Ivf

[rockytriton]

I was listening to a commercial where they were talking about IVF (Invitro Fertilization), and it got me thinking. Personally, I think that if you can't have kids naturally, why would you go about doing it unnaturally? I can think of two different points of view on it, from that of a religious person and from that of a scientific person (and of course a combination of the two). From a religious person's perspective, I would think they would think that if God did not want them to have a baby naturally, then maybe it isn't the time for them or maybe they shouldn't have one. On the other side, from a scientific person's point of view, maybe the body chemistry has a reason for not getting pregnant, maybe there would be complications, or maybe because of some type of natural selection, you are not supposed to have children. It seems both points of view would say not to have kids. On top of this, there is no shortage of people in this world by a long shot, and there is also no shortage of kids in need of adoption. I guess I just don't understand why people would do this sort of things. Maybe someone else can enlighten me on the opposing points of view here.

[Tormod]

I have friends who got twins through IVF. The mother is Christian and the father is atheist, which would make an interesting case here perhaps.

The reason for them to do this was a very strong longing to have their "own" child. Being a father of two girls myself I have no problems understanding that.

I think adoption isn't for everyone - nor is IVF.

An interesting fact is that after about 10 unsuccessful years of "natural" attempts, they had a naturally conceived child about 15 months after the IVF twins were born. I have heard that this is not uncommon.

[rockytriton]

I am a father of two myself, I also have friends who were having problems conceiving. They had been trying for about 6 or 7 years. They were close to trying IVF, but the husband tried accupuncture first and two months later they were pregnant. I don't know what their religious beliefs are, I know he grew up in a strict Christian house and he was a rebel as a youth, so I'm pretty sure he is an atheist. I never asked him for his reasoning for thinking of IVF though, I think it's kinda rude to ask someone personally about that sort of thing. Still, I just don't understand the reasoning. The worse part about it I think is that these people, who through different reasonings, probably should not have kids, sometimes end up having triples or quadruplets when they do IVF!

[rockytriton]

By the way, I think this belongs in the philosophy and humanties section, I didn't mean to post it here, so maybe an admin can move it.

[Tormod]

Hm - I actually thought it was fit for Social sciences.

[rockytriton]

ok thanks!

[Biochemist]

My little guy is 4 years old. He was an IVF child, via ICSI (intracellular sperm injection), a relatively sophisticated technique. We also had to do PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) to figure out which embryos were likely to remain viable post implantation. It was reasonably experimental at the time. It made for a somewhat expensive process.

Most conservative Christians don't have any opinion about morality of IVF. I heard one gent that did (about 20 years ago) but that is the only comment I ever heard.

I never regarded IVF as a moral issue. Disposition of "extra" embryos is a much more thorny problem.

[rockytriton]

It just seems kinda strange to me that some conservatives go crazy about others playing God but have no issues with this. I guess this is one of those cases where the ends justifies the means.

[Michaelangelica]

I would try American Indian squaw herbs before IVF.
They are very effective and much cheaper and less invasive than IVF
Many herbalists specialise in fertility promotion.
Remember the pill came from a Yam.

On adoption
Cultural attitudes spell few adoptions | The Japan Times Online

Adoption is less common in Japan than in some Western countries. In 2004, family courts recognized only 322 adoptions of children under 6, according to official statistics. There were also 998 children over age 6 adopted the same year.

By contrast, in 2004, 5,360 children in England and Wales found new families. In Germany the figure was 5,064. And as many as 1.6 million children under 18 found new homes in the United States.

Many factors can affect adoption rates, including legal differences and cultural notions of family. But a big reason for the small number in Japan is that there are few children considered good candidates for would-be parents.

"Most couples want healthy babies and they want to raise them as if they were their own, but we tell them their chances are slim," said Harumi Takahashi at the Tokyo Metropolitan Government's Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health, which deals with adoptions and foster parenting.

Currently, some 30,000 children under 18 are living in welfare facilities around the country. They may have suffered abuse; their parents may be too ill or financially unable to care for them; their parents may be in prison or may have simply given them up.
Some children are placed in foster care temporarily and eventually reunited with their parents.

But of course, not all the children waiting for permanent homes are "desirable": many are older, some have disabilities.

Another limiting factor is the reluctance of many biological parents to give up their parental rights even though they cannot raise their children, said Takahashi. With the exception of orphans, the biological parents must give their consent for adoption to be possible.

(So too in the west. So why the big difference?)

[LJP07]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

On top of this, there is no shortage of people in this world by a long shot, and there is also no shortage of kids in need of adoption.

That sentence, doesn't even come close to how the 'would-be' parents might feel, they are desperate to have a child and maybe an occurance likle an accident may have happened that pushes them to get the baby no matter what the consequence on population or adoption rates.

There is also one other issue you failed to mention in your opening post that's important and that's when old people 47+ decide to get IVF. This can have two consequences on the baby if it's born:

1. Higher chance of genetic defect or mental disturbance.
2. The baby might not get to know the mother to a reasonable age especially if over 55 even though womens time of life is 45-55 to stop producing eggs, disease is very common above that age and the mother might become incapable or exhausted when the child is 4-5 and she would be in her sixties.

Although reason one should be good enough to not let them do such a thing. An article somewhere read that the oldest person to have a baby was either in her mid-sixties or early seventies, that's not fair on the baby.

As regards my opinion on IVF, I believe it should be allowed in certain circumstances but not the one above as mentioned. There's no reason to not let them have the baby except in exceptional circumstances as we all know as normally the people doing it are at the right age, and will care for the child due to their desperation to have it, there reallt isn't a disadvantage only unless their is a high risk for that individual to have disease, spread it or the baby has a risk.