People who are anti abortion from conception, how do you feel about IVF?

[KennDodd]

Watching Newsnight and the anti abortion debate in America. Person saying life begins at conception and deserves protection. Well what does that mean for IVF? If life begins at conception and deserves protection, then does that include protection for life before implantation in the womb? If not, why not?

Interested to hear pro lifers view on this.

I'm infertile and was uncomfortable with IVF for a few reasons. I would not say I'm opposed to it, but I did turn it down for myself and chose adoption.
That said I am uncomfortable with egg/sperm donation. I know people who never plan to tell their child. I think it's a very messy situation without enough laws.I'm adopted and an adoptive mum, and we all have a right to know when possible where we came from.
So while I'm not opposed to IVF I think the lines start to get blurry and are too unregulated.

Thank you StopthePlanet

Itwouldtakemuchmorethanthis I don't see that as the same. An infant and an under 5 are still living. If you left them in a padded room for a day, they would be very upset and would probably be very hungry and thirsty but they would still be alive (or I would very much hope so). A blastocyte or earlier would not - at that point inside the body it would still be free floating.

On a biological level, the child has a circulatory system, heartbeat etc. It is living. The embryo at that point is just a collection of cells (a very precious one though). It has not developed to the point of being able to survive on its own - it needs the active step of being implanted into a womb to be able to exist.

I would not judge those who use donors, but I do not think I would be comfortable with it. The idea of splicing DNA from three people I find particularly worrying. Whilst it could have benefits with stopping genetic illnesses, I think there is too much we still do not understand with the genome and gene sequencing.

Goosefoot I am talking in terms of an embryo fertilised during IVF, not an embryo fertilised in the body. The embryo inside the body will, if it implants, continue to grow and develop all being well. The key is that it has to implant in the body to be able to continue that growth and development - they are not at their stage able to survive alone.

The distinction is that for the IVF embryo to be able to continue the growth and development it has to be implanted - there has to be an active step taken. If that active step is not taken by a third party the embryo would die as it cannot implant itself unless it is introduced back into the body.

An implanted embryo (primates and mice) has a symbiotic parasitic relationship with the mother when implanted in the uterus. When implanted anywhere else it is purely a parasitic relationship regardless of species.

You can't logically compare a toddler with an embryo in this debate, while they are of the same species one requires care of any individual that can provide Maslow's bottom levels while the other requires a parasitic relationship via attachment in utero to become a baby (embryos aren't babies!!!). IMO they aren't comparable stages of human development.

A toddler can't impose their DNA on their carers while an embryo does just that. Foetal cell colonies invade the mother's body often persisting for the rest of her life having migrated to her organs. Pregnancy often turns women into genetic chimeras.

If an embryo and toddler carry the same value, if a choice had to be made between an embryo and a toddler's life it is pretty obvious that the only choice is the toddler. Thus, these embryo/toddler comparisons are incredibly daft and somewhat manipulative (intended or not).

An infant and an under 5 are still living. If you left them in a padded room for a day, they would be very upset and would probably be very hungry and thirsty but they would still be alive (or I would very much hope so). A blastocyte or earlier would not - at that point inside the body it would still be free floating.
I think if you left a toddler in a padded room that’s rather the equivalent of leaving the living cells in the petri dish. Leaving the cells out of that environment is like sticking the toddler into on the hard shoulder.

I’m not really trying to persuade you about “when life starts”, I personally think it starts at conception.

It doesn't matter whether it is going to continue growing because it is in a womb, or whether it is in a mason jar and has limited horizons. It's still alive. Being about to die, for environmental or other reasons, doesn't make something non-living.

I am pro-choice and pro-IVF. Although I have some concerns about some aspects of either practice, I firmly believe that any reproductive issues an individual female may have, should be a matter between her and her health care professionals.

The law should give full autonomy over her own body to the female, with strict regulations regarding embryos located outside of her body.

On the matter of "wants" or the right to be a parent, I look at the issue from an evolutionary biology point of view.

The purpose of every single living being on this planet is the preservation of their species - to survive, to find a mate, to reproduce and to raise copies of themselves that in turn survive and find a mate and reproduce and raise copies of themselves that in turn etc etc ad infinitum.

This biological imperative also applies to humans qua animals. Of course, uniquely among animals, as a species we have learned to adapt. For individual humans, the involuntary and unconscious drive to reproduce can be overruled by other needs, for some permanently, for others only temporarily. While we are not slaves to our biology, the urge to reproduce, when it hits, is far more powerful than an idle "want" or an entitled lifestyle choice.

