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?

Eugenics is also a way of controlling the population.
Perhaps a means test of IQ would be a more suitable way of population control?
Or perhaps limitations on disabled parents or those with less than desirable attributes?

Fuck my life. I’d have struggled not to shove that persons head through a window.
That would have helped towards the population issue.

We could sterilise everyone at birth and then only let a select few reproduce through ivf? Nobody keen? Funny that.

I think they’ve got a point about overpopulation, but I don’t think they’re right to blame it on IVF, or suggest that infertility is “population control in its purest sense.”

For starters, if we’re talking about nature’s population control, I’d be pointing the finger at infectious disease before infertility.
Vaccinations and antibiotics have had a far more dramatic role in increasing population than IVF, and banning those would be a far more efficient, and natural, way of reducing the global population than banning IVF.
I’m not seriously suggesting that we ban vaccinations and antibiotics BTW.

In terms of reducing birth rates, I do seriously think that ensuring all women have access to affordable, preferably free birth control and abortions would do far more good than complaining about IVF. I’d guess that globally, the number of IVF babies around is far less than the number of babies born from unplanned pregnancies.

I believe there's been about 8 million IVF babies in the last 40 years so about 200,000 per year on average.

That’s really quite a small number when you consider it’s a global figure. Also many of the babies born a single year will be multiple births, and of the overall 40 year figure many will have been born to the same parents in separate births, so the figures certainly don’t represent the same number of successful couples.

It’s unfair to expect couples with fertility issues to pick up the tab for overpopulation when we can’t or won’t impose restrictions on those who have no such issues.

Very extreme and bloody insensitive. Your friend should rail at the families having more than two kids, not the poor people conceiving through IVF after (in lots of cases) years of pain.

I think that's unkind and ridiculous. But I do fully support the view that moving forward perhaps a 1 child per household rule is needed for environmental reasons. I realise this may be unpopular, and I have 2 children myself....But had i known in my "breeding" days the things I do now, I would have willingly only had 1

Ban IVF, forcibly take babies from parents who earn less than a specific amount and redistribute them to richer childless mums as they pay more tax, you could also limit all children to 1 (or 2 in specific circumstances) and kill the rest. There are countries in the world that have attempted all of these things legally and it’s failed every time.

Your friend was being disgusting and you should have shot her down in flames when she made the comment.

Eugenics is also a form of population control, as is euthanasia. Maybe we should start some Logan's Run / Soylent Green type scenario and put everyone down at 60 ( I'm more generous x2 as much life as Logan's run 😂) and recycle what's left 🤮. Remaining child free is a choice but not something that should be enforced by denying someone (usually women) medical care.

is this group member generally an opinionated insensitive bore?

I believe there's been about 8 million IVF babies in the last 40 years so about 200,000 per year on average.
so 0.1 percent of current world population
by her logic you should only get pregnant if nature allows why does it not follow that you only live if nature allows. i disagree hat has happened to liberty the idea 1 child will have an effect on the planet is laughable.

Banning IVF isn't going to have any impact on overpopulation.
We're screwed either way. People aren't going to stop having children.

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.

Sorry, this reminds me of the futuristic film 'Logan's Run', from the early 1980s. In the film, there's a domed city, where no one was allowed to live beyond the age of 30, at which age they were euthanised. Two of the characters escape and are astounded to come across an elderly man...

Anyway, back to reality, if you're really serious about population control, those who want DC should do what my DH and I and many others have done and adopt children who have already been born.

Sorry, @originalusernamefail you already mentioned the film 'Logan's Run'.

if that was a problem, you would think there would be a maximum number of children allowed per woman.

I just dont get that point of view. The UK has an aging population, so who would work to support public services and pensioners through taxation if the birth rate declines further and our working population declines?

We suffer secondary infertility and one of the reasons we decided against fertility treatment was for environmental reasons and health reasons. Not a big believer in messing round with hormones and felt that it would have been great if it happened naturally but it was kind of going against what was meant to be and acknowledged fewer kids better environmentally. But we were lucky to have one. Not sure we would have held the same view if we had none.

One thing I detest though is the pyramid view of population growth. We can’t keep growing the population to prop up previous ones. Each extra kid had s yearly carbon footprint of 60 metric tonnes. We need to massively reduce the amount of people on Earth. People without fertility issues desperately need to reduce the number of kids they have too

I can’t see any difference between a child conceived in a petridish and one conceived in a uterus? How is it relevant to the environment?

Is this not the same as treating any illness?

I think energies should be focused on those having far more children than they can provide for through lack of awareness or contraception and not the one child conceived by ivf.

I find ivf mind boggling, mostly because I don’t understand it. But I am very lucky to have had a child naturally and can’t pretend to understand how I’d feel about it if that were not the case.

What an utter prick that person was.

I do think that all families should self-limit to two children but obviously can’t force people to do that. But IVF is not the problem - all the large families I know are all naturally conceived, us poor infertile sods generally haven’t got the energy for more than one or two tries at IVF .

Sounds like the type of person that would gasp with outrage if it was suggested they shouldn’t have children due to enviro concerns!

I'm surprised there aren't loads of people on here agreeing with your friend. I thought MN had decided that anyone who has a baby is selfish and destroying the environment?

Anyway, I agree with you that it's a very extreme view. Does she also think that gay people shouldn't be allowed to raise children because they haven't made them the old fashioned way? How progressive of her

Environmentally speaking, I don't think people having one or two kids through IVF is as damaging as people who consciously decide to have very large families. No one needs to have more than two or three. My grandmother had eight but there was no contraception available at the time in Ireland. I bet she would have love to have had two or three. There is no excuse in the modern world to have loads of kids.

So why do we need mass immigration? We all have one child but we have 300,000 people coming into the country every year but that’s applauded because the country needs it?

Sorry, this reminds me of the futuristic film 'Logan's Run', from the early 1980s. In the film, there's a domed city, where no one was allowed to live beyond the age of 30, at which age they were euthanised. Two of the characters escape and are astounded to come across an elderly man...

There was an episode of Star Trek TNG when they come across a planet where everyone is expected to commit ritual suicide, surrounded by their families, at the age of 60. In this case it was because they thought older people should not be a burden on younger ones......