Fertility treaments

[grumpy_otter]

I had stated on the abortion thread that I am against fertility treatments, and that sparked several comments about what i might have meant. (Sorry I couldn't get to them right away--exam week. ARGH. Almost over.)

Nature, I believe, is pretty good at weeding out bad genes. Evolution has worked pretty well and has created some incredible characteristics.

The problem with fertility treatments is that we don't know enough about what we are messing with--that lovely woman who wanted nothing more than to be a mom but can't conceive? Just needs a little fix of her "plumbing" to make it possible? However, now she may pass on her fertility difficulties to her offspring--the problem is that we don't know enough about genetics to be able to act responsibly.

We have a genetic code in each of us that has some 3 billion components--it took the Human Genome Project 13 years to count them all. I'm against tampering with nature to allow artificial reproduction--until we truly understand how each of these works.

Nature has REASONS for disallowing conception (and by that I do not mean nature is sapient) that we cannot possibly understand. Until we do, don't think we should be messing with it.

(And as an aside--what about adoption? Are biological urges so strong that human reason can't overcome them? And lets not even get started on Octomom! Or do--it's relevant)

[jooxis]

Nature, I believe, is pretty good at weeding out bad genes. Evolution has worked pretty well and has created some incredible characteristics.

People die and suffer from genetic diseases worldwide in huge numbers. Cancer is pretty genetic, why didn't nature "weed" it out? A lot of people who have a likelihood of passing down a physical/mental disorder are fertile. I'm not aware of any impairments that nature has weeded out so I don't know where you're getting your argument from.

The problem with fertility treatments is that we don't know enough about what we are messing with--that lovely woman who wanted nothing more than to be a mom but can't conceive? Just needs a little fix of her "plumbing" to make it possible? However, now she may pass on her fertility difficulties to her offspring--the problem is that we don't know enough about genetics to be able to act responsibly

So what if her offspring is infertile? If it eventually wants to have children, it can adopt or go through fertility treatments just like its mother did. The modern world can provide us this option.
You're basically arguing that because a child may be infertile, it shouldn't be born. Infertility is not exactly the most terrible condition to live with.

Nature has REASONS for disallowing conception (and by that I do not mean nature is sapient) that we cannot possibly understand. Until we do, don't think we should be messing with it.


I look at it this way: nature sometimes handicaps us in certain ways and if modern technology is able to help me overcome my handicap, I'm all for it. If you have impaired vision and need glasses, it would be silly if someone argued "But nature had a reason for impairing your vision, you're not supposed to see well so don't tamper with what you don't know!"

[Mistermook]

I don't mind people overcoming nature's "reasons." I overcome nature's "reasons" for my poor eyesight every time I put on my eyeglasses, and even if there were a perfectly valid running away from bears reason for me to not see well I think I'd not only correct it but alter an embryo of my own to prevent it from happening in my child. Nature also wants me to have heart disease, diabetes, some various autoimmune things like arthritis, and probably doesn't understand my urge to fly over oceans in airplanes rather than stay in a 30 mile hunting radius with the rest of my tribe. I give nature the middle finger nearly every moment of the day in some way. I'm doing it right now by communicating with someone with a written language likely thousands of miles away.

Screw nature. If I can fix something or make it better, or even if I just want to do it - I'm a human being and nature is not the boss of me. :D

[HystericalParoxysm]

I think it really depends on the underlying reason for the treatments - what is going on in the body that is not allowing conception. There are plenty of fairly minor conditions that may make conception difficult or impossible - yet someone may have some -serious- health issues and be able to bear children just fine... children who are likely to have those same health issues and have to deal with physical or mental disability on a daily basis.

As an example, I am Rh Negative. It's never had any bearing on my health and I only found out when I was pregnant. I required an injection when my son was born, to ensure that I wouldn't become sensitized to the protein in Rh Positive blood and be unable to bear further healthy children (usually if you're Rh Negative you can have one healthy child but then any future pregnancies, without treatment, are difficult or impossible - resulting in miscarriage or an extremely sickly child as the mother's body attacks its blood).

