IVF and population control due to environmental concerns

[Stripyseagulls]

This is a new one on me. I was out with a group of people last night - I have kids that I was extremely lucky to conceive without IVF. One of the group members was very vocal about IVF and the morality of it. That if you are infertile, because of the environmental & population issues we are facing, IVF should no longer be an option. That infertility is population control in its purest sense.

Aibu to think this is a new view? I found it quite an extreme view and having a friend in her mid 40s going through IVF and the pain of infertility, it’s not something I have ever thought about.

Aibu to think it’s an extreme view? I don’t share it at all but wondered if anyone had come a cross it before?

My DB and SIL have 6 naturally conceived children. I am currently pregnant with my second (and last) child through IVF having suffered from secondary infertility.

But I am the one causing population problems?

@ButtonMooooon

Exactly

People who feel that way should instead focus their efforts on causes that make birth control and abortions available to all.

You're going to get a lot of mixed answers. We are in a climate crisis. We are facing extinction.

I think ultimately it depends on how they raise the child as to if our planet can 'afford' the baby. Such as if they use disposable or cloth nappies, if they support fast fashion, the amount of meat they will be feeding their child etc. All those things are extremely detrimental to the planet. But that really goes for everyone. Surely it'd be better for an IVF mama to have five IVF babies that they bring up relatively ethically and sustainably than a mama to have 1 naturally but not bring up sustainably. There is no way to police it and I think would be quite unjust to the IVF mama.
I think really it would be better if there was more to educate and support new parents in raising their baby more sustainably, rather than cut out IVF. At least not jump straight to cutting out IVF, but then again I appreciate we are in a climate crisis and probably unfair decisions need to be made in order to survive. However, there are other sectors/areas that need addressing first.

So basically I have no idea whether or not I agree with IVF being cut out, I have mixed views. However I am confident that the are more important areas to address first. In regards to raising a baby, the first things they can do is make disposable nappies & wipes only available on prescription, change laws meaning clothes have to be made more sustainably and encourage 'make do and mend' as well as purchasing secondhand. Rather than jump straight to cutting out IVF .

I don't think that at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if people do. There's always people on here saying it shouldn't be funded by NHS etc. I would imagine most people would be tactful enough to keep it to themselves if they feel that way.

Why are they choosing to be vocal about people having IVF? Surely this sort of principle anyone having kids? Presumably they don't have any ?

Over simplification, there are too many people if we want western standard of living. Controling consumption can be achieved 8n many ways, of which one is population control.

Also feel it’s a little unfair that people who can’t have one child have options removed, whilst other families may have 3 or more children regardless

• principle applies to

How ridiculous. So we should just let people with life threatening diseases go without treatment for over population reasons? I don’t see any differerence.

Of course it's fair that the people who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed help to conceive. It means that those of us who breed like rabbits (I have 4) can ease our consciences, safe in the knowledge that some poor infertile cow is paying the price for me having loads of kids.
I also think that diabetics shouldn't be allowed chocolate, because of, you know
the obesity epidemic.
(Pass the ice cream)

@Hazell42 😆

I had that view when I was younger and an edgy little shit

Ironically now struggling to conceive and may need IVF myself. I think people who trot that line out lack empathy.

He's looking at it backasswards. The global birthrate has been falling for decades. People are already having fewer babies. However that hasn't made a blind bit of difference to frank population numbers because the increase in population is due to medical advances meaning more of us survive infancy, fewer die of hitherto lethal events and illnesses in adulthood and childhood, and more again live past 60. Not sure anyone would want the obvious solution to this "problem".

YABU to think it’s an extreme view. It’s only been around 40 years or so. Why are you so shocked that people might not agree with it? There are lots of grounds for people to disagree with it. Airing their views loudly might be hurtful but... so what?

I find it pretty extreme. Maybe I’m sensitive as I had to use fertility treatments to assist in having my child, albeit not IVF.

What about the fertile people that choose not to have children or are single and don’t have children- will that balance out the children conceived through IVF?

Don't worry about it, jb1305uk. There has long been a subset of people around who speculate about how the planet would be better off with fewer humans and how others should address this. None of which includes offing their own sweet selfs ofc.

It's so sad to think people have this opinion but it probably does add to the subject being taboo and often people go through infertility and IVF in secret, like myself.

Seems silly to me. I would think people like myself are more of a problem regarding population control than people needing IVF.

It's an overly simplistic argument that's destined to fail.

Having children is bad for the environment. It doesn't matter how sustainable your parenting and family life is, because every human being is a consumer. It's the lack of resources for the number of consumers that we have, that's causing our problems.

It would be fairer to say that adults could have a maximum of 2 children - and if IVF would be required then it should be funded for a certain number of cycles. In order to make it truly fair then the other end should also be addressed. Our longevity has increased substantially. It creates an imbalance if adults are told they can't have children, yet medical advances mean that we are kept alive for longer.

If your friend truly believes that an infertile woman should not be allowed IVF under any circumstances, then presumably she also agrees with the concept of not treating cancer? Or heart bypass surgery for those aged 70 and older? Or giving drug addicts methadone to help wean them off heroin? Or performing life saving surgery on a car crash victim?

This is not as simple as she makes out. And if she is truly committed to being environmentally active then she should acknowledge that everyone would need to sacrifice something. Rather than picking on the easy targets.

Tell him to read Dan Brown’s book Inferno. I don’t want to spoil it for anyone but it’s right up his street. They changed the ending in the film so he won’t like that as much.

I know that some people disagree with it for ethical reasons but never heard about environmental ones.

If increasing populations are a concern shouldn’t we be letting older people die without drugs/treatment as opposed to stopping IVF?

As Threesoups said we actually have an aging population & need young people so if looking at purely population control we probably should be euthanising anyone over a certain age.

The percentage of ivf rounds that actually result in a live birth doesn't even come close to the number of natural pregnancies we have lost as a nation in the past few decades due to abortion, birth control and life choices. It's a non issue.

People who feel that way should instead focus their efforts on causes that make birth control and abortions available to all.

This. They should also campaign for equal rights and access to education for women around the world.

I’m evangelical about the environment but the planet has far bigger problems than the relatively small number of IVF babies born each year, and ones which can be improved without dicking over people who are already having a horrible time with infertility.