posted
It seems to me that if you think a fertilized egg is a person, then you must consider this practice to be wrong - killing a person. It is especially bad because these 'people' were created not by accident, but for convenience.
I have no idea if a fertilized egg is a person, but it could be.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
zgator, I see a difference between helping to protect people who already exist and trying to bring more into existence (the same, really, as pro-choicers, except that we disagree on where to draw the line). I suppose if the situation were bad enough, I would say yes, we have no choice but to let some people die (a triage situation, of sorts) but I do not think we are there yet.
Xaposert, it's ironic, but a large part of my ability to see a fertilized egg as a person has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with my constant reading of science fiction and fantasy. I gave up the idea that a person has to look "human" before I was five--watching Star Wars, of all things.
posted
I'm not meaning to sound snarky, Sara. I'm just trying to tell Mabus where I'm coming from.
Mabus, I've also wondered why abortion is always viewed as a religious issue. No where in the Bible does it say that life begins at conception. My personal view on it is based more on the fact that I don't know exactly when life begins, so I think you should err on the side of caution. If it is life, then abortion is murder. I can understand the arguments that it isn't a human life, but until someone can show me certain proof that an embryo isn't human life, I have to assume it is.
If one believes as I do, then it doesn't matter whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, etc.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to answer the original post - when I underwent fertility treatment, my husband and I both agreed up front we would stop short of in vitro, because each of us was uncomfortable with the idea of creating multiple embryos and then only implanting some of them.
If I could have guaranteed that all the embryos created would have been implanted, then maybe, but I know it's common practice for fertility clinics to create more than "necessary", and I would not have say, implanted eight or nine because selective reduction was also out of the question.
I have been wrestling with this question for many obvious reaons. Part of me tends to follow along with the idea that life begins at implantation, because at that time, the embryo transmits hormones and begins to assert its individual existence. And an embryo doesn't just require sperm and egg union to survive, it also requires an interface with a human host - so can one say then, that implantation is the moment life begins and not conception? If so, then embryos created during in vitro fertilization are not humans and it doesn't matter if they're flushed down the drain.
I'm not however, completely comfortable with that belief. It makes things easier for me, as far as reconciling my beliefs, but should I go with the belief that makes me more comfortable or the one that is truly right? That's an easy question to answer.
The main objection that I have heard against those that believe life begins at conception is, then why don't we try to prevent spontaneous abortions? Or try to save fertilized eggs that don't implant during a woman's cycle? Estimates are that up to 30 percent of conceptions are never implanted, and of those, a significant percentage never result in live births.
So, the reasoning is - why aren't we trying to "save" all those humans?
Well, my answer to that is - there is a significant difference between committing murder and interfering in natural death. Allowing a peson who has a living will to die without putting them on a ventilator isn't murder. Taking out a knife and cutting the throat of that same person, however, is. Those conceptions that never implant or result in live birth are natural deaths. However, abortion - the removal of an existing, viable pregnancy, is altogether different.
Ectopic pregnancies are another hard case. Should we not remove them, since removing them kills the embryo? The answer to that is easy - of course we remove them because if we don't they result in the both the death of the embryo and the death of the mother. Ectopic pregnancy is always fatal to the embryo - we cannot save its life, so by removing it we preserve the life of the mother.
To sum up - I'm still thinking and praying about the issue. I can't tell you whether I think for sure destroying frozen embryos is murder or not. I know that I would never do it, but then I also would not have created them in the first place if it were my choice.
That doesn't mean however, that I am against fertility treatments - I am most assuredly for them. Three of my four children are a result of fertility drugs. I believe passionately that any couple that wants to have children should be abe to pursue that desire. In vitro fertilization goes beyond my personal comfort zone - but I'm not going to say I think the whole procedure should be stopped. It has given many childless couples the answer to their prayers and has resulted in the births of many beautiful, wonderful children in the world.
I don't have all the answers. I wish there were tighter controls on the numbers of embryos created. I really don't like the idea of creating a dozen or so embryos when the couple only wants one or two children. I know the rationale behind it - the more they create the higher the chances are of achieving a live birth - but I don't like creating embryos just to pad the odds.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The *heartbeat* idea is an interesting one. I kind of like it.