I'd file that under "fertility treatments" as it's a medical intervention necessary to allow me to bear children. It's merely a genetic quirk that only really affects pregnancy, but without that treatment, any other children I would have had would probably have died before or shortly after birth... but it's preventable with a simple test, and a single shot any time mother and baby's blood might come in contact during pregnancy.

It's possible I'll pass on the Rh Negative thing to my children - but it only really matters in girls, and then only if they want to have kids, and then only if they want to have -multiple- kids, and they can always just get an injection too, like I did.

I think trying to prevent people from breeding based on genetic factors is an extremely slippery slope - while I believe people with major genetic problems that affect their daily lives should probably not have biological children, that's a decision that they should make for themselves. It's not up to me to make that choice for them.

But in otherwise healthy people who are simply having a little trouble getting pregnant, and if it's done responsibly (i.e. not Octomom)? I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Adoption is a good thing, but unfortunately the way the system is done you have to basically open your entire life to strangers and pay a ridiculous amount of money just for the -chance- to get a child. The questions and inspections and whatnot are for the protection of the child, but there's a lot of people not willing to be a completely open book just to be a parent. There is also something to be said for raising your own biological child - seeing your own physical and mental qualities and that of the child's other parent in your own offspring is pretty amazing. All your own strengths and weaknesses, plus a dash of randomness, in this little person that came from your own body... It's a fascinating experience that you just couldn't get with an adoptive child, however much you might love them and welcome them into your family.

[grumpy_otter]

I have to get ready for school so can't reply to everything, but fragglerocks, that first quote is not something I said--I can't search right now, but maybe it was part of a quote?

[fragglerocks]

Yup you are right. I guess its time for me to go to bed afterall! :)

[Doddibot]

We have a genetic code in each of us that has some 3 billion components--it took the Human Genome Project 13 years to count them all.
3 billion base pairs, but only 23,000-ish genes. We're still complicated things, but it's not like we can't work out where some genetic diseases come from, or things like that. And if we could fix those, why shouldn't we?

I'm against tampering with nature to allow artificial reproduction--until we truly understand how each of these works.
Bah.

If we waited til we fully understood things before we acted, we'd never get anything done. I say unless we have a good reason to suggest something is likely to be dangerous, just go ahead and do it.

[crocobaura]

You know, there are more fertility issues nowadays because of lifestyle, not because of bad genes. Things like colds, infections, multiple sex partners, unbalanced diet, lack of sleep, hormonal imbalance, tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse, and even the birth control pill, those make a couple unfertile, not their genes.

[iCad]

I tend to dislike the notion of fertility treatments not because I think it goes against nature, but because to me it smacks of selfishness. There are many children in this world who need homes, and yet people spend a bazillion dollars in a physically and emotionally wrenching (and then often fruitless!) effort to have one that's genetically "theirs" or sometimes only partly genetically "theirs." I...can't say that I understand the mindset. I try not to be judgmental about it, but...I don't get it. I could POSSIBLY understand the woman wanting to experience pregnancy (although having borne three sprogs, I might ask, "For the love of God, WHY??! ;) ), but otherwise... Geez, people, use that bazillion dollars to adopt 3 kids.

[crocobaura]

I tend to dislike the notion of fertility treatments not because I think it goes against nature, but because to me it smacks of selfishness. There are many children in this world who need homes, and yet people spend a bazillion dollars in a physically and emotionally wrenching (and then often fruitless!) effort to have one that's genetically "theirs" or sometimes only partly genetically "theirs." I...can't say that I understand the mindset. I try not to be judgmental about it, but...I don't get it. I could POSSIBLY understand the woman wanting to experience pregnancy (although having borne three sprogs, I might ask, "For the love of God, WHY??! ;) ), but otherwise... Geez, people, use that bazillion dollars to adopt 3 kids.

