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

[Yaerry]

or am I just naive? Watched the new documentary about Jean Purdy and I’m surprised there was so much push back at the time. It’s made me wonder if one day surrogacy will be more accepted? I thought ivf was just a standard thing now that wasn’t controversial.

Surrogacy and ivf are very different things with very different ethical issues and shouldn't be conflated.

Absolutely!

Some people have issues with IVF around destruction of embryos etc, and cost effectiveness for relatively low success rates if offered by a public healthcare system, but the ethical concerns for surrogacy tend to be different. Personally I’ve no issue with either.

IVF has shades of grey for me, lesbian couples using it, hetero couples who can't conceive for whatever reason, all fine.
Couples in their 60's+ using it to have a baby definitely not.

Surrogacy is becoming less accepted.

I've heard people be against IVF on the NHS, but not in general.

I didn’t know older people ie 60s could use ivf?!?

I don't think I'd ever personally use ivf/surrogacy as it would make me incredibly anxious and there are so many children in care who need parents.

But that's easy for me to say as I have biological children and have no idea what it's like not to be able to.

There are sometimes cases in Italy and India. No 60 year old could get IVF in the UK .

I thought IVF was medical assistance to help a couple who are experiencing infertility to have a baby, with the mother raising the child the one becoming pregnant. I’m not sure what is controversial about IVF, there are so many other illnesses that require medical intervention, so I don’t think it’s particularly controversial.

Surrogacy is completely different as the person carrying the baby won’t be the one raising it and the process doesn’t always require medical intervention.

Maybe a different example might be useful, so IVF and an artificial heart, or some other diagnosis that requires medical intervention

This.

Surrogacy and IVF are two completely separate issues.

I have no moral objection to any couple needing fertility treatment. I do however, object to surrogacy on the grounds that it is little more than human trafficking. Humans are not commodities to be bought and sold. It is unconscionable to remove a newborn infant from its biological mother (unless said mother is incapable of providing a safe and loving home).

In my opinion, adoption solves a problem that already exists (ie that a newborn baby needs a home) whereas surrogacy creates a problem.

If we suggested removing puppies and kittens from their mother at birth, there'd be outrage, yet somehow it's acceptable to buy the use of a woman's body for the purposes of creating a baby only to rip that baby from the only attachment it's known?

Surrogacy involves deliberately inflicting a primal wound on an infant which can lead to lifelong psychological issues, attachment disorders etc. IVF...doesn't. They each have their detractors, but they aren't necessarily the same people.

It is very difficult to adopt and to be honest I wanted my own baby and to experience pregnancy so didn't want to adopt or foster. We probably would have been rejected anyway.

No 60 year old could get IVF in the UK .

Now I've said that I don't think it is true! There doesn't seem to be a cut off. But, I also don't think many clinics would agree to treat someone obviously past normal childbearing age .

@BodyKeepingScore surely the birth mother holds the baby etc after its born? But actually even if she didn’t, that could happen when a mother is in surgery or unconscious etc after birth?

Apples and pears really. Interestingly it is always the ones with several children who are most vocal about cutting NHS funding IVF though!

Surrogacy is the buying and selling of humans. It's abhorrent. No human should be bought/sold.

Many people have an issue with IVF because of the destruction of embryos that happens.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.