Do you believe IVF is ok?

[Ididivfama]

I’ve been reading a lot of the surrogacy threads recently (and I know that is a different topic) but I was curious to mumsnet posters ideas of ethics and ivf. You can see from my name that we ended up doing it, but I won’t be horribly offended by different views. I’m more curious.

Obviously it’s ’unnatural’ as a process and there is the issue of what happens to any extra blastocysts (I use the term blastocyst as they are pre-embryo stage and calling them embryos makes people view it differently - at least I did!) Even so, would you count leaving blastocysts to decay as abortion? I never did but I’ve read that view now so I’m curious as to how many people view it like that.

As is pointed out on the surrogacy threads - no one is ‘entitled’ to have a child. Is that the same for us ivf parents?

It’s your own body vs hiring someone else’s.

For reference, pre ivf I didn’t like the idea of ‘spare embryos’ (even though I support women getting abortions when needed I obviously don’t think it’s ‘nice’ and not someone most would choose to do for leisure). However we looked into ivf and I realised that when the sperm and egg are mixed and only left for 3-5 days, I see it far less like a human life. I see it is as a ‘potential’ for life. It really does just look like tiny dots! But clearly my view is biased now!

Yes I know that but is it ethical?

I have two IVF children. I have no qualms about the ethics. My body, my embryos, my decision.

I have no problem with IVF. All medical intervention is intrusive and goes against the natural progress of a disease or post-accident trauma to bone or skin. Medical intervention to restore health is seen as a good thing. Our biological purpose on earth as mammals is to procreate so intervention that restores that fundamental function to its ideal state (a woman's ability to carry a baby to term) is no less valid than medical intervention to restore a broken bone or a failing heart to its original purpose.

Needing IVF is just a medical issue, like any other.

As for the blastocysts - yes it is weird to think they could have been lives. But there's no guarantee they would have been. Many IVF attempts fail. Just like many sperm never fertilise an egg during unprotected sex. or many eggs and sperm just get passed out of the body via menstruation and ejaculation. There is a lot of wastage in nature. Think of all the apples or walnuts that never become trees.

I think my main problem purely from an evolution side, is that some people dont have the right requirements to make a healthy baby. To use a really large overall statement, its natural selection. Should we be forcing a new life where nature says no?

I totally understand that to a lot of people, to want a child and not being able to have one is heartbreaking, I dont mean to horrible. I am lucky enough to have 2 healthy dc - and yes even based on my statement above, I would consider IVF if I hadnt. I'm not meaning to hurt or upset anyone, and I know my words can sometimes be clumsy, so I do apologise to anyone I have upset.

This is my view I think.

I think IVF is fine, however I don't agree that IVF is a medical need like any other, as you've suggested. You don't die from not having a baby. Intervention is wanted, not needed.

They're not comparable.

I don't have an issue with ivf. I wouldn't give much thought to "wasted" embryos, tbh.

I don't agree with paid surrogacy. I think it's different if a friend or family member is willing to carry a baby for you. It's fraught with legal dilemmas though as a child born via surrogate is legally the child of the surrogate and the surrogate could decide to keep "your" baby. I would never be a surrogate or ask someone to carry a baby for me though.

I don't think it was ethical for me. If we hadn't been able to have children ourselves, we wouldn't have done IVF. I'm concerned about the embryos 'left over ' and the research/ experimentation. But I accept others are happy to do it and I don't judge them, just not for me.

I don’t like surrogacy because it’s hiring someone else’s body and I think it’s often not done ethically. IVF is different and the person having it is the one making choices about their own body; if you start going down the trail of thinking about potential for life then you could start saying all sperm and eggs are and wondering where you draw the line.
A lot of medical treatment could be deemed unnatural from that view point but we do it anyway as we celebrate what medical science has been able to achieve.

To answer the question in your OP

Even so, would you count leaving blastocysts to decay as abortion?
I would say no, as an abortion is a fetus leaving the womb, these have never been in a womb

I did IVF to no avail.

I have no issue with the ethics. They are totally different to surrogacy.

I think the issue with ‘leftover’ embryos is quite an unusual one. From my own experience and those I’ve read from other users on infertility forums, the vast majority do not have left over embryos. I personally wouldn’t consider the disposal of embryos an abortion, because you have to be pregnant for an abortion. I always selected for any left over embryos to be used for scientific research (wishful thinking many years ago in my ivf ignorance before I knew my eggs were rubbish!), but I know of others that had chosen for transfer at the wrong time of their cycles, so they wouldn’t work but would be back within their environment to perish like any other egg not fertilised would.

Ethics are fine. It's your body. You (usually) commit to keeping the baby you are gestating, or at least you treat it like any other pregnancy you may have.

I do think if you are against destroying embryos then you would need to think hard about doing IVF, but that is a different story to the ethical minefield that is surrogacy, where some parties can change their mind.

Interesting point, but then by doing ivf you are deliberately ciphering through all the crappy egg/sperm combos and getting good ones right? So the ones that you do choose and succeed are the healthy ones that exist?

In my case I used ivf for secondary infertility. Our firstborn was conceived naturally. Not sure if that means much!

That’s true. Even leaving the ‘crappy’ eggs to perish could be seen as bad, but then that’s what periods do! And clearly men don’t use the sperm they release!

I don't have a problem with ivf.
I do have a problem with taxpayers paying for it

@ManchesterLu

”you don’t die from not having a baby” - no, you just want to 😢

No I disagree with IVF as well as surrogacy. The world is over populated. I couldn't conceive for over 5 years of trying and I said from the outset that I wouldn't consider IVF and I stood by that even when I was sobbing in the bathroom when another AF happened, and crying at baby socks in the shop.

We don't really need more children in the world. It would be nice to have a baby but IVF goes too far.

Read Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison if you want to see the logical conclusion of this as a very well-researched thought experiment. It's happening at a slower pace but it's still happening.

My problem is the majority of women commenting that they don't agree with ivf have children. They may have struggled to have those children but it's very different to someone not being able to at all. I think it's easy to say you don't agree when you have never been there yourself.

To use a really large overall statement, its natural selection

Humans no longer evolve through natural selection though. Do you allow people with breast cancer caused by a faulty gene to die in order to preserve the principle of natural selection, or do you treat them?

No issues with IVF. No issues with regulated surrogacy.

I mean we would certainly save a fortune if we followed this. Could just shut the NHS and let all the sick die... isn't that what nature intends?

I don’t have an issue with self-funded IVF, but I don’t agree with egg or sperm donation.