Ivf

[Felicity]

Need a new thread here...

Let's try IVF.

Problem #1: Children become "objects" to be obtained by any means possible.

The sexual union between couples becomes a production line that doesn't even require actual contact...the "loving giving and receiving" that is expressed through their bodies is denied and the goal of producing a child supercedes the expression of their love that results in a child. The child is thus objectified rather than growing out of the love and life giving union of his parents.

 

[tecoyah]

Need a new thread here...

Let's try IVF.

Problem #1: Children become "objects" to be obtained by any means possible.

The sexual union between couples becomes a production line that doesn't even require actual contact...the "loving giving and receiving" that is expressed through their bodies is denied and the goal of producing a child supercedes the expression of their love that results in a child. The child is thus objectified rather than growing out of the love and life giving union of his parents.

-OR-

Having failed in the Loving attempt to reproduce, for whatever reason, thru natural means....a family uses the ingenuity of the Human Brain to create a new life. They intend to nurture this beautiful child to productive adulthood, as they would any child in thier lives.

 

[Felicity]

-OR-

Having failed in the Loving attempt to reproduce, for whatever reason, thru natural means....a family uses the ingenuity of the Human Brain to create a new life. They intend to nurture this beautiful child to productive adulthood, as they would any child in thier lives.

There is nothing wrong with a child produced via IVF--its the parent's self-serving intention in producing that child that is an error. In and of itself--that *intention*....... The perception of a child as an object to be obtained rather than the consequence of love. That is the first thing wrong with IVF. You start a family out on the wrong foot--selfishness. And whoa...what ills personal selfishness can bring to a family!

 

[tecoyah]

There is nothing wrong with a child produced via IVF--its the parent's self-serving intention in producing that child that is an error. In and of itself--that *intention*....... The perception of a child as an object to be obtained rather than the consequence of love. That is the first thing wrong with IVF. You start a family out on the wrong foot--selfishness. And whoa...what ills personal selfishness can bring to a family!

So, If I make love to my wife, hoping to get her pregnant out of my selfish desire to have a family....Am I also, making an Ill choice?

 

[Felicity]

So, If I make love to my wife, hoping to get her pregnant out of my selfish desire to have a family....Am I also, making an Ill choice?

Families are united in their experience. Hope within a family is something shared. The creation of life within a family blossoms out of that shared experience of hope and love. It is not selfish when the process is for the mutual expression of that love. To "desire" something is not selfish--to thwart the mutual experience of hope and love so that the desired product can be achieved seperate from that experience (even if it is hoped that the product will bring about a closer unity ultimately) is what starts the family off ill.

As I said...starting off on the wrong foot is only the FIRST ill that is brought about by IVF.

 

[1069]

I wrote an essay about this a few years ago... let's see:

Frozen Embryo Storage and Adoption, Why aren't prolifers protesting it?

Although abortion is a far more hotly debated issue, the fact is that millions of excess embryos are created each year in fertility clinics, and most are discarded.
Each year in America, over one million women seek treatment for infertility. Many of them undergo in-vitro fertilization.
In IVF, batches of eggs are surgically withdrawn, fertilized, and then artificially implanted into the body.
The problem is that far more eggs are fertilized than are actually needed, and this leaves doctors and patients with the ethical dilemma of what to do with all these superfluous embryos.
This dilemma has given rise to a new industry... private companies which "store" frozen embryos, ostensibly for later "adoption" by other infertile couples.
Although the U.S. government has distributed $2 million in grants in the last two years to promote embryo adoption, few infertile couples are stepping forward to "adopt" the hundreds of thousands of embryos currently in storage.
Companies like Snowflakes and others, however, are making vast amounts of money for storing these embryos.

Snowflakes: link

Embryo Storage and Adoption Services: link

The problem is, what are they "storing" them for?
The odds that anyone will ever step forward to take custody of them are astronomical, and more embryos are created every day.
These companies are actually profiting off the guilt of couples undergoing IVF treatment, exploiting their reluctance to pour their excess "babies" (artificially fertilized ova) down the drain.
A yearly storage fee is charged, and if couples do not come up with that fee, their "babies" are discarded.
It seems ironic that the government is so scrupulous about not contributing taxpayers' money to any other "reproductive service", yet Bush is willing to contribute millions of dollars in public funds each year to the (in my opinion) questionable and shady business of private embryo storage.

"400,000 Human Embryos Frozen in U.S.

RICK WEISS / Washington Post 8may03

The freezers of U.S. fertility clinics are bulging with about 400,000 frozen human embryos, a number several times larger than previous estimates, according to the first national count ever done, released today.


The unexpectedly high number—by far the largest population of frozen human embryos in the world—is the byproduct of a booming fertility industry whose success depends on creating many embryos but using only the best. Although most of the embryos are being held for possible use by the couples who wanted them, a large proportion will never be needed, experts said.

