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.

So you’re pro life?

What if the people who are buying the baby change their minds?

There is a small baby at the centre of this that is not being considered at all.

It’s a bit hypocritical of @nosmartphone to say this:
If your egg won't mix with your husband's sperm, that's nature way of not making that genetic mix of baby.

When she’s on another thread telling a woman she needs to get an abortion. How is infertility in the name of ‘nature’ then but abortions aren’t?? Not an anti-abortion post at all BTW, I’m just pointing out her hypocrisy. It’s almost like some posters just come on MN to stick the boot in to OPs

Just curious as to your statistics and where you got your information from? I know many IVF babies, all appear developmentally normal and healthy minus one baby who was premature and still young enough to catch up. I heard there are 12 million IVF born people, so how many do you know? I’d say I know maybe 15-20.

@nosmartphone you haven't touched a nerve. You are being downright rude and offensive over something you have very little understanding of.

Educate yourself

Off the top of my head I know six IVF children who are all healthy and NT, as are their parents.

Unless you can show me peer reviewed health research that confirms there’s “always something wrong with IVF children” accept you’re spouting anecdata rather than “facts”

I assume @nosmartphone also doesn’t use antibiotics / have vaccines either. After all surely that’s all natures way of keeping the population down.

What a load of ignorant twaddle!

just curious… do you think the same if there’s no monetary transaction, if say, a sister carries the child?

The “natures way” argument has always confused me regarding IVF. Many, many medical procedures divert “natures way”.

Are the people who argue this also against - vaccinations, organ donation, cancer treatment, antibiotics, limb amputations, c-sections or otherwise assisted births? Or is it just fertility treatment alone they take issue with?

This.
And sometimes innocent little I was just curious OP's are goady af with an agenda. 🧐

Yes, and the talk of the only issue being the 'carrier' deciding she might want to keep the baby she's creating in her own body, as if it was like hiring a builder who pulled out of the contract.

So dehumanising.

I also hate the 'so and so had a baby via gestational carrier' expression you read when some 'celebrity' buys a baby. 'Via'? Did you pick up your new laptop via delivery or click and collect? Such horrible language.

Many people do have left over embryos. I have had 8 cycles of ivf and have mostly used all embryos, but we do have 2 frozen. Would either actually become a baby? Who knows. I have produced many embryos, lots a better grade than those two even, but I have only two children.

There will be loads of IVF kids you don't know are IVF kids. Most people don't advertise it.

So wrong to use the terminology that there's something "wrong" with children!! I'm sure there's no evidence that IVF impacts on children in that way?! Utter bollox

I have three non IVF kids. My middle child is autistic. Your terminology of "wrong" is highly offensive. I'm sure you'd lump my child in that category.

Is destroying a viable embryo any different from taking the morning after pill?

That question wasn't directed at me, but while 'altruistic' surrogacy isn't as obviously ethically fraught as simply trading in babies, there are many issues too. What if the sister was coerced into surrogacy? What if she wants to keep the baby? How will her own children feel to see her carrying a baby which is not going to be their sibling but their cousin? And so on.

Also @nosmartphone has a SEN child.

What did YOU do to make your child have something “wrong” with them @nosmartphone??

It isn’t factual.

You believe? Or you know? Can you share a source or are you confidently spreading misinformation without fear of consequence?

I’ve no objection to IVF, although it wouldn't have been something I’d have considered if we’d had trouble conceiving. I know plenty of very happy childfree people!

I’m not sure about the NHS paying for it though, when it’s practically collapsing at the roots.

I really admire women who volunteer to be surrogates for sisters, best friends etc. That’s because I know I couldn’t do it myself; I absolutely know I’d become attached to the child and consider myself its mother. Kudos to those who can do it though.

So you produced many embryos with two children and two frozen embryos - what happened to the rest of them? Were they healthy viable embryos that you agreed to dispose of? Did they not progress in their development? Did you have genetic testing done and chose to discard them based on results? Did you spin a wheel and pour the losers down the sink for shits and giggles?

This thing about the destruction of embryos needs some context. There’s a difference between embryos that were never going to make it to being born, and those that are chosen to be discarded at the end of treatment. Only those discarded at the end of treatment are ones that I’d personally regard as destroyed because of IVF. Then again they only existed because of IVF.

Have I missed something - why does anyone care if an embryo was destroyed? What else should have happened to them if they’re not needed?

One difference is you definitely know you have a viable embryo in the one case, and you don't in the other. You're just preventing a possibly fertilised egg from implanting, and it may not even have been fertilised with MAP.