Isn't it a nice thought to look at your kids and know that they were conceived with someone you love, look at them and see their resemblance to them? I believ you could be a great adoptive mother and still want to fall pregnant and give birth to your own kid. And then there are women who adopt just because they do not want to become pregnant and spoil their fit figure, so who'se selfish in this case?

[iCad]

Isn't it a nice thought to look at your kids and know that they were conceived with someone you love, look at them and see their resemblance to them? I believ you could be a great adoptive mother and still want to fall pregnant and give birth to your own kid. And then there are women who adopt just because they do not want to become pregnant and spoil their fit figure, so who'se selfish in this case?

I suppose it can go either way, yes. :)

And...I dunno, I guess I am just not attached to the notion of loving my children any differently because they share genes with me. The eldest of my children was conceived in rape (I didn't raise him because he was adopted at birth, but we've been in close contact for about 10 or 12 years now), and I'm not sure that the husband who fathered the other two ever actually loved me, so that emotionality/sentimentality isn't attached to my kids, either. But I concede that other people will have very different feelings and attachments, of course. This is just, as I said, my personal reaction to the notion of fertility treatments (and by that I mean huge involved procedures like IVF) in general.

Still, when I see People magazine publishing a big sob story about how Celine Dion's latest round of IVF has failed and how this is somehow a terrible tragedy, it ticks me off just a little bit. I can't help it. While I empathize with her emotional pain, I can't help but think that she could be doing so much good for an already-existing child (or maybe one that might otherwise be aborted) with that money she's spending repeatedly trying and failing to have a second one (I think) of her own.

[crocobaura]

I suppose it can go either way, yes. :)
Still, when I see People magazine publishing a big sob story about how Celine Dion's latest round of IVF has failed and how this is somehow a terrible tragedy, it ticks me off just a little bit. I can't help it. While I empathize with her emotional pain, I can't help but think that she could be doing so much good for an already-existing child (or maybe one that might otherwise be aborted) with that money she's spending repeatedly trying and failing to have a second one (I think) of her own.

Well, I suppose that's just her issue. I have an aquaintance who reached her 40s and cannot conceive despite all efforts, and also is refusing to adopt in spite of the not very encouraging future prospects of having a child of her own flesh and blood. It really is her own loss, and maybe there will come a time when she will think back and regret she didn't adopt, but I do not blame or judge her for trying to become pregnant herself. It really is her choice, and a child, if not really wanted by the adoptive family, is better off in the children's home.

[Nekowolf]

But the thing is, it's not just her loss. If she really wants a child, well, it's also the loss of one of those children who go unadopted, because of this desire for something of her, their, whatever, own genetics. If you really want a child, why should genetics be important?

Frankly, I'm rather curious about such a desire. Granted, the adoption process is slow, bulky, and inefficient, but still.

[crocobaura]

But the thing is, it's not just her loss. If she really wants a child, well, it's also the loss of one of those children who go unadopted, because of this desire for something of her, their, whatever, own genetics. If you really want a child, why should genetics be important?

Frankly, I'm rather curious about such a desire. Granted, the adoption process is slow, bulky, and inefficient, but still.

Yes, they could, but should you really blame a couple who wants to try fertility treatments first?

[Nekowolf]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming them. But I do question why keep trying over and over again.

[romagi]

People who can get pregnant naturally try many times also. Why would it be different with IVF?

Not all infertility is caused by nature or things that the person has taken or done to themself.

[fakepeeps7]

I pretty much agree with grumpy_otter and iCad. I just don't understand the need to biologically reproduce one's own genes. I guess that's some sort of innate drive (although not everyone has it). Still, I wish people weren't so hung up on biology. We've already got more than enough people on this planet, and a lot of them are unwanted children who need homes... and who may never get them because so many people value biology over all else.

And the genetic component... don't even get me started. We've basically undone in the last hundred years what nature spent thousands trying to get right.