No, there is no right to parenthood, but what there is, is a drive. A drive that can be so strong, so overpowering even, that it engulfs your entire being, subsumes your relationship and dominates your life.

While it is not felt by all humans, for those who do feel it, it is no more voluntary than our need to breathe.

I've felt it. A cancer scare when I was 24 switched it on without warning. I went from worrying about falling pregnant to worrying that I couldn't fall pregnant in the course of a day. I then changed my entire life plan and set everything in motion to have a baby while I still could. And I did.

But when we decided to have another, I went through secondary infertility issues. Then the loss of a much longed for baby, the stress of genetic testing of DH and me to find out if we carried and had passed on a possible genetic malformation to our firstborn. Followed by the stress of TTC after a loss (while still having the infertility issues), pregnancy after a loss, then developed a pregnancy complication that can kill your baby in the womb without warning (nicely exacerbated by being treated like a stupid, hysterical woman by the male consultant). Leading to an early induction and some (relatively mild) early baby issues.

I didn't put myself and my family through all of that because of an idle "want". I wasn't acting on a mere wish or a whim. It's hard to describe but I needed to try to have this baby just as much as I needed to eat or sleep.

I take no offence at those who oppose IVF or abortion, but I do wish they could oppose it on an individual level. By not availing themselves of those choices, while allowing those of us who do wish to make them the right to do so.

I am trying to understand the pro-choice/anti-ivf perspective. How can some cling to the idea that a human embryo is ethereal somehow and should be protected and then also state that a woman's right to choose is paramount?

Reading the posts many of you seem to be experiencing an unrealized ideological conundrum - especially the atheists. As an atheist I am truly confused by the perspective.

How can some cling to the idea that a human embryo is ethereal somehow and should be protected and then also state that a woman's right to choose is paramount? because they accept that women have the right to choose to kill their embryos?

I think it's probably that they have a more nuanced view of one or both of those elements. Not everyone who considers themselves pro-choice thinks its a choice that ought to be made lightly, some would see restriction of some kinds. At one time a very common slogan around abortion right was "safe, legal, and rare" which suggests that many people, even those who were politically active, saw it as something that carried a kind of moral weight.

Some people also oppose IVF for reasons that are more to do with the wider social implications of reproductive technology.

Yes, women’s rights outweigh the rights of an embryos.

But there should still be some concern over what is done to human embryos.

Some people also oppose IVF for reasons that are more to do with the wider social implications of reproductive technology

Yes. IVF is directly responsible for the utterly vile exploitation of poor women to be incubators. That nonsense about "the Babylonians had surrogacy" is one of the most disingenuous things I have seen on here.

IVF is part and parcel of the idea that
"I want" trumps everything- everything in life must be fixed.

Many of the arguments on here also apply to human reproductive cloning (not cloning of individual organs, but of an entire person). That will be the only opportunity some people will have for reproduction, but there are still many ethical problems with it.

Ivf is not like cloning, ivf follows the naturally occurring process of reproduction. The end result of my dc was identical to that which would have been produced through sex.
Cloning is not a naturally occurring method of human reproduction. If I cloned myself I would not end up with a dc of my husband and myself.

That's not the point she was making. She is saying that cloning would still be deeply problematic even if it solved real and terrible problems for some people. Ends don't justify means and all.

Itwouldtakemuchmorethanthis
because they accept that women have the right to choose to kill
Abortion
their embryos?
In relation to IVF specifically

Yup I get that. I am asking how those two thoughts coexist... in the context of pro-choice/anti-IVF.

Goosefoot
I think it's probably that they have a more nuanced view of one or both of those elements. Not everyone who considers themselves pro-choice thinks its a choice that ought to be made lightly, some would see restriction of some kinds.

I am a supporter of pro-choice with minimal restrictions imposed, my abortion choice didn't arrive lightly even though I was raped and an atheist (no belief in souls). Only one woman I've known took it lightly (had 13 last I spoke to her 8yrs ago).

I also don't take IVF lightly - it is difficult on the woman's body/mind in tandem with moral considerations regarding embryos, and it is quite expensive.

My stepmom and dad are anti-abortion/pro-IVF and I struggle with that too. I don't think a general societal implication explanation works for either their side or the pro-choice/anti-IVF crowd. Specificity is needed for truthful consideration IMO. At least that's what I think I need to understand.