Personally, I'm very ok with the morning after pill. I actually have more objections in a lot of ways to in vitro rather than the morning after pill, even though I was seriously considering becoming an egg donor for a while. In some ways I do see it as a horrible waste of time energy and resources that rich people indulge in, when there are other, already living children that that money could be spent on. Very much like Mabus' greater good proposition. Yes there are personal emotions involved in wanting your own child. But an adopted child isn't any less ones own than a biological child IMO. But do people have the right to pursue in vitro, if it is their money etc. Yes. If the US was a socialized health care system I'd have much bigger issues with it.
posted
Thanks, Belle. Your post is so dense and thoughtful
I'm particularly interested in perspectives on in vitro fertilization and the morning after pill (although the rest is fascinating, too).
Where are you on the morning-after pill (preventing implantation)? That is, where you are on legislation, as well as personal beliefs?
My read is that you aren't fully decided on the morality of in vitro (it is troubling to you, but it is complicated enough that you are still puzzling through it). And I think I hear you as saying that you wouldn't advocate legislation against it, regardless of the fact that you wouldn't use the technique yourself.
Have I got it right, for you? (Thanks again.)
[Hey, AnnaJo! Thanks for the perspective. Got your message -- I am fine, apart from the sinus thing. Just going on with my life. No biggie. ]
[ November 04, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zgator, I think most people are not saying "the Bible says human life starts at conception", although there are some passages about "you knew me even in the womb". They are simply making the (relatively natural, to me) assumption that human life is an unbroken line--as soon as your body exists, there is a person in it. Then what the Bible says about murder immediately applies. That is why many pro-lifers have so much trouble with the opposite side--they do not think they are pushing anything religious beyond "thou shalt not kill".
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am against the morning after pill, except in the cases of rape. I think giving a woman the morning after pill after she's been raped is an act of loving compassion toward that woman, and denying her it would be unnecessarily cruel. This is one case, like ectopic pregnancies, where the woman's well being must be considered.
I would not advocate legislation outlawing in vitro fertilization, but I would not be adverse to legislation that put tighter controls on it, such as limiting the number of embryos that could be created, etc.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with AJ on in vitro fertilization...I think it's awfully wasteful when there are so many kids already born and in desperate need of loving homes. I think if, heavens forfend, the government ever outlaws surgical abortion, RU486, and/or the morning-after pill, they should outlaw IVF too. There'll certainly be enough unwanted babies up for adoption then.
I personally have no problem with abortion during the first few months of pregnancy, though of course earlier is better. At later stages of gestation I get more uncomfortable with it.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Am I clear in my understanding that those who oppose abortion for moral reasons, up to and including the morning-after pill, are equally opposed to the creation of embryos for in vitro fertilization, unless those embryos are also guaranteed to be gestated?
Sorry...I don't have time to read the whole thread, though I'd really like to.
Until you asked this question, I honestly had never thought about it, largely because I have zero experience with in vitro fertilization, but when I saw your post about the 400,000+ embryos, my gut reaction was grief. I thought I believed that life-at-conception means implantation...but apparently I don't.
My grief aside -- I know that homes could be found for these babies if they were allowed to be born, Americans are that generous -- I am not insensitive to the desires of infertile couples, and could not, despite my beliefs, say "You better have a plan for each of these embryos you sought to create, because they are your children."
So from a personal perspective, I'm against abortion, the morning-after pill and un-gestated embryos, but would be content from a legal perspective to limit abortion to maternal health risk, incest and rape cases, permit the morning after pill, and un-gestated embryos. I think it's a reasonable compromise.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
All the methods are means of helping a couple do what they can't on their own. In-vitro is one of the final steps before surrogate mothers, etc. The first steps usually involve drugs that encourage the development of more eggs from the ovaries and sometimes a drug that allows exact timing of when the eggs are released. Things proceed naturally from there.
I'm just wondering if you consider some help being reasonable.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't really know where I'd draw the line on that. I don't know how much government money goes towards fertility treatments (including the R&D necessary to develop them), and how much of it is paid for by the individuals seeking such treatments. I suppose that as long as abortion is legal and our healthcare system isn't socialized, people can do what they want with their own money, just like they can choose to spend hundreds of dollars on a purebred cat or dog when the shelters are overflowing with pets that need homes. But if abortion is ever made illegal again, I think that at least the most expensive treatments such as IVF should be made illegal also. I'm not sure how I'd feel about the simpler treatments such as hormone shots.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
zgator and even Belle, you aren't going to like this, I know you love your children and that isn't the issue. I understand the fact that people want to have children of their own. It's if you will, the Darwinian (or God-Given) drive to reproduce. On an individual level with personal decisions, I do understand fertility treatments. When you go beyond hormonal treatments into the realm of IVF I think that it does add a huge dimension of cost due to the surgical processes involved (which I've researche pretty thoroughly) that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Costs escalate even more when you get to egg donation etc.
