TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Infertile and Lesbians Given IVF

Go To

TheDevouringPlague Since: Dec, 1969
#1: Jan 7th 2011 at 3:53:42 PM

In England, it's possible for lesbians (and, I assume, gay people using surrogate mothers) and infertile people to be given IVF (in vitro fertilisation, test tube babies) in order to have children. It's possible for them to get this on the NHS for completely free if they claim it will improve their lives or they feel depressed without children.

To me, as an Englishman, this doesn't seem right. I'm not religious, so it's not that I disagree with it on moral principles. I disagree with it on the effect it has on society. These are children that (in the case of treatments where one / both people are genetically infertile) will probably not be able to have children themselves, leading to them having to get IVF.

Nevermind the fact that it exasperates the troubles of adoption. Why should that lesbian couple each have a children from IVF when they could foster children instead? If they want to go do the down and dirty with a random man in order to get pregnant, that's fine with me, I'd just rather they didn't use tens of thousands of tax payers pounds in order to get pregnant.

I just don't like the priviledge that people seem to assume they have and the fact that free IVF treatment seems to be inherently harmful on all points.

( I know all my points are stupid when looked at from a different viewpoint - namely "what is the difference between lesbians getting pregnant off men and off IVF?" and "why should people not be allowed to have children, it's a right, you know?", but I do think the negatives heavily outweight the positives. )

What do you guys think about IVF treatment and it's role in society?

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#2: Jan 7th 2011 at 3:58:31 PM

IIRC homosexuality is more prenatal than genetic. Who the parents are wouldn't have that much of an effect if that is indeed the case.

As for infertility, depends on the circumstances (is the IVF from the infertile parents' genetic material, or are they just the oven so to speak?), but ultimately we do want the population going down a touch.

edited 7th Jan '11 4:01:47 PM by Pykrete

TheDevouringPlague Since: Dec, 1969
#3: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:00:55 PM

Oh, I'm not worried about homosexuality. I love gay people!

I'd just much rather people fostered / adopted. It feels like a waste to me.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#4: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:03:25 PM

I wasn't accusing you of that, just one of your points was how likely the child was to itself be infertile/homosexual thus needing IVF themselves.

IMO we really do need more people adopting than IVF anyway. Social services kinda blows.

edited 7th Jan '11 4:03:56 PM by Pykrete

Penguin4Senate Since: Aug, 2009
#5: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:09:21 PM

Does anyone know how many people undergo IVF due to purely genetic (that is, inheritable) infertility? As opposed to same-sex couples, or people who are infertile for some other reason?

but I do think the negatives heavily outweight the positives

It's not that I don't agree with you on some level - yes, I'd rather they adopt, and while we're on the subject people should be having fewer babies because I don't want my money going to a billion kids etc. - but it's simply not going to happen, although we can certainly educate and encourage adoption and shake up reproductive trends a bit. But keeping in mind how much infertile couples stand to gain by this procedure, and considering that your tax money would be going to other people's kids no matter how they were conceived, I can't raise any strong objections to IVF that wouldn't apply to all pregnancies anyway.

edited 7th Jan '11 4:13:12 PM by Penguin4Senate

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#6: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:20:23 PM

Why should people not be allowed to have children, it's a right, you know?

I would tend to disagree with this statement; I don't think having children shoudl be a right. It should be a responsibility that you are only given when you've demonstrated that you have the ability to cope with it.

It has always amazed me that the two things which involve putting a living thing's lives in your hands, owning pets and having children, are considered rights and not privileges.

Of course, that remark isn't really directed at infertile couples and same sex couples, because some of them would probably do a much better job than some people who currently can have children.

But I do agree that we should focus on finding good homes for the children we already have rather than spending oodles of money just so that couples can have children biologically theirs.

edited 7th Jan '11 4:21:00 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#7: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:28:12 PM

[up]It is indeed an odd thing that you can have your own kid, breed your own pets, or buy pets from pet stores with no, or essentially no, restrictions, but adopting a pet from a shelter (that is, one who actually needs a home) is difficult and adopting a child (who actually needs a home) is about as easy as getting access to Fort Knox.

But there's no good alternative, at least in the first case, because a) placing kids into bad homes would be Very Very Bad, and b) controlling human reproduction would be eugenics, which is Very Very Very Very Bad.

