Fertility treatments and overpopulation

I'd say that your focus, in regard to overpopulation, is all wrong. Fertility treatments are necessary in the idustrialized world because fertilityis declining. Many studies out of the EU suggest that this is concommitant with the rise in prosperity and material security in industrialized countries. It seems to me that the best way to limit human population growth if not to actually decrease it is to assure the economic security of as many people in the world as possible. When all nations have material security, it is possible that birth rates all over the world will decline.

Even without studies to show that fertilityis declining in industrialized nations, there are some pretty simple equations going on here. In countries without economic security, and especially in pre-industrial nations, people willfully have large families for the simple reason that it's the closest thing to a retirement plan they can get--lots'of children means a greater probability that one or a few will make it to adulthood and be able to provide a home for the parents when they are too old to work any longer. (This can be seen historically in Europe in the middle ages, where manor court records show older serfs bargaining their rights in property with their adult children for a "retirement" plan, with provisions as specific as a stool by the fire, a pailasse and blanket by the fire, a specified number of meals per week, meat served a specified number of time per month, and a new suit of clothing annually.)

Additionally, many people in very poor agrarian nations follow the dictum that many hands make light work. They literally give birth to their work force. Improving the economic prospects of such nations would go a long way to discouraging the impulse to reproduce rapidly and without restriction.

All the individuals I have known that have both gone through adoption and fertility have thought about it thoroughly - again you are drawing a blanket statement - most people are not like octomom.

The cost, the time committment to either adoption or fertility is so high, that most people do thoroughly think this through.

The ones that just pop out babies need more counselling than those going through fertility - just the cost and committment alone requires thought - not to mention that quality fertility doctors do counsel and discuss the pros and cons.

Octomom situation is the exception not the rule.

I totally disagree.

Having fertility problems affect's folks mental health which can have a direct effect on physical well being.






I'm very glad we chose to have IVF.

He is the greatest gift and blessing. His being in the world is not simply beneficial/selfish to our family - he is a blessing to many and makes a difference in the world; the world is a better place with him in it.

I do not see that having a baby that is cared for, just as loved and cherished as conceiving a child naturally, is in any way selfish or self indulgent.

I don't actually understand your reasoning Dawg re overpopulation...

Please explain further if you will...

Why is conceiving a child by artificial means in order to "give life" any different to "saving a life" when an animal has been brought to you to help, or a patient goes to hospital.

If your objection to artificial conception is simply because the planet is over populated and that it is selfish, why do you save the lives the animals (or a doctor saves the lives of his patients) when the planet is overpopulated? Why do we, as humans, do all that we can to increase the length of our lives? Why do we try to eat healthily and exercise - to help our bodies and live longer? Why shouldn't a person wish to have a biological baby in their life... in the same way that we choose to help our elderly live longer?

If it's simply about overpopluating... then we should all live very unhealthily to ensure we don't live as long.

*Why is that we therefore don't just let everybody, everything die off until we decide the planet has a sustainable life force? No treatment for illness, no trying to save lives. How do we decide who should live and who should die? Who decides how many children should be conceived by one family? If there are means to have a child, just as there are means to cure cancer by having an operation or having any medical procedure at all or taking any medications to prolong life and make life more bearable, why would it be abhorrent for an individual to choose, if it's possible, to have a blood child?

Do you believe if a man or woman is about to undergo chemo and lose any chance of becoming a biological parent, that they should not be able to harvest sperm or eggs at that time, for use in the future? Should they just accept that life dealt them a blow and accept it as tough luck on wishing to parent a biological child with the person they love.





*Yes, that is simplistic - but I don't know if I will ever understand judgements made on folks who wish to have a baby with medical assitance when unable to conceive naturally.

Couples who receive fertility treatments generally don't intend to do the gene pool a favor. Nor do they have to. The question is, are they harming anybody else? I don't see that they do (or that they help, either), assuming that they pay for the treatment and the child's upbringing. If they prefer a do-it-yourself child over an acquired one, and if they want to get some help with the do-it-yourself part, that's their call.

I'm not sure it really belongs on this particular thread and it's a very complicated issue but, briefly...

I don't think young women who place kids for adoption really understand what they're getting themselves into, even with mandatory counseling.

Most young women who consider this option first call adoption agencies, who are working for clients that are looking for babies. I'm not sure they always have the pregnant woman's best interest at heart.

I don't think there should ever be pre-birth agreements and I have real qualms about expectant mothers even meeting potential adoptive parents as it can make it much harder for them to make decisions for themselves once the baby arrives. Also, it's terribly difficult for people waiting to adopt and feeling like they've been "guaranteed" a baby when the birth mother changes her mind, which she has every right to do.

In other news.... I have such a hard time with the fact that so many people think that a kid from American foster care is in worse shape than a kid from an overseas orphanage. Yes, the American foster care system has problems but when you consider there are half a million kids in foster care at any given time, we really do a pretty decent job.

That makes sense.

I appreciate that, I do. Still, I have to say from my personal perspective that this still sounds like a version of "I want it," and to me creating another human life to alleviate one's own emotional scarring seems... I dunno, but I question that motivation.



And I carry a measure of this, as well. Certainly pursuing treatment seems like a more aggressive and proactive course of action, though.



No, but not all treatments of medical conditions result in the creation of a new human being.



I have heard folks say that they really want their own a time or two, but, no, it doesn't seem to be the most frequently expressed motivation.



Frankly, I think that's a pretty rosy picture of what you'll find in animal shelters, at least in my decade of volunteering and working in them. But, actually, the catalyst for starting this thread wasn't the fertility treatment thing, but a fellow veterinarian who complained that none of the Basenji rescues would adopt to her, and so she was being "forced" to go to a breeder. When I asked what was so special about Basenjis that another dog wouldn't suffice, her answer was, essentially but not explicitly, "because I want one." Which got my mind to wandering.