Do people have the right in our current society to pursue this? Absolutely. We generally put individual liberty over the greater good in this country for many many resons. Mrs. M in particular has a fascinating extenuating circumstance for why she is specifically pursuing fertility treatments and I support her in her quest. She hasn't to this point gone as far as IVF yet though and I would be interested to know if she would.
However *as a species* I don't necessarily think it is for the greater good *of the species* for infertile couples to reproduce. PCOS for example, which I have, is frequently passed on from generation to generation. I'm not asking whether it is fair to the child to pass on a genetic defect with regards to reproduction. It won't necessarily effect the child's quality of life. I'm asking if it is fair to the species?
We all have genetic flaws, and some get passed on and some don't. With modern medicine helping the weaker survive (which is a necessary goal from a moral and community standpoint)reproduction is the last stop our species has in limiting genetic defects, as long as we aren't actually tinkering with DNA and building bionic men.
I understand wanting children is a biological drive. But I think that adoption is probably the more unselfish option. (Note: I am NOT saying that selfishness is wrong in this sense, people have to judge for themselves what their family is capable of handling.) And that with the scarcity of adoptable babies, people who are selfishly insistent upon "babies" would then be forced to adopt older children that otherwise will be raised by institutions. And I think the people would find that their reservoirs of love are far deeper than they realize, and it *doesn't* matter whether it is a biological child, or a baby, or toddler, an older child is equally deserving of love.
Personally, at this point in my life, I very much don't want children, and I strongly doubt I ever will. But, if we did find out that I was infertile, adoption would be the only choice I would consider for myself.
posted
I don't want children either, and doubt I ever will. But if I change my mind, I'll definitely be adopting--I don't think the world needs another digestive tract.
Plus, with adopting I can bypass the infant and toddler stages I'll take one that's already walking and talking and, most importantly, toilet trained, thankyouverymuch.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until you asked this question, I honestly had never thought about it, largely because I have zero experience with in vitro fertilization, but when I saw your post about the 400,000+ embryos, my gut reaction was grief. I thought I believed that life-at-conception means implantation...but apparently I don't.
jeniwren, this sort of information is so much a part of my life that it never even occurred to me that this might not be common knowledge [the 400,000 part]. Really -- never occurred to me. I forget that we all have specialized areas of information, and we all are working from different areas of familiarity with different things.
I've been trying to figure out what is going to happen in a country with decreasing fertility and increasing desire for babies. (I'm speaking in broad strokes, but I think that -- in broad terms -- the pattern of religious growth in the US is consistent with an increasing emphasis on having families.)
Knowing how many women have difficulty getting pregnant and how intensely private an issue this is for some, I find myself very sympathetic to the desire not to dictate the terms of what a couple may decide to do about their own fertility issues. It is highly private, highly personal, and highly charged with intense emotion -- so, even if there are some techniques that I might not choose to use myself, I wouldn't presume to say I can make that choice for others. I think I sense that many others feel the same, especially those I am trying to understand here (i.e., not willing to legislate against IVF but willing to legislate against the morning-after pill).
Some, of course, are in a less murky area -- either okay with allowing both or with legislating against both. I get that.
I have a harder time understanding why it is an intensely personal and private decision when it is IVF but not a morning-after pill, given the outcomes associated with each. Loss of an embryo at the earliest stages of cell division, prior to implantation. If this is horrendous and an outrage in one case, I have trouble seeing why it is not the same in the other case.
(I am not mocking the view that it is "horrendous and an outrage" in either case, BTW -- I just don't understand the lack of logical consistency, as it seems to me.)
I'll reread stuff from this thread later and keep thinking. Again, thanks to you all.
[I don't mean to come off as harsh or coming to judgments about this. I am trying to be creative about understanding, because I get that voluntary abortion of any sort is a real heart and soul issue for a lot of people. I just still need to work on getting more about the perspective, you know?]
[ November 04, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, correct me if I'm wrong Sara,...but isn't the "morning-after" pill kind of a crap-shoot?
I mean, you don't know for sure that you are actually getting rid of a fertilized egg when you take it -- there may or may NOT be one there -- but it is a "just in case I fertilized an egg" thing.
Whereas we KNOW that the egg/sperm pairs in IFV are already fertilized.
