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.

For the avoidance of doubt. My INTENTION - which very clearly I did not communicate clearly - was to point out that saying 'surrogacy has been around since biblical times' was not intended to be taken as a defence of surrogacy in general (ie I WAS NOT intending it to be read as me saying 'hey its been around for thousands of years, surrogacy is no big deal'.)

It was a specific response to the point that 'the invention of IVF has led to surrogacy surrogacy"

Factually that is not correct

Saying 'here is an example of how you are wrong that it has only been around since IVF was invented' is not offering a POV on the rights or wrongs of surrogacy

It was absolutely not intended to suggest 'I offer no POV on the rights or wrongs of the practice using slave girls as handmaids'. (Which to be clear, is abhorrent, as are many many practices in the Bible).

You didn’t suggest you weren’t offering a POV, you said it.

‘Not offering any POV on the rights or wrongs, just to say that this practice wasn't uncommon at the time, due to the enormous stigma of being a childless woman.’

It seemed pretty clear Lass was referring to surrogacy involving technology; that was the context.

I had IVF as a single woman. I didn’t expect to end up with extra embryos to freeze, as I responded poorly to the stimulation drugs. But I was extremely lucky, as my second attempt resulted in my baby and three frozen blastocysts. I’d like to try for a second child, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to for medical, practical and financial reasons. I’m certainly not in a position to have three or four.

I don’t know how many of my embryos are viable. It’s quite possible that none of them are. But I don’t like the idea of discarding them or donating them for research, even though they’re not sentient beings.

I believe you need a minimum of three embryos to donate to another woman, so if I tried for a second child, I presumably wouldn’t be able to donate any remaining embryos.

I’d like for the embryos to have a chance of life, but donating them raises other ethical issues. If I (successfully) donated them to a stranger, how would the child feel? How would my child feel? Maybe I could donate them to a known recipient, but what if I disagreed with how she brought up her child? Or, what if the recipient broke off contact with my family and me? That could be very traumatic.

And of course, what if a recipient of my frozen embryos changed her mind and had an abortion? This isn’t unheard of for donor egg/embryo recipients, but I would really hate for this to happen.

So, I don’t know what I’ll do. It’s quite likely that I’m jumping the gun and don’t need to worry about all the “what ifs”, but I do think about it quite often.

Thanks uberbarrens for jumping in here with your wealth of knowledge.

The problem with this thread is the inability of some posters to understand that ivf (not ifv!!) is not a process of industrial embryo creation and destruction, with infertile women rubbing their hands together in their plot to throw a load of them away. Lucky for these posters, they haven't been through the infertility journey (which they may not realise does not start with ivf, it starts with a whole load of other tests and other procedures with ivf as a last resort).

The 1.7m destruction figure is useless if it doesn't tell us at what stage they were discarded and why - if they die before getting to transfer stage, what would you have the clinics do with them? These wouldn't have survived in natural conception.

Yes it would be great to know the numbers if discarded 5 day good quality blastocysts, but given they can be in storage for 15-20 years, you'll be waiting a while for the data on today's embryos.

But all of this is falling on deaf ears. And suggesting uberbarrens was promoting or defending surrogacy through enslavement just shows a lack of reasoning and comprehension.

Not offering any POV on the rights or wrongs, just to say that this practice wasn't uncommon at the time, due to the enormous stigma of being a childless woman

It's not really generally to reflect well on Moses in many Christian traditions, for that matter.

Catren

I don't think its falling on deaf ears, rather, I think people don't agree with you. People are not necessarily concerned that the numbers are huge, but that it happens at all. And several people in this discussion said they would have to make decisions about what to do with frozen embryos, that is a few in a fairly small group - if you look at all mothers who have IVF than it will add up, if numbers are an issue for people.

As far as the idea that people only disagree or have qualms about something because they have never had to deal with it themselves, that simply isn't true. People regularly have things they would like to do, or would find helpful in important ways, or which would make them happy, but which they don't agree with for some reason.

Goosefoot

I think im coming at it from the point of view that it is such a rare occurrence and is not the intention, so (IMO) it shouldn't govern the entire conversation. Is destroying potentially viable embryos the main issue to pro lifers? Could the answer instead be to provide more options to donate these or promote gentler methods to reduce the risk of this happening at all? I guess I'm not comfortable with the idea that the entire process should be stopped if it's based on the rare occurrence of viable embryos being discarded. Maybe that's because morally/ethically I'm on board and it's a question of managing that risk rather than an ethical question.

My point about posters not going through it themselves was that those people won't have the level of knowledge and understanding of the process compared to those that have. It's a very steep learning curve to understand the process, treatment options and attrition rates, so when we've been talking taking issue with those stats, it's based on the knowledge given to us by the medical practitioners we've worked with. Not, in my case, to defend the process.

You are entitled to find my views offensive but I am entitled to hold them and express them.