That reality, and the sheer scope of the phenomenon, has reignited a debate among scientists, theologians and parents about the moral standing of those microscopic entities. The question is philosophical, but the implications are practical. With clinics concerned about accidental meltdowns and insurance, and storage fees for parents reaching $1,500 a year, many people are wondering what should be done with the nation's prodigious stores of nascent human life.

"None of us really want to hang on to these embryos in perpetuity," said David Hoffman, a fertility doctor and past president of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, the Birmingham-based professional group that conducted the survey with the Rand Corp. of Santa Monica, Calif.

The problem has taken on new urgency with the recent recognition that human embryos have scientific and perhaps commercial value as sources of stem cells, which researchers hope to transform into lifesaving therapies. The nationwide survey found that the parents of at least 11,000 embryos have given explicit permission for their embryos to be made available for research. But a policy imposed by President Bush in 2001 forbids federally funded scientists from doing such research—a roadblock that left scientists all the more irritated yesterday upon learning just how many embryos are out there.

By contrast, religious conservatives and antiabortion advocates yesterday chastised the fertility industry for what they described as its profligate overproduction of embryos. Some called for more "embryo adoptions," in which donated frozen embryos are transferred to the wombs of infertile women.

>SNIP<

More than anything, experts said, the large number of embryos being preserved in icy timelessness is an indicator of the ambivalence many couples feel as they consider what to do with their hard-won but unneeded potential offspring.

"Some people just can't cope with the decision," said Pamela Madsen, executive director of the American Infertility Association, a New York-based patient education and advocacy organization. "Even though their religious or moral perspectives about when life begins are all very individual and different, still most of them will agree that their embryos are very special."

American women underwent about 100,000 fertility treatments in 2000, the latest year for which statistics are available, resulting in the birth of about 35,000 babies. The most common procedure, in vitro fertilization, usually generates more embryos than are immediately needed, and extras are typically frozen for possible use later.

Previous estimates have ranged from the tens of thousands to 200,000 frozen embryos, with many hovering around 100,000. Fertility clinics, which are ineligible for federal funding and so are free of much regulatory oversight, have long sidestepped the question.

The new findings come at an awkward time for the publicity-shy industry. It has been the focus of increased attention from the Food and Drug Administration, which has gradually imposed new layers of oversight, and the President's Council on Bioethics, which is toying with recommendations for added regulation.

The census surveyed all 430 U.S. fertility practices, asking how many embryos they have stored and their "disposition"—a reference to the fact that virtually all fertility patients must sign a form saying whether they want leftover embryos stored, destroyed or made available for donation, either to researchers or infertile women.

All but 90 doctor's offices and clinics responded, and the team estimated the number of embryos at 58 of the 90 on the basis of their number of clients and other details. The team tallied a "conservative" total of 396,526 embryos.

About 3 percent were earmarked for research; 2 percent for destruction and a like number for donation to women; and 1 percent for quality-assurance studies. Most of the rest—about 87 percent of the total—were reserved for ongoing fertility efforts.

The survey, detailed in the May issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility, did not ascertain how long embryos had been in storage—a detail some experts said would make clear that most embryos saved for further fertility work are unlikely to be used for making babies. Frozen embryos can remain viable for a decade or more, but with each passing year, couples are increasingly unlikely to use them, because they have either given birth or given up.

There are no easy answers to the embryo glut. In the United Kingdom, where 52,000 human embryos were in storage as of 1996, the government triggered an uproar when it imposed a policy of destroying "abandoned" embryos after five years.

"In the U.S., it would be pretty tough to tell someone that," said study leader Hoffman, a director of the IVF Florida Reproductive Associates in Margate, Fla. "In this country, it's the patients who determine what's done with their embryos. Not doctors, not the government or the bureaucracy."

Harvard University stem cell scientist Douglas Melton reacted to the new census with frustration. "These embryos could be put to a number of good research purposes," he said, including gaining a better understanding of birth defects and developing cellular therapies for serious diseases.

But opponents of embryo research said the report should prompt fertility doctors to find ways to waste fewer embryos. The situation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, "bespeaks a mind-set that does not regard these as members of the human family."

>SNIP<

Jeffrey Kahn, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics, said the discovery that so many embryos are being made and maintained by fertility doctors puts in perspective claims by Johnson and others that stem cell researchers want to create "human embryo farms" for their studies.

"It shows that the place where embryos are made is largely not in the private research enterprise but in the reproductive medicine clinics," Kahn said. "In a way, people who are upset about the mass production of human embryos have been barking up the wrong tree."

link"

***************************************

... continued in next post

 

[1069]

... continued from above post

Ethics for extra embryos: Doctors face a dilemma
Adoption? Disposal? There are no legal rules on what to do, so the number of embryos keeps growing

By Andis Robeznieks, AMNews staff. Feb. 14, 2005.


News reports concerning the nation's inventory of 400,000 cryopreserved embryos can conjure up images of overflowing fertility clinic freezers surrounded by clinicians scratching their heads over what to do with all of the embryos that have been abandoned by the couples who created them.