Don't read that as meaning one is okay and the other is not -- I'm personally not okay with the morning-after pill either. I'm just talking about how the two might be viewed differently in the mind of the general public -- one is seen as a sure "possible child" but the other is seen as an "i don't know".
posted
I know my wife had some concerns when we were going through fertility treatments that she was somehow less of a woman because they were needed. Even though she knew in her head that it wasn't true, she still had it kicking around in her mind. That is one reason why she didn't discuss it much.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, you do realize, that if all of society didn't reproduce if there was a chance of passing along a genetic defect like PCOS we'd die out in a generation right? There's no such thing as a person who is "clean" genetically. We all carry something that might be viewed as harmful to the species.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
[To Farmgirl:] So, it seems that, from that perspective, IVF with embryos created that are unlikely to ever be used is even more immoral than the morning after pill. Because one is only a possibility of an immoral outcome, the other is much more.
(Note again that most frozen embryos are not donated to other couples after the initial couple does carry to term, even if -- even if -- that was the firm intent before those embryos were created. That seems to be what happens. People are less comfortable with having their genetic information (or a child they are genetically connected to) out in the world without their supervision than they initially thought they would be.)
Farmgirl, I think I could make sense of that. It's still hard for me to make sense of the reverse.
I'm also now reminded of how personal this thread may be to Mrs.M, giving her own thread recently. I will delete it (of course) at any time, if she wishes. It is not directly pertinant to her, but I can see where there is enough terminology overlap that it could be uncomfortable.
Also, FWIW, I have no problems with either IVF of any sort or with use of the morning-after pill, if that wasn't already clear.
[Zan, I think that is a remarkably common feeling for people in this situation.]
[ November 04, 2004, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I find the thread to be highly educational. Because I wasn't aware that so many "possibles" were put together before being implanted in IVF, or that there are thousands of them out there still frozen and in limbo.
I did know that they do selective reduction. While I understand this, I also am glad I don't have to make that kind of decision myself. Because I don't know if I could..
posted
Yeah. I think it must be a really unimaginable situation to be in.
Especially given that the risk of so many problems goes up with multiples, most particularly the things associated with prematurity (lack of lung development, brain interventricular hemorrhage, retinal damage, and so forth). Don't get me wrong -- plenty of multiples do just fine. But there is a reason why multiples (even twins) are usually referred to high-risk OBGyn care.
To chose that increased risk for all or to chose to remove some from the possibility of a born life completely -- hard, hard stuff.
I'm glad to hear that some of this is new information, by the way. For me, this is all old hat, and it is a big part of why I see the issue as having many shades of gray. Perhaps some of the black-and-whiteness of other views that I found incomprehensible was in part due to coming to the issue with different information.
Not all, surely. But it would make sense of a few things for me.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And remember that the 400,000 is just the estimated number of those still frozen. This is the tip of the iceberg in comparison to the total numbers of those created.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Years ago, didn't they generally implant most of the viable eggs instead of a couple? Wasn't that when you would hear stories of women on fertility treatments having 4, 5 and even 6 babies?
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Sorry, zgator, this wasn't directed at you! ]
Again, [the 400,000++] isn't a problem for me.
I didn't get why it wasn't a problem for some others. Or, if it was a problem for them, why they wouldn't be as adament about legislation agains this as they are against the morning-after pill or other early forms of abortion.
It didn't cause cognitive dissonance for me until this election, though. That was a two-by-four upside the head that yes, Sara, this Really Is Important to a lot of people.
Should have got that sooner.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll pop in to give my opinion. I am beginning to realize that I am against a lot of things that I didn't know I was against. : ) A couple that have popped up recently in my realm are forms of birth control that have a higher than normal risk of resulting in an aborted embryo, and any fertilization technique that results in unused embryos.
quote:AJ, you do realize, that if all of society didn't reproduce if there was a chance of passing along a genetic defect like PCOS we'd die out in a generation right? There's no such thing as a person who is "clean" genetically. We all carry something that might be viewed as harmful to the species.
I thought I addressed that in this that I wrote above. Quoting myself:
quote:We all have genetic flaws, and some get passed on and some don't. With modern medicine helping the weaker survive (which is a necessary goal from a moral and community standpoint) reproduction is the last stop our species has in limiting genetic defects, as long as we aren't actually tinkering with DNA and building bionic men.
Yes, I realize genetic defects do get passed on from generation to generation. That is a fact of life. There is no one with "perfect" DNA. But I also don't think we are in grave danger of all of society stopping reproduction by a long shot!
