while doing it

Wow, that's some huge assumption! My exH and I struggled for years.

Right before we tried to conceive, we discussed what we would do if we couldn't conceive naturally (we had reason to think we wouldn't be able to). We decided we wouldn't go down the IVF route, nor surrogacy routes. We would try to adopt or foster. If we couldn't, we would grieve and try to build a good life in a different way.

We had reconciled ourselves to being childless when I then somehow fell pregnant. Not everyone who experiences problems conceiving has to feel the same!

For those saying that having a family would be chosen over a few extra years of life: who said the person with cancer wasn't already someone's much loved, existing child?

I do have an issue with us spending resources to create more humans from finite NHS funds, which cannot afford to give existing children with cancer, all available treatment options.

Lass Thankfully more and more countries are making surrogacy illegal. Unfortunately the UK seems to be going the other way.

The point I was trying to makeLassthat you seem to have ignored is that surrogacy has been around for millennia, it is not IVF that brought it about

There is a world of difference between the 2 situations you are describing.

The type of surrogacy you are describing- the rape of a slave is illegal. The exploitation of poor women by high tech methods is perfectly legal in many countries. IVF facilitated that.

We will have to disagree on who is being disingenuous.

The point I was trying to make Lass that you seem to have ignored is that surrogacy has been around for millennia, it is not IVF that brought it about. The methods have changed and it's no longer the surrogate mother's own eggs that are used, but it is not new at all. Women have been exploited as human incubators since civilisation began so to tie it in to arguments against IVF is disingenuous.

People want big polluting cars, they don’t need them, but somehow are not tarnished with the same “selfish” shaming as infertile couples on this thread

This thread isn't about cars. And there has been a huge shift in societal attitudes to big polluting cars, backed up by policie such as higher road tax, higher residents parking fees and the intention of eventually all electric cars.

It seems strange then, on a purely theoretical level, that we are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to create more humans

Yes it does and those extraordinary lengths have already gone to lengths many posters on here find unacceptable.

On the question of NHS funding it isn't really the case of the very loaded question the OP suggests- i.e the choice of IVF over giving very elderly people a couple of more years.

My stepmom and dad are anti-abortion/pro-IVF and I struggle with that too

Logically if one is anti- abortion one should be anti- IVF as Caro who has posted here is In the US, however IVF is big money. Hence there are exceptions.

I also imagine that for the more strident anti- abortion side women choosing IVF are good women. They are going to extraordinary lengths to be mothers- fulfilling a woman's destiny as they see it. They are more likely to be middle class and wealthy. They are certainly not, as they see it , feckless women having irresponsible casual sex who deserve to be punished for it.

The woman I know who had successful IVF but is vehemently opposed to abortion is such an ideal, stay at home, apple- pie making "mom" she is almost a caricature. US right- wingers would love her. Her view is that she had to suffer so much to become pregnant that it is immoral that women who can become pregnant easily should be allowed to get rid of a baby which could be adopted.

IVF is part and parcel of the idea that
"I want" trumps everything- everything in life must be fixed.

People want big polluting cars, they don’t need them, but somehow are not tarnished with the same “selfish” shaming as infertile couples on this thread. No, not everything can be fixed, I face a very real prospect of a slow debilitating death from a genetic disease, which right now, can’t be cured, however if it could of course I would jump at the chance. However, ivf right now, exists, is available to those who are able to pay, probably sacrificing other material things in their life for. I don’t know if people really understand what infertility feels like and the long term toll it takes on your mental health, even when they have “grieved”, but it feels to a certain extent that some just like to “kick people when they are down” and feel morally superior while doing it.

Sorry, to clarify. The description given by goose feet was the point I was making.

I did multiple IVF cycles in Italy - so v much conservative-Catholic in approach. Regulations at the time said no freezing of embryos this meant that they would only attempt to fertilize a max of 3 eggs at a time and all embryos had to be transferred. All other eggs could be frozen or donated for research. Frustrating at the time but probably the most ethical way to do it for pro-lifers.

‘That's not the point she was making. She is saying that cloning would still be deeply problematic even if it solved real and terrible problems for some people. Ends don't justify means and all.‘

That was the point I was making.