The number, much higher than previous estimates that ranged from 30,000 to 200,000, comes from a 2003 embryo census conducted by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. But reproductive specialists note that the vast majority of stored embryos -- almost 350,000 -- are still earmarked for future fertility treatments. And of those, 35% likely would not survive the thawing process.

Arlene J. Morales, MD, medical director of the Sharp Fertility Center in San Diego, thinks the perception that fertility clinics are overstuffed with extra embryos is the result of press sensationalism. "The media seems to highlight couples who don't know what they want to do," she said. "But in my experience, most couples intend to save them for future use."

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends using one to five embryos per treatment, depending on the woman's age and other risk factors.

Better technology and more sensitivity is leading fertility clinics to use and create fewer embryos in the first place, said both Dr. Morales and Jeffrey Keenan, MD, medical director of the Southeastern Fertility Center in Knoxville, Tenn.

"I think the biggest hot topic is single-embryo transfer," Dr. Morales said. "We are certainly working toward decreasing multiple births with the goal of a delivering a single, healthy baby."

350,000 frozen embryos are earmarked for future use.
When this goal is reached, Dr. Keenan said it would be good news.

"First, I think we should be limiting the number of eggs we are fertilizing," he said. "I don't think we should inseminate 15 or 20 just because a patient is young and has a lot of eggs. We're almost asking for them to be put in an uncomfortable position."

Dr. Keenan's facility has a strict policy on not destroying any leftover embryos when a couple is finished creating a family.

"If they want to work with me, couples need to sign a release saying that if they don't use them, the embryos would be made available for donation to other couples," he said. "If they don't agree, they go elsewhere."

In taking this stand, Dr. Keenan said even poor-quality embryos are used. "Not everyone agrees, but even if an embryo has only a 1% or 2% chance, that's a higher chance than this couple would have if we didn't transfer it," he said.

Dr. Keenan, director of the National Embryo Donation Center, also in Knoxville, thinks that having couples "adopt" and use other couples' embryos is a viable method of getting a handle on the issue of what to do with extra embryos.

The federal government has distributed $2 million in grants to promote embryo adoption.
The U.S. government has distributed $2 million in grants in the last two years to promote embryo adoption.

Last fall, the National Embryo Donation Center received a $304,000 federal grant to pay for efforts to educated the public about embryo adoption. Just over a year old, NEDC has 200 couples on its waiting list, plus 86 embryos "here or on their way," Dr. Keenan said.

The NEDC has performed eight embryo transfers, and, although it hasn't produced a baby yet, there are two pregnancies.

The Snowflake Embryo Adoption Program in Fullerton, Calif., also has received federal funds to promote embryo adoption. Snowflake Director Lori Maze said its grant of more than $325,000 had been used to produce a series of general videos for clinics and the public about embryo adoption.

The Snowflake program is responsible for 70 babies being born since 1997. At least 15 more are due in 2005, Maze said.

Maze said Snowflake receives its share of "e-mail rantings" that accuse it of encouraging the creation of embryos to populate its program.

"Whether some people like it or not, the embryos are there," she said. "All we're doing is trying to create a solution to a problem that already exists and doesn't look like it's going away in the near future."

New FDA rules
Although one part of the federal government is spending money on promoting embryo adoption, the Food & Drug Administration -- in an effort to provide more protection against the spread of disease -- is set to establish new rules May 25 that could make embryo donation more difficult.

Donors are required to be screened for infectious disease upon donation and again six months later. Dr. Keenan said the new regulations also would require a physical exam along with a complete medical history.

"It's going to stifle the whole embryo-donation movement," he said.

Harvard School of Public Health Professor Andrea Gurmankin, PhD, said creating fewer embryos or donating them to other couples would not do enough to get the number of embryos down to a more manageable level. She is calling for standardization of policies -- not only on embryo storage and disposition -- but for screening practices, informed consent and financial compensation for eggs.

The absence of standardization "can lead to inequities and the potential downward spiral of discrimination," she said. "There's a whole host of issues where there has been a call for debate and standardization."

Dr. Gurmankin's study on embryo disposal practices at 217 IVF clinics published in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences last fall found that what may happen to embryos depends a lot on who is storing them.

For example, of the 175 clinics surveyed that dispose of extra embryos, 166 (95%) said they attempted to contact a couple before disposal, with 110 saying they would not proceed without that contact -- even with prior consent. Also, 136 clinics required permission of both potential parents before disposal.

Dr. Gurmankin's study also turned up some differences among clinics' disposal practices: Four clinics said they required the couple to be present at disposal, 23 gave the option of being present, four gave the embryos to couples to dispose of themselves and seven performed a ceremony that included a prayer.

Dr. Morales said the standardization of policies imposed by outside regulators is unnecessary, as medical groups have been successful in self-regulating fertility treatments.