Prior to the IVF existing, if couples were unable to have children, they either adopted (possibly older children or sibling sets) or grieved but came to terms with it over time. Now, many seem to feel that if they don't explore the IVF option, they won't fully be able to move on. And if the first doesn't work and there are more blastocysts frozen, that they should go again and again.

Given the relatively low rate of success, this seems to be such unfair pressure to put on a couple. Particularly as it is a postcode lottery which disproportionately favours the wealthy.

Also, when people who are already alive are turned down for life prolonging cancer treatment due to expense, it seems unethical to say that the NHS can sometimes fund the creation of new life, but not afford to meet the medical needs of existing humans.

I totally understand the urge to reproduce, but the desperation to have a child still doesn't stop it from being a "want" rather than a "need". I really don't want to offend anyone but it is obvious that it is a want, irrespective of how primal the urge to have a child is.

On a really global scale, we know that as a species we should be encouraging people to have fewer children for environmental reasons. It seems strange then, on a purely theoretical level, that we are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to create more humans.

Like Lass, I am pro-choice but can't help being concerned about IVF at a societal level.

Prior to the IVF existing, if couples were unable to have children, they either adopted (possibly older children or sibling sets) or grieved but came to terms with it over time. Now, many seem to feel that if they don't explore the IVF option, they won't fully be able to move on. And if the first doesn't work and there are more blastocysts frozen, that they should go again and again.
Yes I suppose in some ways most cancer patients and transplant patients are the same. In the good old days they died, now they have chemo and radiotherapy and all manner of treatments, they just keep on trying to live.
Technology changes and so do life experiences. Very few women expect to live without contraception, and a whole host of medical interventions post birth. We are used to the new norm, of small spaced intentional reproduction. It’s called progress.

Also, when people who are already alive are turned down for life prolonging cancer treatment due to expense, it seems unethical to say that the NHS can sometimes fund the creation of new life, but not afford to meet the medical needs of existing humans.

I read a book once about infertility that argued the opposite, that treating infertility should be a top priority. It said that every person asked would said they would rather have children than a few extra years at the end of their lives. Not sure I agree with the premise but personally I would absolutely choose children (even before I had any) over living to 80 instead of 70.

It said that every person asked would said they would rather have children than a few extra years at the end of their lives

That's a very loaded question though isn't it? Mental health is underfunded for example. NHS England won't pay for a drug treatment which has proven effective in treatment of extreme migraine.

‘Itwouldtakemuchmorethanthis
because they accept that women have the right to choose to kill
Abortion
their embryos?
In relation to IVF specifically

Yup I get that. I am asking how those two thoughts coexist... in the context of pro-choice/anti-IVF.‘

Could you explain what you mean here? Sorry, getting a bit confused.

as a species we should be encouraging people to have fewer children AHH yes it's us infertile who might if we are lucky have a child or two that are responsible for global over population. Firstly in the parts of the world where IVF is really an option population levels are declining and there is a need to ensure there are enough children to support the aging population. Secondly eroding abortion rights, preventing access to contraception etc have a much, much greater impact on global populations. Think of the state of the planet if we went with the no contraception, no abortion but hey no IVF babies either stance favoured by some. We really would be in trouble as a planet.

Re IVF v adoption in the UK IVF arrived at about the same time as abortion rates rose and being an unmarried mother became much more socially acceptable e.g. as the number of babies available for adoption fell. I know numerous people who adopted in the 60s,70s or 80s all of them were able to take home healthy babies under 6 months old, often more than once. Adoptors I know in the 21st century have almost all taken older children or babies with additional needs. They are brilliant parents to wonderful children but their previous experience at being parents already has helped them to take on often troubled and damaged children and make a happy home for them. Had my husband not worked away so much we would have looked to adopt to give a son a sibling.

‘That's not the point she was making. She is saying that cloning would still be deeply problematic even if it solved real and terrible problems for some people. Ends don't justify means and all.‘

That was the point I was making.

But it is also worth bearing in mind that both reproductive cloning and the creation of human-animal chimeras have only come into existence because of the development of IVF. There are many ethical questions to be asked about what it is acceptable to do with embryos and human genetic material.

I did multiple IVF cycles in Italy - so v much conservative-Catholic in approach. Regulations at the time said no freezing of embryos this meant that they would only attempt to fertilize a max of 3 eggs at a time and all embryos had to be transferred. All other eggs could be frozen or donated for research. Frustrating at the time but probably the most ethical way to do it for pro-lifers.

Sorry, to clarify. The description given by goose feet was the point I was making.