Fertility treatments and overpopulation

Beyond bad.

Bad and self-indulgent.

I don't think anyone is that important to keep in the global gene pool.

Ditto. I've had several friends that have gone through thousands and thousands of dollars worth of treatment just to have a child that they could have easily adopted and given a good home to.

I think it's better to adopt than to undergo fertility treatments, but it's one of those things that I understand. It's better to ride your bike everywhere than drive a car or even take public transportation. It's better to use no electricity. It's better to eat only food that you've grown in your own yard. Etc.

Re: fertility treatment couples, I do think there's a spectrum, from more sympathetic to least.

Most sympathetic would probably be people like my friends who, in their early 30's, had a very hard time conceiving. She received some fertility treatments, and it worked on the first try. I have a hard time condemning them.

I do think there are situations that are just stupid and crazy and wasteful, though, when adoption would make a lot more sense.

I went for about a year before sozlet was conceived (which I thought was a cruel joke considering how much time, effort, and expense I'd put into birth control in the decade or so beforehand), and I'm not certain I wouldn't have done some sort of fertility treatment if it turned out that's all I needed to have a biological child.

I probably would have adopted before it got too extreme -- but I don't know.

I do know that the whole overpopulated planet thing is part (not a huge part, but part) of why I chose to have only one instead of more.

Indifferent, assuming that patient pay for their treatment---and for raising their children, of course.

I'm kind of all over the place on this one...

I'm not a fan of newborn/infant adoption. I have a lot of ethical problems with it. And, we might as well face it, (most) people want babies.

Like Thomas, I'm not really willing to dictate how a person spends their money or exercises their reproductive options so I'm okay with fertility treatments. If we had socialized medicine I might feel very differently about it.

Exactly my sentiment.

These pretty much sum up my visceral response...






But, then, it's difficult for me to empathize, because I have no desire to raise anybody's child, including my own. And certainly I don't look at my largely dysfunctional immediate and extended family and fell that I owe it to society to pass that along. (Out of eight adults in my generation in my family, only one has spawned, and there are maybe two of the younger ones that I suspect might...)



And this I agree with too...

...except, maybe, for the magnitude of the decision. Going out of my way to put another person (or two*) on the planet to drive cars, and use electricity, and so forth.

* I know not one but two women my age who've seen a specialist in the last couple of years and ended up with fraternal twins...




And if I put on my rational-but-not-draconian hat I know this is how I should feel:





But I did want to see just how odious and out of line my feelings are. Maybe bumping up the thread a bit will bring in somebody who will say that we haters are monsters...

If they intended to have only one kid (ever) and instead had two, I get the objection -- but two is pretty standard, even on the low side, for total kids in a family. ( know a lot of 3 to 5 kid families.) I don't have a problem with someone having two at once instead of two a couple of years apart. Doesn't really make much of a difference at the end, and might even be more resources-friendly, not sure. (Lots of sharing...)

I do think that Gosselinesque mega-families are a bad idea, and evidently some steps have been taken to prevent that sort of thing. (Have to find it back, a blurb I read in the NYT about new guidelines saying that no more than [two?] fertilized embryos should be placed at a time...)

I went through one round of infertility treatment - unsuccessfully and then opted for adoption. Best choice ever!

One of my colleagues is in his second marriage now and his new wife wanted a baby so badly despite them being older. They've gone through infertility treatments twice, had several surrogate problems with one stillborn and were finally successful in their journey to have a baby. Everyone shook their head about them, but they're the proudest parents now and that kid is one happy camper.

Who are we to judge? Should potential parents be denied parenthood due to overpopulation which is an issue mainly in third world countries? No, certainly not!

I do have issues though with infertility specialists whose code of ethics is questionable, as it was in the case of "octo-mom", or the Orange County specialist who took frozen embryos of one couple and transferred them into another woman and we all have read about the fertility specialist who used his own sperm to fertilize the eggs of his female patients. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Jacobson

It can be very devastating to a couple not being able to conceive on their own, and adoption is not for everyone, so they may opt for fertility treatments and should have the right to do so.

So what is the other alternative if a couple would like to have a baby? Not to have or adopt. Adoption - knowing people that have adopted is much harder than you would expect - also many adoptive children have issues some major - this isn't right for some people and screw the kid up worse.

I do know a couple that has adopted and they have been successful, but only because of the type of people they are - how many couples do you know that could handle a child with social and developmental issues and another that is a burn victim going through multiple sugeries? Not many.

I also know couples who have gone through fertilty with success and not success. To me this is more a personal issue.

I think if someone has a medical condition and they want to seek medical attention for it there is no reason why I would complain.

To me, the notion that overpopulation is primarily a third-world problem is both narrow- and short-sighted. The most dramatic effects of crowding, environmental degradation, and resource scarcity may be most apparent in the most impoverished of nations (of course), but a mouth is a mouth the world around. Just because a child in the first world doesn't feel the effects of mining in China, of millions of wood-fired hearths in India, of drought and poor soil in the horn of Africa, doesn't mean that they (and I) aren't part of the problem.

It also doesn't mean that when they grow up that the effects of the sheer mass of the human population won't affect them directly. Who knows how long we in the "west" can maintain our standard of living, and maybe my inner Malthus makes me take a dimmer view of the immediate future of humanity than I should, but it seems to me that the median standard of living in developed nations isn't likely to become significantly better or even hold steady in the coming decades.