Sadly, I see more infertile couples, like some neighbors we had in CA, that only want little white babies that look like them in skin tone, than people like Dan_Raven and his wife, who are going to adopt a little girl from India next. In other words I believe there is in many instances (not all for sure) racial bias in why people go through the most extreme and expensive IVF treatments rather than adopting a child from elsewhere.
The hormonal treatments are borderline for me, personally. They certainly aren't as invasive, however I wouldn't personally choose them as an option, even if adoption was more expensive.
posted
My understanding is fuzzy, Zan, as infertility itself is not a pediatric issue.
I believe the great numbers of multiples came both from implantation of large numbers of embryos and from the higher levels of hyperstimulation of ovaries that came with the drugs we used to use, and at what levels. I think the fertility drug treatments which lead to extra-stimulated ovaries are much more refined now.
Two different issues, and I don't know how much of each played into it.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
In my particular case, I would have been glad to adopt, and in fact we were already discussing the options with some friends of ours who adopted a little girl from Korea.
But, in my case, I was told my poblem was easily dealt with - my pcos was not severe, and I had already had one child. So, a $100 worth of clomid was a lot easier than international adoption.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My cousin went through the process five years ago and received five embryos, if I'm not mistaken.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually really appreciate this thread, Sara. I'd never thought about the issue of "leftover" IVF embryos (I know that's probably a really awful way to describe it, but that's what it seems like). I suppose if I'd thought enough about IVF, I'd have realized that the likelyhood of unused embryos is quite high. I'm not sure how I feel about their destruction.
I am against abortion (falling into the camp of people who, not knowing when "life" begins and when a baby is a person, choose to err on the side of caution). I haven't firmly decided what I think of the "morning after pill", but I lean towards thinking that it is immoral. I approve of birth control, but I'm not sure what I think of IUDs.
Personally, I would never undergo IVF, for several reasons, but I don't think that my personal aversion to it should mean that it should be illegal. I wish there was a way it could be done so that there wouldn't even be the issue of extra embryos. I guess at the very least, I would hope that the extra embryos could be put to the best possible use - for other couples.
What about using them for stem cell research? Oh man, a whole 'nother can of worms and yet another issue I don't know what I think of....
quote:I'll pop in to give my opinion. I am beginning to realize that I am against a lot of things that I didn't know I was against. : ) A couple that have popped up recently in my realm are forms of birth control that have a higher than normal risk of resulting in an aborted embryo, and any fertilization technique that results in unused embryos.
PSI, this causes me no end of stress.
On the one hand, I think it is absolutely great always to know more about what you believe and why you believe it.
On the other hand, I have no desire at all to reduce in any way the access of couples with infertility to any resources. But given that this is such an intensely private issue and (I think, and there is data to back this up) rarely discussed with all one's friends and family, all of us likely know people who are using fertility treatment of one kind or another.
This is becoming quite common. I will try to look up some good references, but it is really remarkable how widespread fertility issues are. As of last year, I think fifteen states had passed laws requiring insurance companies to cover infertility treatments as basic medical care. I think Lousiana, Ohio, and West Virginia did not require IVF coverage in particular, but all other 12 did specify IVF as mandated coverage. And maybe one (Montana?) had some areas which did mandate IVF coverage and some which didn't.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup Belle. Like I said, I understand the differences between hormonal issues that are easily fixed, and more serious stuff. PCOS itself has ranges of severity. It's definitely a grey area, and one I have been considering pretty carefully myself. The other thing that I look at in my family is what appears to me to be undiagnosed mental illness in varying severities in several generations. I'm not condemning your decisions whatsoever, just working out my own positions.
I reserve the right to change my opinions on the subject too Most people don't understand my complete *lack* of desire for a child. I support them in their choices to have children, but I honestly don't want any myself. Yes I know people say it is different when the kid is your own. But if I haven't got any desire for a child, even if I'm more than financially able to take care of one, why should I have one? For the experience? Now I also realize I am young (25) and biological clocks tick differently. It is possible in my mid 30s I will become filled with the desire to have a child as hormones start changing. So I do reserve the right to change my mind. But I'm hoping that working things out rationally now will help sway any crazy emotions I might experience then too.
But IVF in particular bothers me a lot more than the morning after pill, exactly the opposite of other people on this thread, because of the cost benefit analysis I guess.
quote: people like Dan_Raven and his wife, who are going to adopt a little girl from India next.
Really? Very cool.