But it is also worth bearing in mind that both reproductive cloning and the creation of human-animal chimeras have only come into existence because of the development of IVF. There are many ethical questions to be asked about what it is acceptable to do with embryos and human genetic material.

as a species we should be encouraging people to have fewer children AHH yes it's us infertile who might if we are lucky have a child or two that are responsible for global over population. Firstly in the parts of the world where IVF is really an option population levels are declining and there is a need to ensure there are enough children to support the aging population. Secondly eroding abortion rights, preventing access to contraception etc have a much, much greater impact on global populations. Think of the state of the planet if we went with the no contraception, no abortion but hey no IVF babies either stance favoured by some. We really would be in trouble as a planet.

Re IVF v adoption in the UK IVF arrived at about the same time as abortion rates rose and being an unmarried mother became much more socially acceptable e.g. as the number of babies available for adoption fell. I know numerous people who adopted in the 60s,70s or 80s all of them were able to take home healthy babies under 6 months old, often more than once. Adoptors I know in the 21st century have almost all taken older children or babies with additional needs. They are brilliant parents to wonderful children but their previous experience at being parents already has helped them to take on often troubled and damaged children and make a happy home for them. Had my husband not worked away so much we would have looked to adopt to give a son a sibling.

‘Itwouldtakemuchmorethanthis
because they accept that women have the right to choose to kill
Abortion
their embryos?
In relation to IVF specifically

Yup I get that. I am asking how those two thoughts coexist... in the context of pro-choice/anti-IVF.‘

Could you explain what you mean here? Sorry, getting a bit confused.

It said that every person asked would said they would rather have children than a few extra years at the end of their lives

That's a very loaded question though isn't it? Mental health is underfunded for example. NHS England won't pay for a drug treatment which has proven effective in treatment of extreme migraine.

Prior to the IVF existing, if couples were unable to have children, they either adopted (possibly older children or sibling sets) or grieved but came to terms with it over time. Now, many seem to feel that if they don't explore the IVF option, they won't fully be able to move on. And if the first doesn't work and there are more blastocysts frozen, that they should go again and again.
Yes I suppose in some ways most cancer patients and transplant patients are the same. In the good old days they died, now they have chemo and radiotherapy and all manner of treatments, they just keep on trying to live.
Technology changes and so do life experiences. Very few women expect to live without contraception, and a whole host of medical interventions post birth. We are used to the new norm, of small spaced intentional reproduction. It’s called progress.

Prior to the IVF existing, if couples were unable to have children, they either adopted (possibly older children or sibling sets) or grieved but came to terms with it over time. Now, many seem to feel that if they don't explore the IVF option, they won't fully be able to move on. And if the first doesn't work and there are more blastocysts frozen, that they should go again and again.

Given the relatively low rate of success, this seems to be such unfair pressure to put on a couple. Particularly as it is a postcode lottery which disproportionately favours the wealthy.

Also, when people who are already alive are turned down for life prolonging cancer treatment due to expense, it seems unethical to say that the NHS can sometimes fund the creation of new life, but not afford to meet the medical needs of existing humans.

I totally understand the urge to reproduce, but the desperation to have a child still doesn't stop it from being a "want" rather than a "need". I really don't want to offend anyone but it is obvious that it is a want, irrespective of how primal the urge to have a child is.

On a really global scale, we know that as a species we should be encouraging people to have fewer children for environmental reasons. It seems strange then, on a purely theoretical level, that we are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to create more humans.

Like Lass, I am pro-choice but can't help being concerned about IVF at a societal level.

Itwouldtakemuchmorethanthis
because they accept that women have the right to choose to kill
Abortion
their embryos?
In relation to IVF specifically

Yup I get that. I am asking how those two thoughts coexist... in the context of pro-choice/anti-IVF.

Goosefoot
I think it's probably that they have a more nuanced view of one or both of those elements. Not everyone who considers themselves pro-choice thinks its a choice that ought to be made lightly, some would see restriction of some kinds.

I am a supporter of pro-choice with minimal restrictions imposed, my abortion choice didn't arrive lightly even though I was raped and an atheist (no belief in souls). Only one woman I've known took it lightly (had 13 last I spoke to her 8yrs ago).

I also don't take IVF lightly - it is difficult on the woman's body/mind in tandem with moral considerations regarding embryos, and it is quite expensive.

My stepmom and dad are anti-abortion/pro-IVF and I struggle with that too. I don't think a general societal implication explanation works for either their side or the pro-choice/anti-IVF crowd. Specificity is needed for truthful consideration IMO. At least that's what I think I need to understand.