"Anything that's cutting edge will be politicized to some degree," she said. "I can't imagine a positive outcome from government regulations. [Medical] groups have shown an ability to self-regulate."

ASRM policy states that it is "ethically acceptable" for a clinic to dispose of stored embryos that appear to have been abandoned if there has been no communication with the couple after five years and after "diligent efforts" have been made to contact them. The policy also states that abandoned embryos should not be donated to other couples or for research without prior consent.

Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' committee on ethics released a report regarding research done on pre-embryos -- cells less than 14 days old. In the report, ACOG called on each IVF program to develop its own policies for transfer, storage, donation, research and disposal of embryos.

The American Medical Association opinion allows for donating extra pre-embryos to other couples or for research but prohibits their sale.

The opinion also calls for deciding in advance what should happen in case of divorce or other "changes in circumstance."

"Predetermination is the best course," said Michael Goldrich, MD, chair of the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. "That predetermination [agreement] should not only address all potential uses for the pre-embryos, it should also address what the policies are for maintaining storage of the pre-embryos."



link

... continued below

 

[1069]

... continued from above


*************************************************

From the American Medical Association:

Adopting the Unborn


by Swathi Arekapudi

In vitro fertilization has helped to produce tens of thousands of children since the procedure became widespread in the mid-1980s [1]. As with any new medical technology, several unexpected problems developed, such as what to do with the more than 200,000 excess frozen embryos stored in fertility clinics around the country [2]. While many countries have national policies governing how long such embryos can be stored, the US does not. Entrenched in the debate over what to do with unwanted embryos is the uncertain legal and moral status of the embryos themselves.

A US couple faced with the question of what to do with their excess embryos currently has 3 options: (1) discard the embryos, (2) donate the embryos to a non-federally funded lab for research purposes, including embryonic stem cell research, or (3) donate the embryos so that other infertile women may use them.

In late August, the Bush administration announced its plan to publicize what it refers to as "embryo adoption" by offering individual grants ranging from $200,000 to $250,000 and totaling approximately $1 million [3]. Like embryo donation where couples give their unused embryos for research, couples may also give extra embryos to another infertile couple for "adoption." Babies born by this process are considered the children of the recipient couple. Organizations may apply for the federal grant dollars to fund public awareness campaigns promoting donation of embryos.

The term "embryo adoption" was originally coined by Nightlight Christian Adoptions [4]. The director for Snowflakes, the agency’s embryo program, explained that "we use the adoption language and materials with the hopes of setting a precedent that someday the court will say embryos need to be handled like any other child" [5]. Knowledge of the origin of the term embryo adoption has fueled sharp criticism of the Bush administration by abortion rights groups.

One pressing question about this program is why embryo adoption is deemed to need governmental support. Critics argue that the administration is using the embryo adoption program to confer upon the embryo the rights of a fully developed person, as if it were a baby. Much of this argument stems from the use of the term "adoption." How, critics argue, can one "adopt" a 6-celled embryo as if it were the equivalent of a child? Certainly a private laboratory that uses donated embryos for research purposes does not adopt them but merely accepts a donation. Nor does a person who donates blood or a kidney give these tissues up for adoption.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa) inserted the grant program into a Health and Human Services spending bill. Although Sen. Specter supports both abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research, he also supports the grant program because "if any of those embryos could produce life, I think they ought to produce life" [4]. Specter is of the opinion that while couples are free to discard or donate their embryos for research, it should be a last resort option. If the goal of the federal government were to develop a workable solution, than more than one of the available options would be examined. Promoting 1 out of 3 possible options demonstrates a clear bias on the part of the Bush administration.

Although the current administration supports and has offered financial assistance to promote embryo adoption, only 5 states have any legal protection for the recipients of donated embryos, and embryo adoption is not legally recognized [4]. The federal government may face some difficulty promoting a course of action that has such little legal support.

With an ever-growing number of people seeking in vitro fertilization treatment, the problems of excess frozen embryos and disagreements about what to do with them will only increase in number and complexity. Who should address these issues? Some have called for additional regulation of the industry, either at the state or federal level. Others think that such regulation should come from within the profession—from the specialty organizations, fertility clinics, and physicians. It will certainly take the cooperation of all these parties to establish comprehensive procedures. In the absence of legislation and regulation, disagreements will end up in the courts, which will lead to case by case decisions that fail to address the broad underlying problems.
link

What are your thoughts and feelings about the issues of IVF, excess embryos, and embryo storage?
And if you are prolife, how do you justify the Prolife Movement's general indifference toward the practice of IVF, which is responsible for exponentially more dead, discarded embryos per year than abortion?
Why do you not take action immediately, by picketing and protesting fertility clinics in your area, and volunteering to gestate one or more of the 400,000 frozen embryos currently in storage in the United States?

Your thoughts?

 

[tecoyah]

Families are united in their experience. Hope within a family is something shared. The creation of life within a family blossoms out of that shared experience of hope and love. It is not selfish when the process is for the mutual expression of that love. To "desire" something is not selfish--to thwart the mutual experience of hope and love so that the desired product can be achieved seperate from that experience (even if it is hoped that the product will bring about a closer unity ultimately) is what starts the family off ill.