[Nekowolf]

People who can get pregnant naturally try many times also. Why would it be different with IVF?

Not all infertility is caused by nature or things that the person has taken or done to themself.
Because, when they are fertile, they may try and just be unlucky. Eventually, they're bound get pregnant some time. Infertility, though, you're not. Try at you might, it's not just going to happen.

And then you through expensive medical procedures and such, just for the slim attempt. Over and over again. After once or twice, you may just want to give serious consideration to adopting. There are children out there right now without parents, who will not be adopted. They'll live their childhood out in a home. Instead of trying over and over again with those expensive procedures for that small chance you might get lucky, why not actually help someone who is alive right now? Who could actually use a family at this very moment?

[Mistermook]

If you really want a child, why should genetics be important.
I'd counter with if you really want a child of your own genetics, why shouldn't that be important?

People do selfish things all the time. It's not automatically bad or improper to do something because it's selfish. Sometimes I just want something, and that's all right. We're not wired to be selfless - we've got this whole thing going on about civilization to counter that and it's doing ok some days, but hormonally we've got all sorts of things going on inside that scream "Mine!"

Maybe we'd be better off fixing that in our quest to tell nature to shove off, but I can't help but thinking that, for good or ill, it's one of those important bits that we'd screw around with at our own peril.

[Tehrat]

Throwing around the "infertility solution" of "go and adopt!" makes it sound so very simple; like going to the supermarket and picking up that item of clothing you've wanted for months. Adopting isn't a, "we'll have that kid in a month or two solution". It can take years, and a lot of emotional heartache. There are a lot of hoops to jump through - and what happens if at the end of all that time and effort, you're told you're not eligible? While adopting might be one solution, it isn't always the valid solution by any stretch of the imagination.

[Mistermook]

That's a good point. Sometimes the only way to easily adopt is to have a relative in unfortunate circumstances, and that's not particularly "easy" either.

[fakepeeps7]

It can take years, and a lot of emotional heartache. There are a lot of hoops to jump through - and what happens if at the end of all that time and effort, you're told you're not eligible?

You can say the exact same thing about fertility treatments. And in the meantime, kids who already exist are languishing in foster care.

[Tehrat]

You can say the exact same thing about fertility treatments. And in the meantime, kids who already exist are languishing in foster care.

But, as I said not everyone is eligible, at which point your argument doesn't hold water in that situation.

[jooxis]

I pretty much agree with grumpy_otter and iCad. I just don't understand the need to biologically reproduce one's own genes. I guess that's some sort of innate drive (although not everyone has it). Still, I wish people weren't so hung up on biology. We've already got more than enough people on this planet, and a lot of them are unwanted children who need homes... and who may never get them because so many people value biology over all else.

And the genetic component... don't even get me started. We've basically undone in the last hundred years what nature spent thousands trying to get right.

But the thing is, it's not just her loss. If she really wants a child, well, it's also the loss of one of those children who go unadopted, because of this desire for something of her, their, whatever, own genetics. If you really want a child, why should genetics be important?


It's sad we have to live in a time when wanting to have your own kids is considered a "selfish" act. Sorry, as great as I think adoption is, I would personally never adopt because I would always feel like I'm raising someone else's kid (which is technically true). I'd love it to death, but I'd simply prefer it to have been a child I gave birth to. Many women feel similarly and I don't find it selfish. It's also not their fault or problem that so many other women bore millions of unwanted children worldwide.
I want to carry my child from its conception until its birth and every moment after that. I feel that that is a special thing. I want its biological father to be the person I am in love with and share a home with. I feel that these are in fact, very natural feelings.

[WayBack]

We've already got more than enough people on this planet, and a lot of them are unwanted children who need homes... and who may never get them because so many people value biology over all else.

So all those people should give up their hopes for their own child just to take care of someone else's accident... Somehow I don't like this way of thinking.