Nonetheless, I do know several couples in their mid- to late-thirties who have gone the fertility clinic route to have babies. I only know one couple who have pursued adoption, and they are actually young and idealistic, and don't want to make their own.



I am well aware of declining fertility rates in the first world, and frankly I don't see it as a problem. I've no doubt that immigration will continue to bolster the populations of these nations, if that is a concern. And I don't think that people not pursuing fertility treatment in these nations would have a significant impact on the global population. From what I've read, probably the most important factor in that regard is to work to ensure that women everywhere have access to education and opportunities for economic gain.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think anybody is a monster for using their financial resources to make babies, I just really don't understand it as anything other than a self-serving choice.



I'm glad that it has worked out for you. Really.



Because I think there is a fundamental difference between preventing suffering and creating new life. Professionally, actually, considerably more of my effort to this point has gone toward providing pet sterilization to people who can't afford it than preventing illness, because I've worked in a scenario where I actually see the direct effects of overpopulation (among cats, not people) every day. It doesn't make me rue the cats who have homes and are healthy and well-cared for, but it certainly doesn't make me want to help make more of them, either.



Ever reasonable, Thomas. And where it comes to any decision regarding public policy and the like, that's my line, as well. Personally, though, it's apparently a different issue for me (and for Beth and some others as well).



Amen to that...

Well, PD, if you don'tthink that fertility treatments are a factor in overpopulation, i am bemused by the title of the thread.

Then maybe you've too literal a turn of mind. For me, contemplation of the one informs contemplation of the other, even if it's not an avenue to meaningful change.

I don't see how it does. Contemplating overpopulation can inform any couple who contemplates getting pregnant, whether it needs biochemical help or not.

Maybe your turn of mind is not literal enough. If you want to contemplate fertility treatments and overpopulation, you're linking them. Then you come along later to say that you're not linking them. I think you're a mugwump--you've got mug on one side of the fence, and your "wump" on the other. Really, you can't have it both ways.

OK, boys, I get it. Title as point of departure not allowed. Headline/thesis/explication it shall be henceforth. (All right, probably not.)

And as to the, "can inform any pregnancy": yes, absolutely, yes it can.

Mebbe I can draw out my train of thought more clearly. To me, it looks like this:

Monday: I want a baby.
Wednesday: Oh, turns out our stuff doesn't work.
Thursday: But I REALLY WANT a baby.
Friday: Hey, doc, help us make a baby.
Sunday: Yay, another baby, and it's MINE!

No, it's not a logical problem-solution observation, but to me there is a palpable -- perhaps only symbolic -- difference between, "let's pull the goalie and see if we can have a baby in a crowded world" and "lets employ medical science to help me conceive in a crowded world."

And maybe I'm an asshole for feeling like there's a difference, and maybe I'm an asshole for not applauding everybody who has a kid (though, really, kudos to those who raise them well once they've had them). If I'm an asshole, I'm an asshole. I can live with that. At least my kid won't be one.

That seems to be a core difference, because it's all the same to me.

Just to cross-check: I'm obese. If I wanted to become a father, I would have to employ a dietitian and a personal trainer to lose fat, gain muscle, and get a fertile woman in the sack in the first place. Any objections on your part? If not, what difference is there between employing dietitians and trainers on the one hand and employing doctors on the other?

Strikes me as hubris, I guess. Which is surely ironic...

(Written before you'd edited and added the second paragraph.)

I'd be puzzled if siring an heir was your sole aim in that undertaking, and would probably raise an eyebrow to that.

I could understand your reasoning if what you state here is true - but it isn't.

Most couples do not decide in one day to have a child. They talk it out and when they decide they are ready they "try". You wouldn't know just a couple of days later if it "worked". And doctors will not provide fertility treatment until quite a while after you have been "trying". For most it is a year. Although if a woman is older and has had some sort of health issues, they may provide fertility treatments after 6 months.

So it isn't a situation where you try for a little while and then bam get fertility. And then bam have a baby. The time, the committment is such - that I couldn't imagine some one would just rush into it without thinking it through.

I understand this. I was using the days of the week to indicate a passage of time, like Genesis would have it that the earth was created in 7 days. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Believe me, I've had friends going through this process (and I haven't expressed my thoughts to them, which is probably why they're coming out here).

that goes to my opinion that counselling would be more helpful than fertility treatment

But even with your day simplification you really have it backwards.

1) Do we want children? How would it impact our careers? Can we afford the million dollars it takes to raise a child? How will it change our marriage? Isn't the world overpopulated? Let's think about this a lot. Ok, we weighed out the pros and cons and decided we want to have a child
2) We've been trying for months, let's try some more.
3) Maybe we should see a doctor.
4) Oh my GOD, I'm infertile. It's going to cost thousands! Is it worth it? Should we just forget the whole thing?
5) No, we thought about it and we want to proceed. We know the odd are against us and we are likely looking at a lot of heartache.

The whole "world is overpopulated" discussion happens upfront. Whether you get the child at step 2 or step 5 doesn't matter. If bringing a child into the world is a selfish act it is equally selfish at step 5 as at step 2. I'd say the selfish folks are those who bring a child into the world with absolutely no thought, rather than those who put so much consideration into their decision. If you think people pursue fertility treatments in the cavalier way you suggest, maybe you should sit down with those friends of yours and talk to them about how it really works.

Just as an aside, is there a direct comparison between this discussion and the abortion debate? How do those who insist that someone who is unwilling to have a child or unable to support one have one anyway compare to those who believe that someone who is both willing and able to support one should not conceive?