So, to me, the relative merits of going to extraordinary* lengths to create another human life to satisfy a personal need to have a child (either one's own or, if adoption seems daunting, at all) seems like a remarkably selfish enterprise. Which isn't to claim a general moral high ground. I intend to live out the rest of my own life in relative comfort, if I can manage it, in spite of all the negative externalities of my doing so. But to me, the idea of going to a fertility clinic to create new human life is like going to a breeder instead of an animal shelter to get a new pet: you are adding to the problem for the sake of getting just the thing you want.

The fact that fertility treatment is addressing a medical problem also doesn't hold much water with me. Infertility isn't a problem that adversely affects a person's health. If a woman's urogenital conformation and biochemistry aren't particularly amenable to fertilization and implantation, or if my sperm are stupid and swim in circles instead of forward, we aren't going to suffer and die. This is not the same as being treated for COPD or EPI or asthma or a femoral fracture: there is no suffering or loss of existing life involved in foregoing treatment.




Which isn't to say that I would support any sort of ban on fertility treatment or anything like that. I don't even know that I would support its exclusion from a single-player health care plan (though I wouldn't take to the streets to oppose its exclusion, either). But, as I said earlier, I do not at all share the desire to procreate and raise up little kiddies. I have never, ever had sex, not even drunkenly and recklessly, without contraception, and frankly would have no problem with seeking an abortion should contraception fail. And as soon as I can afford it, I'm going to get that vasectomy I've had my eye on for years.


So, yeah, I guess I just don't get it. Which is awkward, since my cohort is reaching an age where the window is closing on reproduction and a lot of my coupled friends are doing exactly this sort of thing so that they can spawn their own little fry, and I'm expected to share in their enthusiasm for shiny new life and mounds of toys and books and diapers (yes, their consciences tell them to use cloth diapers, but most are using disposable for the sake of convenience). Certainly it does seem to be the ultimate time suck, and apparently their is some neurohormonal kickback in the parents' brains that makes it all seem wonderful and worthwhile, but...

OK, done with rant, I guess.



* Please note that by "extraordinary" I don't mean anything super-fantastical, just beyond ordinary means, which to me in this circumstance would mean unprotected sex generally around ovulation.

totally in agreement with the entire post/rant



I tend to ask people who are talking to be about fertility treatment why they want to parent and why it has to be their 'blood'.

I'm not nice about it in real life. The definite upside is that people learn quickly not to talk to me about this - I'm just not sympathetic toward it.

Kinda like asking me for relationship advice in real life. Don't ask me if you don't want me to tell you the truth.

I can appreciate your not joining the gene pool, so to speak, but to questions others who do seek parenthood with whatever means they have at their disposal and tap into their financial resources (fertility treatment is quite expensive) and allow them to become parents, is quite repulsive actually.

The deep emotional burden and scaring that infertility can bring to a couple
is only understood by someone who has experienced it and/or is more compassionate about these issues.

Why is going to extraordinary lengths remarkably selfish and ordinary lengths not? Isn't the outcome in both cases one additional mouth for the world to feed? It seems a natural conclusion from your post is that bearing any child is remarkably selfish regardless of the process used to achieve fertilization. I don't understand the argument that it's ok to get pregnant if it is easy but not if it is hard nor do I understand the position that poor family planning by others in the world should restrict my choices in family planning. It seems far more selfish to fail to implement responsible family planning than to implement a well thought out plan whether that involves adoption or natural child birth. (Just as an aside, having and raising any child regardless of the womb that bore him seems like a very unselfish thing to do given the drain in time and resources required.)

As to addressing a medical condition, is your point that it is only ok to address a medical condition if it affects your quality of life? Would you say that to a woman who has had a radical mastectomy and chooses reconstruction surgery? Is it ok to treat toe nail fungus? For some reason infertility is being put in a category that just about no other medical condition ever would. What is the justification for that?

that would work for understanding my position on it.

To be honest, knowing people who have gone through fertility treatment - it is less about the so-called "gene pool" than simply wanting a baby. Considering the fact of the difficulty of adopting a baby, fertility for many is a better option. It isn't that the baby has to be their genes, it is that they want a baby. Adoption is also expensive and an extremely long process.

Many people I know have tried fertililty and then if it is not successful they begin the adoption process. One such couple after trying fertitility and wasn't successful went the adoption route. After several years, they were successful in adopting a baby and then voila found they were pregnant without fertilility.

I don't judge which route a couple takes - it isn't my place. Either option can be successful - it is what works best for the couple - there are pros and cons to each and putting a blanket statement that fertility is bad is a bit short-sited.

I think this quote from boomerang is interesting:



I'm interested in hearing more about that -- I think I know what she means, but I'm not sure.

The breeder/ animal shelter part of this I agree with completely:



But I wonder if a more exact parallel is being drawn than is warranted?

People want babies, and they want puppies.

If you go to an animal shelter, you'll find puppies most of the time. If you don't find a puppy, you'll find a very young, healthy dog. If you don't find a very young dog, you'll find a well socialized, sweet, trouble-free, healthy older dog.

It's not the same with human babies.

It's much harder to find an American baby who doesn't already have issues right off the bat -- HIV+, say, or born to a mother who had severe drug or alcohol issues.

So many people go abroad to adopt -- and there is much that is ethically murky about that whole enterprise.

Adopting older kids is something that I admire greatly but I would really hesitate to do, as CJane mentioned earlier.

counselling is the best answer - likely the most cost-effective.

Seriously, I think people need to think long and hard about why they want to parent - what they want to get out of it.