The best way to decrease the number of unwanted children is using contraception. It's not fair to expect the childless couples to stop trying and take responsibility for someone who was irresponsible.

I don't think that it's selfish when people want to look at their child and see the curls of their grandmother. Even when their loved ones are gone, a tiny bit of them will be still alive through the child, you can still see them in the kid's smile, the color of their eyes or in the way they walk.

If you can't make your loved ones immortal, is that really so weird that you want at least their genes to go on? Let those who want their child give it a try and allow them to mourn if it doesn't work. Don't call them selfish.

[Mistermook]

If you can't make your loved ones immortal, is that really so weird that you want at least their genes to go on?
Maybe it's weird, but doing things for weird reasons isn't wrong or unhealthy.

[ivan17]

I had stated on the abortion thread that I am against fertility treatments, and that sparked several comments about what i might have meant. (Sorry I couldn't get to them right away--exam week. ARGH. Almost over.)

Nature, I believe, is pretty good at weeding out bad genes. Evolution has worked pretty well and has created some incredible characteristics.

The problem with fertility treatments is that we don't know enough about what we are messing with--that lovely woman who wanted nothing more than to be a mom but can't conceive? Just needs a little fix of her "plumbing" to make it possible? However, now she may pass on her fertility difficulties to her offspring--the problem is that we don't know enough about genetics to be able to act responsibly.

We have a genetic code in each of us that has some 3 billion components--it took the Human Genome Project 13 years to count them all. I'm against tampering with nature to allow artificial reproduction--until we truly understand how each of these works.

Nature has REASONS for disallowing conception (and by that I do not mean nature is sapient) that we cannot possibly understand. Until we do, don't think we should be messing with it.

(And as an aside--what about adoption? Are biological urges so strong that human reason can't overcome them? And lets not even get started on Octomom! Or do--it's relevant)

What to say?
I agree.
The world is stupid because some women are doing abortion and some women can't have their own children.
There's too much humans (animals) on our planet and Earth is burdened.

[fakepeeps7]

If you can't make your loved ones immortal, is that really so weird that you want at least their genes to go on?

Yes, it is kind of weird. Being immortal is not the same thing as having your genes go on. If that were the case, why don't we kill one of a set of identical twins? They both have the same genetic makeup, so do we really need two of them?

Personality has a lot to do with what we value in a person (and that doesn't depend 100% on biology). If all we're looking for is a little genetic clone of ourselves with grandma's curls and dad's dimples, then we're pretty shallow.

Let those who want their child give it a try and allow them to mourn if it doesn't work. Don't call them selfish.

It is what it is. If someone spends thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and eventually fails, when that money could have gone toward the process of adopting a child, is that not selfish? You're putting your own desires and needs ahead of those of a child in need (not a potential child... an existing child). I'm not saying that's wrong. There are biological urges to procreate. But I'm going to call it selfish because, by definition, it is.

[el_flel]

I shall firstly state: I am probably one of the least maternal people you will ever meet. I do not want children, the thought genuinely terrifies me.

However, I do know that I am in the minority and I do understand that there are people who are desperate for children. I may not understand this desperation, but I am understanding of it. For many people when they find out they have fertility problems it devestates them, and if science can provide them with a child that they so desperately want then I don't see why we should deny them that.

Of course adoption would be the most logical thing, but logic isn't always best and like Tehrat said, not everyone who wants children is eligible to adopt so it isn't an option for everyone.

Let's not forget that fertility treatment isn't just limited to heterosexual couples, there also many homosexual couples who have used fertility treatment to have children. In these cases they can't procreate naturally together, so for those who want their own this is the only option for them.

[Purity4]

El-flel and no one else ever suggested denying infertile couple from trying. They're just saying all the money spent on failed IVF attempts is a selfish way to spend money.

Since you bring it up, IVF for homesexual couples results in a child that is biologically, at most, only one of theirs.

[fragglerocks]

So all those people should give up their hopes for their own child just to take care of someone else's accident... Somehow I don't like this way of thinking.