As I said...starting off on the wrong foot is only the FIRST ill that is brought about by IVF.

Why is this considered Thwarting....the love. I could very easily make love to my wife....before and after in hopes of a natural insemination....but accept a little help from science to make my family a reality. Sound more like a Bias you hold for allowing Gods hand to remain in play....rather than Mans.

 

[Felicity]

1069...:yawn:

Have you ever heard: "brevity is the soul of wit?"

 

[ngdawg]

Know how I keep saying you're off the mark?
So, I'm selfish for not being able to conceive and seeking out medical intervention to have my family but those who are fertile and wish to have a family aren't selfish?
First off, you're assuming that there's no 'love' involved with IVF. Uh, one has nothing to do with the other. If we could put the two together, it's the overwhelming love and desire to complete your union by having children that would drive anyone to go through the process. It's emotionally, physically and financially draining and those who aren't up to their mettle will give up quite early on.
Personal selfishness????? Everyone who has ever said "I want a baby" is selfish.
Let me tell you about my kids. They're twins, a boy and a girl. I stayed home with them their first 6 years, then only worked while they were in school. I taught them to read before kindergarten. My son taught himself to write before his second birthday. Since day one in school, they've been outstanding students, having made honor roll too many times to count. My son came home his last day in grammar school with 5 awards, including the Presidential award for excellence in education. My daughter won a national art contest-$1000-in second grade; my son won a national science art poster contest-$200-in 7th.
My son played soccer for 8 years, my daughter has been going to dance school since she was three, currently going three nights a week.
Please point out the 'ills'...I don't seem to see them in here anywhere.
I will point out that I did not have IVF, but what I did have was the preceding 'step' to it-GIFT. It is rarely done now because it is invasive surgery-through a laproscopic incision, a tube is inserted into a fallopian tube and harvested eggs are injected, followed immediately by semen. The pre-surgical prep takes about two months of hormonal 'trickery' and timed hormonal drug injections involving three stages. Once ovulation is done, the eggs are extracted and placed in a 'medium' comprised of the patient's blood and checked for maturity and abnormalities. I had 15 eggs total. Five were injected to better the odds of success.
Here's where you probably think it's so 'wrong'(and make no mistake, it's your line of thinking-there's nothing factual in it); 5 of the 15 were implanted. The other 10 are 'fertilized' with more of the sperm and placed in cryo. This is done so that, should GIFT fail on the first attempt, the patient would not have to go thru another two months of hormonal preparation and surgery and would go through IVF instead. After a few weeks, those zygotes are tested to see if they survived the initial cryo. In my case, only 3 did, but it was a moot point, since the GIFT worked.
The patient gets a stack of papers to read and sign regarding these zygotes. These include what to do with them in the event that they would not be used by the patient or should the patient die, etc. My choice was to not allow them to be destroyed, but, because the spouse did not want more kids, I would not be using them. I signed 'ownership' over to the fertility clinic with the addendum(my own, since it wasn't in the paperwork), that they not be implanted in another woman-to be used for research only.
I am continuously amazed at how people form judgemental opinions about something they have never experienced, never studied up on, simply because they 'think' they know something they'll never be able to fully understand.
So, tell me, why am I the selfish one for wanting something so badly, I would give over 10 years of my life to achieve, but all you had to do was lie down and open your thighs? I'll be quite presumptuous here, but I would call myself the 'better parent'-I had to work, sacrifice time, money, maybe health, certainly emotions, to get what everyone else takes for granted. Add to that the fact that I almost lost them twice during my pregnancy and had to spend 2/3 of it in bed. The gratefulness I feel for what my doctors have achieved and what I have in these exceptional children is immeasurable.
My choice to be a parent was a serious, arduous undertaking, unlike the majority of women who just have to 'be there'
and with every great moment I have with them, I am reminded of that.
"Off the mark" would be an understatement. You really have no clue what you're talking about here.

 

[Felicity]

Why is this considered Thwarting....the love. I could very easily make love to my wife....before and after in hopes of a natural insemination....but accept a little help from science to make my family a reality. Sound more like a Bias you hold for allowing Gods hand to remain in play....rather than Mans.

Not thwarting love...

Thwarting the MUTUAL experience of that love in the creation of the child.

 

[1069]

1069...

Have you ever heard: "brevity is the soul of wit?"

Felicity, how lovely to see you back and in good form. I had thought you were on vacay.

Anyway, that's what I came up with three years ago; it was then an issue that prolifers refused to take an official stance on; George W Bush, as a matter of fact, had just given a large grant of federal money to Snowflakes at that time, and commended embryo storage and adoption as a positive thing.