My take- I am not opposed to IVF, but I think greater effort should be made to not create more fertilized eggs than will be used. I think it is wrong to just dispose of them.
I am morally opposed to the morning after pill but don't wish to legislate against it. I think it's a lesser evil.
posted
Sara: I realize that the fertility thing is extremely important to many couples, and that's why I don't get into it very often. Personally, adopting a child would be just as good as having one myself, but I can sympathize with the pain that many couples feel at being unable to have a baby. I'm not sure I could jump in and fight against in-vitro fertilization and similar techniques for that reason. But it's something that I could not be comfortable with doing.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Of course, I need to get the money and time off together first.
Here is a thought--to lower abortions, fix the adoption system in the US.
Right now it favors the birth mother to the extent that adoptive parents live in fear that they will loose their child at any moment.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Personally, I would never undergo IVF, for several reasons, but I don't think that my personal aversion to it should mean that it should be illegal.
This so much reminds me of many of my pro-choice friends' positions on abortion. That is, they are pro-choice with regards to IVF, too, even if it is not a procedure they would do themselves.
Maybe this helps some who are pro-life understand some of the thinking of some of those who are pro-choice? This sort of dilemma of "I wouldn't do it, but I can't see my way to making it illegal because it is such a personal decision?"
quote:I wish there was a way it could be done so that there wouldn't even be the issue of extra embryos. I guess at the very least, I would hope that the extra embryos could be put to the best possible use - for other couples.
This was addressed in the articles about the national survey of infertility clinics that I linked to on Page 1. Many couples create embryos with the intent of donating, but they consistently tend to change their minds about that after they have born a child of their own. That is what happens, over and over, across the country. Not for all, but definitely as a general trend. It is a complex issue.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Right now it favors the birth mother to the extent that adoptive parents live in fear that they will loose their child at any moment.
At the time Ryan was conceived, we had begun to look into adoption. This is one of the things that scared the bejeebers out of me.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sara: I realize that the fertility thing is extremely important to many couples, and that's why I don't get into it very often. Personally, adopting a child would be just as good as having one myself, but I can sympathize with the pain that many couples feel at being unable to have a baby. I'm not sure I could jump in and fight against in-vitro fertilization and similar techniques for that reason. But it's something that I could not be comfortable with doing.
Yeah. I think a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are in a similar position. I want to reassure you that I'm not speaking in a snarky tone or trying to score points -- I think it really is very similar in many ways, at least that feeling of being in that position regarding someone else making complicated decisions on a very highly charged matter.
True, the general intent is different. But the strongest arguments I see against abortion rest on the deliberate loss of those embryos. Here, too, we have embryos created that are destroyed, and to some extent, they are created in order for some of them to be destroyed.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious (Sara I'll take this to another thread if you request so) How many times have children actually been given back to the birth mothers? I can think of two or three highly publicized cases, and a couple of surrogate mother type cases, but surely that is just a freak happening compared to the thousands if not millions of adoptive families out there. I can see this being a definite reason for an out of country adoption though, which saddens me.
Is there that much legal precedent in favor of the Birth Mother?
quote: Yeah. I think a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are in a similar position.
I figured this much. But I think our time is better used in trying to find a way to fertilize a woman without wasting an embryo than in trying to stop in-vitro all together.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dan, my understanding is that this is often a primary drive for people to adopt internationally. It is so sad, but when the child's parents are unkown because he or she has been left to the care of a state orphanage, then there is no effective way for the child to be tracked down and taken back later.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I figured this much. But I think our time is better used in trying to find a way to fertilize a woman without wasting an embryo than in trying to stop in-vitro all together.
You make me smile, kinda wistfully. I think this, too, is where a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are: that our time and resources are better spent on trying to find a way to help women keep from getting pregnant unintentionally rather than in trying to stop abortion altogether. For pretty much the same basic reasons, too.
Remember in all of this that IVF coverage by insurance companies is now mandated in at least 12 states. I'm not sure (although I don't have the data to say decisively) that more embryos are lost through abortion than are lost through infertility treatments.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think this, too, is where a lot of people who are pro-choice about abortion are: that our time and resources are better spent on trying to find a way to help women keep from getting pregnant unintentioanlly
Sadly, too many people who are pro-life lose sight of this. I still don't believe in abortion, but along with making it illegal, it needs to be made unnecessary as much as possible.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We all posted at about the same time, that's all.![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
Oh man, a whole 'nother can of worms and yet another issue I don't know what I think of....