The best way to decrease the number of unwanted children is using contraception. It's not fair to expect the childless couples to stop trying and take responsibility for someone who was irresponsible.

I don't think that it's selfish when people want to look at their child and see the curls of their grandmother. Even when their loved ones are gone, a tiny bit of them will be still alive through the child, you can still see them in the kid's smile, the color of their eyes or in the way they walk.

If you can't make your loved ones immortal, is that really so weird that you want at least their genes to go on? Let those who want their child give it a try and allow them to mourn if it doesn't work. Don't call them selfish.

Oh you made me tear up. I lost my mother in Feb. '09 and my 3 year old looks just like her. At the memorial service we had a pictures of my mom from infancy on, and everyone was shocked at the resemblance.

ANYWAYS...back on topic. It is selfish. But so is choosing to pay for the internet instead of buying a homeless guy a few meals each month. Its selfish to throw away what's left of our dinner when there are starving children all over the world. Its selfish to take an extra hour in the bathtub when we could be spending that time saving the world and leaping buildings in a single bound. (Did I go too far with that last one?)

I think since we are all selfish in our own way, what gives us the right to deny parents something that isn't the most selfish thing in the world-a right to pass on the genes of the people they love the most?

ETA: I don't mean deny in the way the pp thought. I meant more along the lines of "pass judgment".

[WayBack]

Being immortal is not the same thing as having your genes go on. If that were the case, why don't we kill one of a set of identical twins? They both have the same genetic makeup, so do we really need two of them?

If you really need to know why we don't kill the extra kids (besides the obvious reason that it's a nasty thing to do), it's because you never know when one of them dies. It's natural that we instinctively want to reach the number of children that makes us feel secure. Sure, the feeling is very subjective and you're still helpless if all your kids die in a bomb attack or a car accident, but still, deep inside, we feel better if we have more than one kid.

You might call it selfish, I don't, I call it natural. Not everyone wants to become the saint martyr and abandon all their needs and wishes for the sake of humanity, some people just want to live, without feeling guilty for having a roof on top of our heads, bread on our tables and kids of our own blood.

We will never agree on this one, our views of the world and humanity differ too much.

[grumpy_otter]

Reproduction is one of the most basic drives for all animals. The desire to reproduce is powerful. I wouldn't say it is selfish to want to reproduce when nature has clearly said "NO!", but I would call it un-human. (Been trying to think of a word that means humane evolution away from the basic animal instincts) It is surrendering to the animal drive of reproduction.

It is however, short-sighted and thoughtless--we truly do not know why some people can't reproduce--but they keep trying, with never a thought to the flawed genes they may be contributing to the pool.

Whenever i see people with huge families, I always think--"What makes you think your genes are so special?" But if you talk to people, it is a rare one who has any knowledge of genetics--they just "Love children!" But only their own, apparently.

EDIT: I don't go running around questioning people about their reproductive choices, nor do I lecture them--this is a very personal belief that i don't share IRL.

[el_flel]

El-flel and no one else every suggested denying infertile couple from trying. They're just saying all the money spent on failed IVF attempts is a selfish way to spend money. I know that. I never said anyone was trying to deny it. The debate is over whether you're for or against fertility treatment and I'm stating that I am for it; if science can do something to help people then why not do it was my point. I don't deny that technically it is selfish, but like fragglerocks said: there are plenty of things we do which are technically selfish, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Since you bring it up, IVF for homesexual couples results in a child that is biologically only one of theirs. I was thinking more along the lines of sperm donors/surrogates which requires FT, but yes, and the same is sometimes true for heterosexual couples.

[fakepeeps7]

If you really need to know why we don't kill the extra kids (besides the obvious reason that it's a nasty thing to do), it's because you never know when one of them dies.

I'm rather surprised you took that comment seriously. My point was about the value of personality versus biology... which you obviously completely missed.