What I wrote was in no way intended to express my disapproval of IVF (in fact, I think it's great), but merely to deflect prolifers' attention, momentarily, from impoverished women and girls with unwanted pregnancies to the middle-class and privileged.
I wanted them to see the hypocrisy of fussing about every girl who wants to end an unwanted pregnancy, while millions of embryos created by IVF are being discarded constantly.

In response to reading this (remember, this was years ago) someone suggested that the prolife movement would soon be turning their attention to IVF and fertility treatment.
I responded:

"I anticipate no such thing (although, selfishly, I wouldn't care if there WAS a move against it, and I'd be happy if it drew prolifers attention away from the abortion issue and distracted and divided them).
Here's the reason I anticipate no such thing:
Too many politician's wives have and/or will conceive through IVF.
It is a class issue, plain and simple.
Only the middle-class to wealthy socioeconomic groups can afford IVF and other fertility treatment, whereas most of the women who terminate pregnancies live below the poverty line.
It's much more morally satisfying to "protest" against the "immoral behavior" of the poor... less satisfying to attack the rich, who have the resources to fight back.
Furthermore, the fundamentalist religious Right will never commit themselves whole-heartedly to the abolition of IVF and fertility treatment, and without their backing, no "movement" against it would ever succeed.
Conservative fundamentalists oppose abortion because women who have abortions are aspiring to a life which conservatives in general do not condone; a life of independence and controlling their own fertility.
Whereas women who patronize fertility clinics are aspiring to motherhood, which conservatives hold in such high esteem that they are willing to overlook the fact that this "motherhood" comes at the expense of "murdering" hundreds of thousands more "babies" each year than abortion ever does.
This supports my theory that the prolife movement in general is not interested in "saving babies", but rather in controlling, subjugating, and dehumanizing women."


Of course, I was wrong then.
Because here we are.

 

[1069]

Know how I keep saying you're off the mark?
So, I'm selfish for not being able to conceive and seeking out medical intervention to have my family but those who are fertile and wish to have a family aren't selfish?
First off, you're assuming that there's no 'love' involved with IVF. Uh, one has nothing to do with the other. If we could put the two together, it's the overwhelming love and desire to complete your union by having children that would drive anyone to go through the process. It's emotionally, physically and financially draining and those who aren't up to their mettle will give up quite early on.
Personal selfishness????? Everyone who has ever said "I want a baby" is selfish.
Let me tell you about my kids. They're twins, a boy and a girl. I stayed home with them their first 6 years, then only worked while they were in school. I taught them to read before kindergarten. My son taught himself to write before his second birthday. Since day one in school, they've been outstanding students, having made honor roll too many times to count. My son came home his last day in grammar school with 5 awards, including the Presidential award for excellence in education. My daughter won a national art contest-$1000-in second grade; my son won a national science art poster contest-$200-in 7th.
My son played soccer for 8 years, my daughter has been going to dance school since she was three, currently going three nights a week.
Please point out the 'ills'...I don't seem to see them in here anywhere.
I will point out that I did not have IVF, but what I did have was the preceding 'step' to it-GIFT. It is rarely done now because it is invasive surgery-through a laproscopic incision, a tube is inserted into a fallopian tube and harvested eggs are injected, followed immediately by semen. The pre-surgical prep takes about two months of hormonal 'trickery' and timed hormonal drug injections involving three stages. Once ovulation is done, the eggs are extracted and placed in a 'medium' comprised of the patient's blood and checked for maturity and abnormalities. I had 15 eggs total. Five were injected to better the odds of success.
Here's where you probably think it's so 'wrong'(and make no mistake, it's your line of thinking-there's nothing factual in it); 5 of the 15 were implanted. The other 10 are 'fertilized' with more of the sperm and placed in cryo. This is done so that, should GIFT fail on the first attempt, the patient would not have to go thru another two months of hormonal preparation and surgery and would go through IVF instead. After a few weeks, those zygotes are tested to see if they survived the initial cryo. In my case, only 3 did, but it was a moot point, since the GIFT worked.
The patient gets a stack of papers to read and sign regarding these zygotes. These include what to do with them in the event that they would not be used by the patient or should the patient die, etc. My choice was to not allow them to be destroyed, but, because the spouse did not want more kids, I would not be using them. I signed 'ownership' over to the fertility clinic with the addendum(my own, since it wasn't in the paperwork), that they not be implanted in another woman-to be used for research only.
I am continuously amazed at how people form judgemental opinions about something they have never experienced, never studied up on, simply because they 'think' they know something they'll never be able to fully understand.
So, tell me, why am I the selfish one for wanting something so badly, I would give over 10 years of my life to achieve, but all you had to do was lie down and open your thighs? I'll be quite presumptuous here, but I would call myself the 'better parent'-I had to work, sacrifice time, money, maybe health, certainly emotions, to get what everyone else takes for granted. Add to that the fact that I almost lost them twice during my pregnancy and had to spend 2/3 of it in bed. The gratefulness I feel for what my doctors have achieved and what I have in these exceptional children is immeasurable.
My choice to be a parent was a serious, arduous undertaking, unlike the majority of women who just have to 'be there'
and with every great moment I have with them, I am reminded of that.
"Off the mark" would be an understatement. You really have no clue what you're talking about here.

