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.

I’m not saying it’s something that all women can “just get over”. But there are women who will never have a baby. That is just a fact. In many cases they can get to a point where they are at peace with it. I have, it took a lot of time, but I got there, but I do find sometimes other people find that hard to accept. It’s like they’d prefer it if I was miserable.

Infertility causes much mental anguish. Of course it is comparable.

I thought SW always tried to keep sibling groups together especially full siblings.

It is slightly different though if it's children who adoption is better than care homes but really I find donor embryos a bit off in exactly the same way as I find using donor eggs or sperm.

There is plenty of research which was done with people who were adopted in '1950s' style adoptions, where a pregnant woman was encouraged/coerced/forced to give up a newborn who was then placed with a 'good' family and never told/not told until an adult. There is plenty of research on attachment difficulties in children who don't grow up in their birth families.

In the UK now, adoption is done as the least worst option for children who cannot safely live with their birth families, because it is now understood what damage removing a child, even as a newborn, even when the child can't remember it, even when they are very loved afterwards, can do to the child. People who support surrogacy don't want to know that removing a child from it's birth mother causes damage, no matter how young the child is, no matter how loved and wanted it is by the receiving parents.

And yes before you ask, I have adopted. One of mine has no memory of their birth family, but is very clearly still impacted.

I am sure people would not want anyone to be miserable. Yes, some people find peace, but others, like my aunt, drink and die at 47.

Sometimes, nothing can help and women have no choice but surely everyone deserves a chance to try.

Exactly! I have a friend who is the product of donor sperm (male factor infertility) and she doesn’t really give it a thought. She was always told though so it was never a big earth shattering secret.

I have another friend whose Mum had her at 16 following a ONS and the fact that she was a “mistake” who stopped Mum going to uni has always weighed heavily.

Yes they do.

At present the research does not show a link between IVF and cancer, as far as I understand it/am aware.

Re mental health, IVF has destroyed mine. I have always struggled with PMS, now have PMDD because it screwed my hormones.

That being said, I see no problem with IVF. Yes, embryos get destroyed. But I think there is a false understanding on this; many of those embryos would not grow to childhood in any event. I had an embryo that didn’t take (and a later loss); the only reason I knew about the one that didn’t take was because it was IVF. Many embryos at a similar stage will not make it and simply be dismissed as a period. It is not wholesale destruction of human life. That being said I am desperate to use my last frozen embryo because I can’t bear the thought of it not getting its “shot”.

I agree there is a discussion to be had around (1) NHS funded IVF; (2) surrogacy/egg donation (though I don’t really have a problem with the latter - again not aware of any actual decent research suggesting it is bad for the child).

Re “infertility being nature’s method of population control”. What utter spurious nonsense. Nature doesn’t have a control. Our infertility stemmed from an infection my husband had that was not correctly treated. It was pure bad luck that he was treated negligently. Nothing to do with nature.

I think the big problem is - as with most things - people feel entitled to have an opinion on what others do that is none of their business, and on which they have no relevant knowledge or skillset from which to comment. Fine, have an opinion on whether the State should fund treatment, but it really is none of your business what someone else is doing outside of that, irrespective of your views/beliefs on embryo destruction, population control or Gaia.

It hurts every time someone says if I can’t reproduce naturally I shouldn’t have children, that IVF children are children that shouldn’t exist, or that they are against nature. I’m incredibly short sighted. By wearing glasses am I foiling nature’s plan for me to fall off a cliff/be consumed by wild hogs/insert “appropriate natural death here” and thus control population? It’s equally plausible. So where’s the line? And why do you get to decide my line? I accept that I don’t get to decide what is ok for you so why do you get to decide for me? Even on the internet - maybe especially on the internet - it doesn’t hurt to think before you express an ill- or un-informed opinion.

They do but there are all sorts of reasons it doesn’t happen (eg the older siblings have been adopted by a family that doesn’t have space or financial resources for another child born later, one of the siblings may have additional needs that some families can’t meet or can’t meet in addition to another child, the parent/child relationship breakdown is with one particular child for known reasons)

Where we are, each adopted or fostered child needs to have their own room- so if I adopted a child, and then the bio parents go on to have another baby who is taken into care - unless that rule is overridden, I wouldn’t be able to adopt the new sibling without moving to a larger home so sadly that sibling group with be split up. But I don’t think it would be beneficial for the existing child to deny them a loving home because - hypothetically- there might be another sibling in the future .

Obviously in an ideal world, this wouldn’t happen but sadly it seems to be happening more frequently with the shortage of foster carers .

I can’t imagine it’s easy to seek support in a society that seems to value DNA above all else. What is a “real” Mum/Dad? Someone who had a quick shag and went through with a pregnancy? Or someone who does every night waking, every illness, every school event, buys clothes and food, creates a safe and happy
home? But you’ve only got to look at the step parent board to see the MN view on “real” parenting. I’d imagine adoption is even harder.

I have heard many bizarre statements about adoption but I have never heard anyone suggest it was easy!

Why only live donors would you support? Once someone has died they have no need for organs so don't see the issue with making use of them. Riskier for a live donor who say donated a kidney then the other one packed up

Let’s hope that poster never needs a heart transplant. I could see a swift change of mind coming up 🤦🏻‍♀️😂.

Once someone has died they have no need for organs

Are you saying Judaism is wrong ?

Sex selection is illegal in the UK unless for medical reasons e.g. parents have a genetic illness that only causes issues for one sex.

Infertility is not an "illness which requires medical attention", though.

@HornungTheHelpful of course people can have opinions about things that may hurt other peoples feelings. I am pro choice, but people are allowed to be against abortion and say that, even though there will probably be women who have had abortions hearing that opinion.

Has there been any research done comparing the incidence of eg. psychological disorders & attachment issues over the lifetimes of those conceived by IVF vs natural conception?

I'd be very interested to hear of any.

I think there's loads of ethical issues with IVF that people can have mixed opinions,

Donor IVF and future feelings of resulting children surrounding their parentage.

Where own eggs and sperm are used, the risk of causes of infertility with a hereditary component being passed on through generations due to ability to reproduce where it wouldn't have naturally been possible and therefore the implications for the offspring of the medical procedures.

Age of parents beyond natural reproductive norms

Cost, funding and rights of access to IVF.

Medical science frequently progresses faster than medical ethics.

Surrogacy is an entirely different matter to IVF. It is unethical, abusive, exploitative and misogynistic procedure and linking it in to IVF is just a way of blurring the boundaries and suppressing those speaking out against it.

@ForRealTurtle of course they can - I didn't say any different. What I did say was that they might want to think about spewing them all over the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), particularly when they are uninformed opinions. That is what I object to: not the fact that I personally find them hurtful - that's a me problem - but that they are uninformed and often based on supposition or complete fabrication in direct contradistinction to the actual verifiable facts.

My opinion is that your comprehension skills could do with some work.

I think a lot of these opinions would change if the posters’ circumstances were different. So many uninformed comments about something the posters have no experience of. It’s pretty gross tbh.

Agreed, how can people share such ignorance with no lived experience. Some of these comments are crazy.

Why on earth would the place of egg fertilisation have any affect on the child?

Assuming we are talking straight forward IVF, Mums eggs & Dads sperm, Mums womb.

That is not always true. My friend is infertile, tried IVF unsuccessfully, but would never do surrogacy as she is ethically opposed to it. Not everyone changes their minds just because it personally affects them.

I was more talking about the posters who are totally opposed to any IVF or donor conception in general (of which there seem to be a lot of on this thread)