[WayBack]

I'm rather surprised you took that comment seriously.

Are you kidding? How stupid do you think I am? Of course I didn't take it seriously. I'm rather surprised that you didn't get that the "if you really need to know" was written as a slight jab.

Time to move on. There's no point to discuss anything if we can't understand each other even on the basic things.

[simbalena]

Whenever i see people with huge families, I always think--"What makes you think your genes are so special?" But if you talk to people, it is a rare one who has any knowledge of genetics--they just "Love children!" But only their own, apparently.

I think people who have lots of children are more likely to say they "want a large family" or "love being surrounded by family" rather than they just "love children". And many of those people are doing it to create a family because they don't have one. If you had no family and you see everyone around you with a family it's understandable that you would try to have one of your own.

[grumpy_otter]

I think people who have lots of children are more likely to say they "want a large family" or "love being surrounded by family" rather than they just "love children". And many of those people are doing it to create a family because they don't have one. If you had no family and you see everyone around you with a family it's understandable that you would try to have one of your own.

Understandable, but not necessarily the right choice biologically--especially if one needs artificial means to create the family.

[krazykikikat]

Without reading the whole thread, I just want to say that the OP makes a good point. However, I think we should continue to study fertility treatment and try to perfect it. I mean, I know it's not entirely the same thing, but just relying on "survival of the fittest" gets a little fuzzy when it comes to humans... I mean, pneumonia used to be a practically terminal diagnosis, but because we're smart (and have opposable thumbs, I suppose) we found cures and preventions, and few people die from it now. Arguably, lower mortality rates has increased our population, which has caused problems... but there'd be problems one way or the other.

Speaking specifically about fertility treatment, it's true that we don't fully know what we're messing with... but it's also true that we can do good without knowing exactly how we did it, and that not having fertility treatments can cause the exact same problems that you say having it can.

My mom had me with no problem. A few years after me, she had a miscarriage. She kept trying to get pregnant, and was only able to through in vitro fertilization, 16 years after she had me. Recently, I've found out that I'll probably have fertility problems as well. My mom had me without any fertility treatments at all, and still passed on her bad fertility genes. I guess you could say that without fertility treatment, at least there would only be me and my offspring perpetuating the genes, while now there could be two separate lines passing it down... So yes, fertility treatment can definitely increase the likelihood of bad genes sticking around.

On the other hand, we're all people... I know we weren't people before we were born or conceived, I'm not going to make the pro-life argument, but I love my little sister, she's perfectly healthy, and I'm really glad my mom was able to have her.

Then again, there's still an alarming amount of orphans out in the world. It might be a much better course of action if someone who can't conceive just adopts instead.

[Purity4]

crazykiki, I found as I read your post that I fluctuated between agreeing and disagreeing with different parts, so I couldn't easily click agree or disagree. :lol:

[Vanito]

If you want to let natural selection run well, be logical and don't just be against fertlity treatments. That hypocrite. Then also be against antibiotics, cancer treatments whatever.. because that ALSO allows bad genes to be passed on. Be consequent.

[Amtram]

I don't have a problem with fertility treatments, except in the case where the parents, hypocritically, oppose abortion. IVF kills a huge number of fertilized eggs at the blastocyst stage. (When the fertilized egg has divided into eight cells, the lab workers remove one of the cells and test it for defects and potential viability. If it fails on either one of those, it's discarded.) So if you vehemently insist that abortion is wrong because "life begins at conception," then you should not be undergoing fertility treatments.

In addition, IVF produces many, many more fertilized eggs than most people could ever possibly use. Those eggs are frozen until either they become inviable, or the parents decide to have them discarded. So if you're of the mind that "ensoulment" begins on day one, then you're cruelly and inhumanely sentencing dozens of "babies" to up to 30 years of entrapment in an unformed body before death by age or non-implantation.

Note - I do not believe in this ensoulment, so my argument is not against IVF itself, but only its use by hypocrites.