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.

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

People want big polluting cars, they don’t need them, but somehow are not tarnished with the same “selfish” shaming as infertile couples on this thread. No, not everything can be fixed, I face a very real prospect of a slow debilitating death from a genetic disease, which right now, can’t be cured, however if it could of course I would jump at the chance. However, ivf right now, exists, is available to those who are able to pay, probably sacrificing other material things in their life for. I don’t know if people really understand what infertility feels like and the long term toll it takes on your mental health, even when they have “grieved”, but it feels to a certain extent that some just like to “kick people when they are down” and feel morally superior while doing it.

It seems strange then, on a purely theoretical level, that we are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to create more humans

Yes it does and those extraordinary lengths have already gone to lengths many posters on here find unacceptable.

On the question of NHS funding it isn't really the case of the very loaded question the OP suggests- i.e the choice of IVF over giving very elderly people a couple of more years.

My stepmom and dad are anti-abortion/pro-IVF and I struggle with that too

Logically if one is anti- abortion one should be anti- IVF as Caro who has posted here is In the US, however IVF is big money. Hence there are exceptions.

I also imagine that for the more strident anti- abortion side women choosing IVF are good women. They are going to extraordinary lengths to be mothers- fulfilling a woman's destiny as they see it. They are more likely to be middle class and wealthy. They are certainly not, as they see it , feckless women having irresponsible casual sex who deserve to be punished for it.

The woman I know who had successful IVF but is vehemently opposed to abortion is such an ideal, stay at home, apple- pie making "mom" she is almost a caricature. US right- wingers would love her. Her view is that she had to suffer so much to become pregnant that it is immoral that women who can become pregnant easily should be allowed to get rid of a baby which could be adopted.

People want big polluting cars, they don’t need them, but somehow are not tarnished with the same “selfish” shaming as infertile couples on this thread

This thread isn't about cars. And there has been a huge shift in societal attitudes to big polluting cars, backed up by policie such as higher road tax, higher residents parking fees and the intention of eventually all electric cars.

The point I was trying to make Lass that you seem to have ignored is that surrogacy has been around for millennia, it is not IVF that brought it about. The methods have changed and it's no longer the surrogate mother's own eggs that are used, but it is not new at all. Women have been exploited as human incubators since civilisation began so to tie it in to arguments against IVF is disingenuous.

The point I was trying to makeLassthat you seem to have ignored is that surrogacy has been around for millennia, it is not IVF that brought it about

There is a world of difference between the 2 situations you are describing.

The type of surrogacy you are describing- the rape of a slave is illegal. The exploitation of poor women by high tech methods is perfectly legal in many countries. IVF facilitated that.

We will have to disagree on who is being disingenuous.

Lass Thankfully more and more countries are making surrogacy illegal. Unfortunately the UK seems to be going the other way.

For those saying that having a family would be chosen over a few extra years of life: who said the person with cancer wasn't already someone's much loved, existing child?

I do have an issue with us spending resources to create more humans from finite NHS funds, which cannot afford to give existing children with cancer, all available treatment options.

I don’t know if people really understand what infertility feels like and the long term toll it takes on your mental health, even when they have “grieved”, but it feels to a certain extent that some just like to “kick people when they are down” and feel morally superior while doing it

Wow, that's some huge assumption! My exH and I struggled for years.

Right before we tried to conceive, we discussed what we would do if we couldn't conceive naturally (we had reason to think we wouldn't be able to). We decided we wouldn't go down the IVF route, nor surrogacy routes. We would try to adopt or foster. If we couldn't, we would grieve and try to build a good life in a different way.

We had reconciled ourselves to being childless when I then somehow fell pregnant. Not everyone who experiences problems conceiving has to feel the same!

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'm American, we don't have NHS or postcode lottery. We have Medicare for the poor covering IVF as well as other ART for the medically infertile. We have private insurance - some states have IVF/ART coverage some states have zero and some companies cover the cost for employees or cover it via insurance as a benefit. TRICARE (military insurance) covers IVF/ART for soldiers and bills them for their spouse's treatment (approx. $5k if the spouse is female).

And then there are the rest that pay out-of-pocket via cash/credit/financing ($15-30k per round).

IVF/ART doesn't affect or intersect the cancer treatment funding - they are separate pots of money.

"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."

Is that a nationwide statistic? It's certainly not the case in my local area. In my closest 3 areas the "poorest" gets 3 cycles, the richest gets zero and what would be middling gets 1.....

We went private but whatever is available on the nhs needs to be sorted out (and that doesn't just go for fertility). It needs to be the same nationwide and nothing to do with where you live

My stepmom and dad are anti-abortion/pro-IVF and I struggle with that too

Logically if one is anti- abortion one should be anti- IVF as Caro who has posted here is In the US, however IVF is big money.
And logically the opposite is pro-choice/pro-IVF. With my SM and dad money has nothing to do with their perspective, they just believe as devout Christians that more babies (born to parents that want them and sacrifice to conceive them) is a blessing. They also believe science is a gift from God and that it should be used ethically.

I also imagine that for the more strident anti- abortion side women choosing IVF are good women.
Are you implying that pro-choice/pro-IVF women making the choice to employ IVF/ART aren't "good women"? What are you trying to say?

They are going to extraordinary lengths to be mothers- fulfilling a woman's destiny as they see it.
Okay so because they eat the patriarchy sandwich and smile their decision is somehow more righteous than the pro-choice/pro-IVF crowd? Or did I read between the lines of your post too much?

They are certainly not, as they see it , feckless women having irresponsible casual sex who deserve to be punished for it.
What does that even mean?!?!? This is part of the reason I have an issue with conservative perspectives that are self-serving... how does this justify their use of IVF over any other woman?