And while I tend to agree with you, it also feels like punishing the infertile couples (or rewarding the fertile ones), which doesn't seem fair. I immediately want to suggest some sort of incentives for adoption, but the trouble is that once there's any sort of reward for adopting a kid, you risk creating a market for children, which would be Very Very Very...you get the idea.

edited 7th Jan '11 4:30:49 PM by jewelleddragon

TheDevouringPlague Since: Dec, 1969
#8: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:38:12 PM

Well, fostering a child already gets you shit tonnes of money.

And I do mean a LOT of money.

Tongpu Since: Jan, 2001
#9: Jan 7th 2011 at 4:51:42 PM

What do you guys think about IVF treatment and it's role in society?
Were I in a position to do so, I'd abolish the practice completely, as with surrogacy, fertility drugs, and other mechanisms which 1)allow people to create more spawn than they could have done on their own, and 2)provide alternatives to adoption.

"why should people not be allowed to have children, it's a right, you know?"
It may be agreed by most that people have the negative liberty to reproduce as they see fit without external interference  *, but this does not imply that they have the positive liberty to access any technologies that could help them reproduce.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#10: Jan 7th 2011 at 5:00:57 PM

The adoption process should be easier, in my opinion. Having safety precautions and all that is good, of course, but when it prevents children from getting a loving home it needs looking at.

A friend of mine was adopted from Sri Lanka. She said once that her parents had a mild resentment towards celebrities who did the same, because they make it look so easy. They've been trying to get a brother or sister for her for years with no luck.

Be not afraid...
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#11: Jan 7th 2011 at 5:11:31 PM

Why not just adopt?

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#12: Jan 7th 2011 at 5:14:25 PM

One of the families in my church got lonely after the nest emptied out, so they adopted a couple more waii

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#13: Jan 7th 2011 at 7:56:16 PM

You know Devouring Plague a lot of what your saying makes sense to me, but rather then look closed minded i'm going to just compare you to hitler from now on. Fascist :P

Anyway I have been annoying people here with bioethics threads about the implications of sperm donation, IVF abuse, embryonic destruction, euthanasia and surrogate custody rights. so this is an big issue to me. However I will try to keep my posts focused and brief.

If a man and a woman decide to make a baby that's their business. You can't stop them. Having Laws regarding what people can do with their own bodies would be a violation of basic rights. The state has no place in the bedrooms of it's citizens.

IVF on the other hand is an elective medical procedure. If your a doctor providing an elective service then you *have to* abide by medical and business ethics. If your running a service with the aim of creating a child then you have a duty to see that they are going to go to a good home. IVF is not a right.

edited 7th Jan '11 8:55:57 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
Drakyndra Her with the hat from Somewhere Since: Jan, 2001
Her with the hat
#14: Jan 7th 2011 at 11:40:46 PM

Adoption would be more popular if the process was simpler. As has been mentioned, while ensuring the adoptive parents will be good for the child is important, as things currently stand it is an incredibly difficult and time-consuming process. IVF is considered a far easier process.

In the case of IVF - these people will probably be better parents than those who accidentally get pregnant, given the effort they are willing to go to for a child.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#15: Jan 8th 2011 at 12:24:57 AM

As will adoptive parents for that matter tongue

TheDevouringPlague Since: Dec, 1969
#16: Jan 8th 2011 at 6:54:17 AM

You know Devouring Plague a lot of what your saying makes sense to me, but rather then look closed minded i'm going to just compare you to hitler from now on. Fascist :P

The worst part is that I am actually quite authoritarian in political beliefs. Protect the flock and deal with the wolves. :p

I don't even know if "communist" is the right description for more. More "fascio-socialist"? :p

If a man and a woman decide to make a baby that's their business. You can't stop them. Having Laws regarding what people can do with their own bodies would be a violation of basic rights. The state has no place in the bedrooms of it's citizens.

IVF on the other hand is an elective medical procedure. If your a doctor providing an elective service then you *have to* abide by medical and business ethics. If your running a service with the aim of creating a child then you have a duty to see that they are going to go to a good home. IVF is not a right.

Personally, I think certain people should not be allowed to have children (say if they abuse all their children emotionally / physically, get them all taken away and then proceed to HAVE ANOTHER DAMN BABY which needs to go through another bunch of appeals processes...), but that is WAAAAY too fascistic to admit to in public. :p

Sadly, if you're capable of proving that your life is harmed by lack of a child (through depression, usually, which really isn't that hard of a medical condition to fake), you're basically on the road to having a child through IVF.

Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#17: Jan 8th 2011 at 8:53:21 AM

Am I the only one who thinks the prerequisites should be the other way around? I mean, if you fall into clinical depression because you don't have a kid, then clearly you're not emotionally stable and independent enough to be a responsible, level-headed parent.

I'd also like to chime in general support for adoption. Orphanages are the 'family business' so to speak, and I've seen a lot, and I mean a LOT, of perfectly good kids who just wanted someone to give a damn about them get flushed down the toilet. Not all orphanages are bad, although corruption and simple inefficiency aren't uncommon; nonetheless, many of them are doing the very best they can to make those kids happy and healthy. But at the end of the day they're always overcrowded and low on funds.

It's the same problem, and principle for a solution required, that we deal with in pets. Paying large amounts of money for a well-bred pet is short-sighted and vain compared to adopting one of the countless unwanted cats in shelters that get put down due to overcrowding every month. A lot of people use parenthood and pet-ownership as just ways to extend their own egos. I wish more would take the trouble to think about the other life in the equation too.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Tongpu Since: Jan, 2001
#18: Jan 8th 2011 at 9:37:07 AM

Pet ownership's another thing I would completely abolish.

wuggles (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#19: Jan 8th 2011 at 5:23:43 PM

[up] Just curious, why? I can't tell if you're serious or not, so I'm just gonna say you are.

As for the OP, I pretty much agree with joeyjojo. If adoption were easier, people wouldn't be thinking that it wasn't an option.

LilPaladinSuzy Chaotic New Troll from 4chan Since: Jul, 2010
Chaotic New Troll
#20: Jan 8th 2011 at 5:35:29 PM

I personally think that people should adopt unwanted children instead of making new ones, but it's really up to the couple to decide whether they want to do IVF or adopt. Some women want the experience of pregnancy because they think it will help them bond to their child. Some couples pick IVF because of a serious risk of inherited diseases.

I'm not sure what goes on in the adoption systems in the United Kingdom, but in America it is seriously flawed. It costs a lot of money and involves a lot of paperwork. Also, parents who give their children up for adoption and revoke their parental status still have the right to see the child, and are literally allowed to approach the child on the playground and say, "Hey kid, I'm your real mom!" That can be overly traumatic for children and is an infringement upon the adoptive parents' rights to tell their kids they were adopted when they are ready. The fact that adoption is so difficult in America is one of the primary reasons why so many American families adopt children from overseas, or attempt IVF.

edited 8th Jan '11 5:35:45 PM by LilPaladinSuzy

Would you kindly click my dragons?
Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#21: Jan 8th 2011 at 5:45:10 PM

One problem with the adoption process is that the incentives for those who run the adoption systems are completely skewed. They are extremely sensitive to the idea that they might screw up and place a child in a less-than-perfect home — but if their policies result in a child not being adopted at all, nobody seems to blame them.

In most cases, not being adopted means a childhood spent in foster care. The odds of a less-than-perfect home are so high in foster care you'd think that there wouldn't be that resistance to adoption — the odds of a good home and good adoptive parents are so much higher — but the perceived risks and rewards to adoption workers work against that outcome.

Pretty much every person I know who went through foster care was sexually abused while in care.

A brighter future for a darker age.
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#22: Jan 8th 2011 at 6:41:57 PM

I am 100% in favor of adoption and in favor of people having fewer babies, but I don't like some people being forced into that option, whether they feel it's appropriate for them or not, through no fault of their own (or, to put it the other way, people being able to forgo that option through no virtue of their own). The alternates are all probably worse, though.

P.S. Adoption is also hella expensive, especially out-of-country, which I've read costs around $30,000.

Tongpu Since: Jan, 2001
#23: Jan 8th 2011 at 7:06:50 PM

Just curious, why?
I haven't worked out everything that bugs me about the whole pet phenomenon, but Karkadinn's last paragraph covered some of it. Another thing is that the combination of anthropomorphization and commodification leaves me with a creepy Slave Race vibe.

Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#24: Jan 8th 2011 at 9:01:53 PM

To many people there is an inherent difference between children they gave birth to and adopted one. They do not feel that the adopted child is "theirs", and adoption for them is not a substitute to having children of their own. Why not respect that?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#25: Jan 8th 2011 at 9:07:52 PM

"To many people there is an inherent difference between children they gave birth to and adopted one. They do not feel that the adopted child is "theirs", and adoption for them is not a substitute to having children of their own. Why not respect that?" - Beholderess

Because it's at the expense of children who are already born and don't have a family, and raises the human population in the process?


Total posts: 57
Top