I absolutely think IVF is terrific; one of the dearest children I know was conceived via IVF. Her mom is a doctor and waited to have children until she finished med school and paid off all her loans; she suffered from endometriosis, however, and by the time she finally felt herself to be in a position to have a child, scarring had left her unable to conceive naturally.
She conceived her daughter through IVF, and she is absolutely the dearest, most special and precious child in the world (excluding mine, of course ).
And she is a wonderful mother. Older, but wonderful.
Absurd that prolifers now want to stick their prurient noses into IVF as well as the unwanted pregnancies of the poor.

 

[ngdawg]

Not thwarting love...

Thwarting the MUTUAL experience of that love in the creation of the child.

It doesn't do that either. Do you have any freakin idea at all what a couple goes through with this experience together?
You're so clueless....give it up now, please. Save yourself the embarrassment.

 

[Felicity]

First off, you're assuming that there's no 'love' involved with IVF. Uh, one has nothing to do with the other. If we could put the two together, it's the overwhelming love and desire to complete your union by having children that would drive anyone to go through the process. It's emotionally, physically and financially draining and those who aren't up to their mettle will give up quite early on.

I'm simply expressing the act in and of itself. The "love" is separated from the actual creation. I'm sure those who use IVF love one another...the act of creating and producing a child through IVF is separated from the expression of that love that is the means of creating new life...that's all...

Personal selfishness????? Everyone who has ever said "I want a baby" is selfish.

Parenthood his a mutually satisfying endeavor.

Let me tell you about my kids.

they sound great--however--it's irrelevant to the point about the creation of the life.

Here's where you probably think it's so 'wrong'(and make no mistake, it's your line of thinking-there's nothing factual in it); 5 of the 15 were implanted. The other 10 are 'fertilized' with more of the sperm and placed in cryo. This is done so that, should GIFT fail on the first attempt, the patient would not have to go thru another two months of hormonal preparation and surgery and would go through IVF instead. After a few weeks, those zygotes are tested to see if they survived the initial cryo. In my case, only 3 did, but it was a moot point, since the GIFT worked.

I thought you said the Cath Church was approved of the technique you used. That is an erroneous statement.

What happened to the three other lives you created and survived the attempt on their life that the 7 others succumbed to?

The patient gets a stack of papers to read and sign regarding these zygotes. These include what to do with them in the event that they would not be used by the patient or should the patient die, etc. My choice was to not allow them to be destroyed, but, because the spouse did not want more kids, I would not be using them. I signed 'ownership' over to the fertility clinic with the addendum(my own, since it wasn't in the paperwork), that they not be implanted in another woman-to be used for research only.

Ahhhh...the three others became human guinea pigs.

I am continuously amazed at how people form judgemental opinions about something they have never experienced, never studied up on, simply because they 'think' they know something they'll never be able to fully understand.

I've never killed anyone, but I can have an opinion on the fact it is wrong to kill other human beings. Do you refrain from an opinion of murder and murderers because you haven't murdered anyone intentionally?

So, tell me, why am I the selfish one for wanting something so badly, I would give over 10 years of my life to achieve, but all you had to do was lie down and open your thighs?

Your venom here demonstrates part of the problem.

I'll be quite presumptuous here, but I would call myself the 'better parent'-I had to work, sacrifice time, money, maybe health, certainly emotions, to get what everyone else takes for granted. Add to that the fact that I almost lost them twice during my pregnancy and had to spend 2/3 of it in bed. The gratefulness I feel for what my doctors have achieved and what I have in these exceptional children is immeasurable.

No doubt.
But your personal experience robs you of the objective/unemotional perspective required to consider this issue without that taint.

My choice to be a parent was a serious, arduous undertaking, unlike the majority of women who just have to 'be there'
and with every great moment I have with them, I am reminded of that.

It should be a serious undertaking. I am not condemning you for the conception of your children--in fact, the seriousness with which you took the job is commendable. Far more commendable objectively than the way I first got pregnant--19 and stupid accident--the conception of my first was objectively not ideal and objectively inappropriate. IVF is objectively not ideal and inappropriate. That does not change the fact that my son and those whose children are conceived as a result of IVF are wonderful, and it does not necessarily affect what sort of parent I am or those who use IVF are. Still--the BEST way to begin life is as I described in the opening posts.

"Off the mark" would be an understatement. You really have no clue what you're talking about here.

Delete your personal emotional baggage and try to look at it objectively.

 

[Felicity]

Absurd that prolifers now want to stick their prurient noses into IVF as well as the unwanted pregnancies of the poor.

We're an equal oportunity oppressor!:spin::roll:

 

[Felicity]

Felicity, how lovely to see you back and in good form. I had thought you were on vacay.