I don't find your views offensive. I find the way you express them extremely offensive. Why liken it to Frankenstein? Why say it's a question of "I want"? This completely ignores the fact that IVF isn't just a case of strolling into a clinic and saying "I'll have one of those". I had IVF for male factor reasons and I spent a long time (including several years trying for adoption) pondering the decision. It was not taken lightly. So yes, you can have your opinion. You can also consider how you can express it in a kinder, more accurate way.

this is such an odd way of thinking. My sister is diabetic, she needs insulin to maintain the sugar levels that let her live. I have loads of potential eggs that can’t ripen or get to my womb without ivf. Neither of us is Frankenstein

Using insulin does not involve artificially creating a human. IVF does

As for the complaints I'm not being "kind" - why should you police my language? I strongly disapprove of IVF . My objection is not religious based. I have explained why I object.

Of course it's a question of "what I want". The fact you might have spent thinking about it doesn't alter that.

Well in that case conceiving any baby is about "what I want" then.

Using insulin does not involve artificially creating a human. IVF does
Do you consider ALL fertility/hormone replacement drugs in the same vein? What about people who have their cervix’s closed so they can carry their babies to term? What about artificial insemination? What about shagging to get pregnant? Which bit of helping someone reproduce is the problem?

If we woke up tomorrow and no one could reproduce without medical intervention would you suggest we politely die out because anything else is “unnatural”?

If we woke up tomorrow and no one could reproduce without medical intervention would you suggest we politely die out because anything else is “unnatural”?

The vast majority of people reproduce without the need for medical intervention. Your scenario is wholly fictitious and irrelevant.

Your scenario is wholly fictitious well obviously, I was trying to get you to explore your odd Luddite-esque stance on medical support of sub-fertile couples.

1 in 7 couples experience infertility in the UK - equivalent to c 3.5m people

It's estimated that 10-15% of couples of reproductive age worldwide are impacted by infertility - equivalent to 48.5m people (according to the WHO)

At a global level the population is continuing to expand - primarily driven by countries in the developing world with poor access to birth control

More than half the world's nations are below replacement fertility rate, with several countries developing national policy and initiatives to increase the birth rate, as they're facing a demographic time bomb with an ageing population.

Provided purely as factual information for context. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not using these to express any opinion or argue any point. Just the facts ma'am.

When we first started TTC I was relatively young: the problem was not with me but with my husband. Would it have been better ethically (and less Frankenstein-like) for me to shag someone else to get pregnant and then brought the baby up as his? To me that seems very much a case of I want therefore I get, without thinking of the other two people involved: my husband and the child. Or should I just - as I am now - consider my future as a childless woman?

What I was trying to point out with the Babylonians - as I think uber was with biblical examples - was that surrogacy is not a new invention at all, as was claimed up thread. Yes, the method of it has changed but not that it exists. I've had a close friend offer to be a surrogate for me, and I've refused as I just don't agree with the practice at all. My point earlier was that it's all very well sitting in moral judgment of IVF, abortion, contraception, surrogacy, but it's a whole lot harder when those morals and ethics are actually tested.

There is nothing "Frankenstein" about IVF babies. They are not different to naturally conceived children. There DNA is not altered, there is no test that will detect that for 3-5 days they were in a Petri dish rather than their mother's body. The fact that some people think they could be some sort of ticking time bomb shows a frightening lack of understanding of the process. Sperm meets egg, eggs is fertilised, egg (hopefully) implants in the womb. The fact that a few days of the process is done outside of the body doesn't alter the result in any way shape or form unless you cling to a strange belief that God is watching for anyone shagging with a bag of souls to hand that he then pops into any fertilised egg but that he can't detect eggs fertilised with out shagging to bestow a soul.upon.

Well more than 8 million ivf babies have been born in the last 40 years, personally I’ve yet to see a Frankenstein wandering around Tesco’s.

It seems that Pro lifers and Catholics have a very high reguard for embryos. When those embryos eventually become people who have unplanned pregnancies or go through infertility though, not so much

It seems that Pro lifers and Catholics have a very high reguard for embryos. When those embryos eventually become people who have unplanned pregnancies or go through infertility though, not so much
This isn’t my experience.

‘My point earlier was that it's all very well sitting in moral judgment of IVF, abortion, contraception, surrogacy, but it's a whole lot harder when those morals and ethics are actually tested.’

Yes, that’s generally why people attempt to develop their thinking about complex moral situations before getting into them.

that’s generally why people attempt to develop their thinking about complex moral situations before getting into them. yes we can all have opinions from the sidelines but it’s rather blinkered to believe you will have an automatically better view from there surely?
I’m not sure why this is such a “complex moral situation”. If you believe that life starts at conception, then you must logically think that abortion or the disposed of embryos that can result from an ivf cycle are destruction of human life. Why this makes surviving ivf children Frankenstein or perhaps their parents were supposed to be likened to Dr Frankenstein, I’m not clear? You might I suppose feel they had taken life to produce life? Just as someone might consider a woman who has had an abortion has “taken a life” that could have been.

It’s about preparing yourself for complex moral situations, not about being better or worse than those already in them.

It seems more complex than something is either human life or it isn’t. An embryo or foetus can have some value without being equivalent to an adult. And even if someone has full rights as a human, it doesn’t mean I necessarily have an obligation to keep them alive.

Most people think quite hard before trying IVF, I appreciate abortion is slightly different as you might not have done your thinking before you find yourself not wanting to be pregnant.

You would hope people are thinking about these issues a long time before being faced with them. But given the rate of technological change, it’s becoming more and more difficult to prepare young people for what might be available ten or twenty years from now.