All of this stuff is ideological value judgement - not logical reasoning so it isn't helpful.

I am trying to give you an explanation of what the reasoning might be for those who are anti- abortion but pro IVF.

I might be terribly wrong in their motives but , yes, I think if one's position is abortion is wrong but IVF isn't , that the element of women going to extraordinary lengths to be mothers makes them good women and those choosing abortion, i.e those killing their babies, are not.

The anti- abortion/pro- IVF stance is illogical- you are free to come up with your own interpretation of how they square that illogicality.

The person I mentioned who succesfully used IVF thinks abortion kills babies and she would ban it.

Lass

I misread your post - my apologies (first read of the day, comprehension was apparently lacking). I now get what you were saying as per your clarification. Thanks for your patient and clear explanation.

Can you please expand for me your position (pro-choice/anti-IVF, right)? Some societal implications perhaps with logical ends (not justified of course just actual/potential)? Just trying to wrap my head around the pro-choice/anti-IVF perspective for real-life consideration.

We (DH & I) came to our conclusions about IVF/ART as a couple long before we decided to try to have children (10yrs before), so our circumstances did not impact our perspectives beyond refinement. Trying to consider everyone the world over and every scenario is difficult as a team of two... FWR voices are very helpful. After all, FWR helped destroy our last vestige of altruistic surrogacy consideration based on logical facts and logical societal implications.

I'm off to handle some things for a deceased friend so I'll catch up with you later.

Thanks in advance!

Some societal implications perhaps with logical ends

I well remember discussing the first "test tube" when Louise Brown was born with a Catholic boyfriend who was very surprised I was opposed to it. He thought it was a good thing, despite his church's objections.

At the time it just felt wrong and unnecessary. I'm still of the view that just because something can be fixed by using lots of cash and high tech it doesn't mean it should be fixed. That it is setting up an expectation that all demands should be met.

I've said on numerous occasions that I am opposed to surrogacy- that applies to gay and straight couples. Commercial surrogacy only exists because of IVF.

I found the comments about Babylonian slave masters and that surrogacy is nothing new and women have always been used as incubators trite. The right of a slave owner to rape , impregnate and steal a slave's child ended at the latest in the 19th century. Yet in the 21st century wealthy men paid to airlift their surrogate babies out of an earthquake zone leaving their mothers behind.

I have also said on here that animal rights concern me greatly. The thought of the number of female animals who were tortured and killed to ameliorate something which is not life threatening (and it is not as if we are running out of humans ) bothers me. The current research on womb transplants is horrific for the same reason.
No one needs a womb transplant but that is just the extension of someone wants and science can do it.

I'm still of the view that just because something can be fixed by using lots of cash and high tech it doesn't mean it should be fixed. That it is setting up an expectation that all demands should be met.
So if it was a cheap low tech solution would you be in favour of assisted reproduction? What if the barrier to conception is ignorance? What if it FGM, and surgery could overcome the difficulty? What the couple would conceive with IUI (squirting sperm into the uterus)? Is that a step too far? What IS IT about IVF particularly that is such a stumbling block?

DH and I didn't need to spend our money on a cycle of ivf to produce our dc but we could and it didn't harm anyone or anything else doing so.
People spend their money on things that cause damage all of the time cars, flights, air miles shipped food, commercially produced clothing to only name a few.
There are huge amounts of medical procedures that don't need to happen. My mum doesn't need a hip replacement but her life will be enhanced when she has one. DH and l didn't need to reproduce but our lives are enhanced because we did.

In the uk there are something like 180-190,000 abortions in a year compared to 60,000 fertility treatments. Maybe the larger number is a priority?

I think if you are a life begins at conception pro-lifer you kinda have to be against IVF. Then again people may just not be educated as to what IVF entails and so there are some with inconsistent positions.

I really hate the abortion debate because honestly what the fuck do I know? I can sit down and make a really compelling case for either side, but neither completely sways me. So I am left pro-choice as given the uncertainty it is essential people are free to make their own minds.

As this thread goes on I am becoming slightly more swayed by the anti IVF position.

It’s perfectly possible to believe that life begins at conception and not be anti abortion.

Well it’s perfectly possible to hold any position you can think of.

Yes of course @Dervel I should have been more direct, being “pro life” is not synonymous with believing life begins at conception. One is a stance on abortion and the othe scientific observation. Your post seemed to imply they were the same thing with your descriptor a life begins at conception pro-lifer

As Teddy said upthread, I would say the same:

I believe in a woman’s right to say no to sex, I believe in a woman’s right to an abortion, and I believe in a woman’s right to have IVF if she wants it.

And I would add: to other fertility treatments available in the UK- IVF is just one route.
Ditto, taking hormonal or any other form of contraception, including the morning after pill which is not an abortifacient- ie if embryo has already implanted it does not disrupt that. Ditto IUD.

And all of this would ideally be paid for by the state, provided sympathetically and as early as possible and as late as necessary.

It’s two sides of the same coin: not wanting to be pregnant when you are pregnant and not being able to get pregnant when you want to. Its bloody difficult to be in either of those situations and of course many women end up in both scenarios (perhaps several times over) in their lifetime.

@itwouldtakemuchmorethanthis no that’s why I said life begins at conception pro lifer to distinguish from any other motivations one might have. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.

I hear that “as late as necessary” surely that wouldn’t be the day before the due date or something? Not that I am suggesting that would be at all common place but that can’t be the principle can it?

Yes, there are people who believe you should be able to abort up to birth.

@ChattyLion absolutely.
Finally a sensible & compassionate comment .