I just don't enjoy the head bashing that you and others have been involved in lately. Intellectual parrying is my bag...

 

[ngdawg]

There is no 'intellectual parrying' here..you're objectifying something you know nothing about and equating it with something you dislike, when the purpose of it is the extreme opposite.
As for venom, when you insult something I've done and done damned well and others have done so to achieve what you did as a 'stupid accident', I will respond in kind.
What I posted is relevant to the creation of life. Anyone can lie down and 'create' it. I, and others like me, didn't have that option. It's the overwhelming desire to create that life that leads to this kind of result.

 

[aps]

There is no 'intellectual parrying' here..you're objectifying something you know nothing about and equating it with something you dislike, when the purpose of it is the extreme opposite.
As for venom, when you insult something I've done and done damned well and others have done so to achieve what you did as a 'stupid accident', I will respond in kind.
What I posted is relevant to the creation of life. Anyone can lie down and 'create' it. I, and others like me, didn't have that option. It's the overwhelming desire to create that life that leads to this kind of result.

She is really something else, isn't she, ngdawg? My guess is that Felicity has no idea what it must be like for couple who are unable to conceive naturally, but are DYING to be parents. I have friends who underwent at least a dozen IVF treatments before they were able to get pregnant. The heartache she went through was heartbreaking to me, but seeing how happy she is now is simply beautiful. Anyway, let Felicity talk out of her butt. Heartless and narcissistic come to mind.

 

[1069]

She is really something else, isn't she, ngdawg? My guess is that Felicity has no idea what it must be like for couple who are unable to conceive naturally, but are DYING to be parents. I have friends who underwent at least a dozen IVF treatments before they were able to get pregnant. The heartache she went through was heartbreaking to me, but seeing how happy she is now is simply beautiful. Anyway, let Felicity talk out of her butt. Heartless and narcissistic come to mind.

Agreed.
I've never known happy, psychologically healthy people to act the way Felicity has on this thread.

 

[ngdawg]

She is really something else, isn't she, ngdawg? My guess is that Felicity has no idea what it must be like for couple who are unable to conceive naturally, but are DYING to be parents. I have friends who underwent at least a dozen IVF treatments before they were able to get pregnant. The heartache she went through was heartbreaking to me, but seeing how happy she is now is simply beautiful. Anyway, let Felicity talk out of her butt. Heartless and narcissistic come to mind.

Two things that are ironic come to mind here. First, that someone would call what they did a 'stupid accident' yet dare to preach to those of us who did something so purposeful as to risk everything to succeed.
Second, that someone who really knows nothing about the process at all and only sees the embryonic sacrifice(when there is any and many times there is not-I just happen to respond overly well to the treatments) and sees it as somehow more important than the end result could judge.
I suppose she also thinks that we should never have entered the Revolutionary War, WW1, WW2, or any of the others and instead just have lied down and spread'em and hope there are no 'stupid accidents'.

Here I go again....:roll:

 

[Felicity]

You guys are just precious!:rofl

Your marginalizing and ad hominem is supposed to amount to some sort of rational debate? 'kay...:mrgreen: Please address the "SUBSTANCE"....

We'll see if any mod shows up to chastize your direct personal attacks...I doubt it, but it's not something I can't handle, nor is it something I'm not used to.


BTW: If you think that I am being so "offensive" please...by all means report me...I've been begging you to do it!



Facts is fact ladies--your emotional pleas are not fact--it's called emotional appeal and it is an argumentative fallacy.

 

[1069]

You guys are just precious!:rofl

Your marginalizing and ad hominem is supposed to amount to some sort of rational debate? 'kay...:mrgreen: Please address the "SUBSTANCE"....




BTW: If you think that I am being so "offensive" please...by all means report me...I've been begging you to do it!

Facts is fact ladies--your emotional pleas are not fact--it's called emotional appeal and it is an argumentative fallacy.

Felicity, nobody of any import or influence has any problem whatsoever with IVF; in fact, it's more prevalent than ever before.
On the other hand, many people of import and influence either regard IVF positively and/or have personally used IVF themselves.
It is in no danger.

What is it you want us to "debate"?

Your statement: "Need a new thread here...

Let's try IVF.

Problem #1: Children become "objects" to be obtained by any means possible.

The sexual union between couples becomes a production line that doesn't even require actual contact...the "loving giving and receiving" that is expressed through their bodies is denied and the goal of producing a child supercedes the expression of their love that results in a child. The child is thus objectified rather than growing out of the love and life giving union of his parents."

is neither here nor there.
It's a personal opinion, and a rather bizarre and twisted one, at that.
You might as well state your opposition to children who are conceived via sex in other positions besides missionary.
I mean, who other than crazy people are going to care or take such a statement seriously?
Methinks you have issues, lady.

 

[Felicity]

Problem #2: Life created to be destroyed. People who are just "DYING" to create a life end up killing life in the process of attempting to get what they WANT SO BADLY....talk about an ironic twist of tragic proportions!