12

To be clear, I'm not referring to IVF where a woman is using a "donor" egg or surrogacy, I'm referring to a woman deciding to undergo egg extraction/IVF treatments on her own body. Do you think it should be allowed given the risks it poses to a woman's health? Is it ethical?

To be clear, I'm **not** referring to IVF where a woman is using a "donor" egg or surrogacy, I'm referring to a woman deciding to undergo egg extraction/IVF treatments on her own body. Do you think it should be allowed given the risks it poses to a woman's health? Is it ethical?

103 comments

[–] [Deleted] 18 points Edited

I'm against it. I'll maybe get downvotes but I'll elaborate why. I'm not usually one to argue that "natural is always good", we all know the arguments about how poison mushrooms or bears are natural, but they'll still kill a human.

But for reproduction i can't help but think that pushing people who can't conceive naturally into taking a million harmful drugs, harmful and unhealthy egg harvesting, that's just not a good idea. Maybe I'd sing a different tune if we were on the brink of dying out but seeing that we are massively overpopulated as is and destroying the planet because we are just so many goddamn people. The other day i saw a post on reddit about a nanobot who swims decrepit sperms to the egg... And i was just thinking that is not a good idea at all. IVF kids already have much worse outcomes than normally conceived babies, like a much higher cancer risk source and now soon we'll have rotten sperm in the mix too, artificially carried to the egg.

Having children is not a human right and people of both sexes need to come to terms with that.

Edit: fastest downvotes i ever got 😂

[–] Fluffy_gender -2 points Edited

You do know that injecting a sperm cell into an egg is already a thing, right? The nano bot is only making it easier, without having to rely on the clinician's skill

I fail to see how this connects to what i said? Presumably if they inject an egg with a sperm they're not gonna use a decrepit one?

It's very unecessary, we are overpopulated and it's time to teach women that their life can be complete without a kid. These industries prey on their insecurities.

It's kind of infantilizing to treat it as a "teaching moment" because it implies that women might only want to have kids because of societal conditioning, vs. genuinely desiring children.

I don' t think the procedure is unethical per se, I don' t think the children born like that are unnatural or something and I don' t think it should be made illegal, but lately all these treatments for fertility just bother me a lot. They all come from the obsession of getting pregnant/having children at all cost, and I don' t think it' s healthy physically or emotionally.

In general, I have been having lots of issues with medical procedures that are not done to fix a problem or save a life lately, and this definitely is one of them.

I know it' s important for many women, but I think it would be better for them to accept that having children is hard/impossible and move on.

having children is hard/impossible and move on

It's obviously not impossible if IVF can solve the problem...

I can’t and won’t gatekeep adult women, with no cognitive impairment, doing IVF with their own eggs and body. I simply can’t judge or serve pronouncements on personal choice.

I believe strongly in reproductive choice for women over their own bodies.

I do not think that it is any more unethical than women having plastic surgery for breast reduction if she has large breasts with shoulder indentations or or suffering backaches.

I do not agree in the selling of body parts, including eggs, and I am against surrogacy. To me, it is taking advantage of a woman that may feel forced to literally sell her baby or her eggs for financial reasons.

"I can’t and won’t gatekeep adult women, with no cognitive impairment, doing IVF with their own eggs and body"

Thank you! My god, at last some sanity on this thread.

My general gut tells me it is not ethical. There is a finite amount of money and resources, and it should be spent on other things. And a woman might start with a generally healthy body that could be a lot less healthy after IVF treatments.

Also, there's the principle of letting other people make their own poor choices. So, I am not really supportive of IVF, but also would not support outlawing it.

[–] [Deleted] 16 points Edited

It's unsafe and unnecessary.

[–] DonnaFemina 0 points Edited

It's safe in the sense of "low risk" (there's no such thing as "no risk"), and it's necessary for subfertile/infertile people who want to have children who are biologically theirs.

Or who can't afford adoption (which costs $30-$50k, far more than IVF). Or who have ethical issues with adoption (such as not wanting to benefit from the fact that XYZ foreign country torments women who give birth outside marriage and forces them to relinquish their babies).

And please, before you get into the "but what about adopting from foster care" thing, remember that childless people who deeply want their own children and have zero parenting experience are perhaps not the best option for parenting traumatized older kids?

I had my children with IVF. It took one round and I had twins. Their father had a health condition. I'm glad I did it, no regrets and I suffered no health issues at all. It was not fun but the whole pregnancy business is generally not fun.

Interestingly, one of my twins is dead set against having their own children and is looking into becoming a foster parent to give children the happy childhood she had. The other is indifferent about the whole thing. They both skew towards the rad fem on politics and not lib fem so I think it was worth it.

The world population issue is complex. There are parts of Europe that pay you to move there and have children, despite us taking in refugees and immigrants, which are necessary for a country's growth. Japan sells more adult nappies than baby nappies. So many elderly people die alone because no one checks on them since families are so small. Their population problem is huge because they have almost no immigration. China had to relax their one child rule. Korea is facing a similar issue.

In countries with high birth rates, there is also high mortality. It is not the people in poor countries causing all the damage to the environment and taking all the resources but the very rich countries.

IVF is like all reproductive health issues: private. It has the potential to be thornier ethically but with right wingers just constantly having families the sizes of sporting teams, I feel if a few rad fems use IVF to increase our numbers a wee bit that's OK. But I'm in Europe where it isn't the quite the financial commitment it may be in the US.

Also, all scientific breakthrough has some downsides. Science can help us and enrich our lives but it is important to remember it is a process, not just facts and figures.

Just a personal view on it. It is good we have these discussions but for women who are really struggling to conceive we should be conscious of how difficult this is. Not because it is such a patriarchal thing to be expected to have children but because as women we will all have diverse journeys. None will start with a penis though.

"IVF is like all reproductive health issues: private."

ABSOLUTELY. Thank you for saying that! My jaw just dropped at so many of the answers on this thread. HOW ON EARTH is it feminist to police other women's reproductive decisions?!?!?!

Fellow IVF mom here. fist bump

[–] LonelyKindred 12 points Edited

My opinion of most fertility treatments is that it's absolutely awesome that we can do it (science rules!) and freedom is based but also there's too many people already and the obsession with having Your Own(tm) child isn't healthy.

So... 50/50?

Yeah I’m with you. Something about the obsession with having your own biological children seems sinister to me. We have enough people and there are children out there who are desperate for a stable family. Yes I know adoption can be traumatic. But the foster care system is also terrible.

the obsession with having Your Own(tm) child isn't healthy.

It's literally the most basic and natural drive out there but OK

Nope, the most natural drives for our species are survival and food. There are millions of people who aren't interested in reproducing and that causes no health or psychological issues.

"Nope, the most natural drives for our species are survival and food"

Ok, so reproduction only comes in roughly third, then? And it could be considered the most basic and natural drive after basic survival?

Regardless of how you rank it, it's going to rank pretty fucking high. Yes, millions of people don't want kids, and that's wonderful, completely fine, and I wish them the best in their quite possibly freer and more unique lives. But the existence of some people who don't want kids doesn't change the fact that for huge numbers of people, it's a very deep, very powerful urge, and one that's built in by nature.

I'd also like to add that the mentality behind IVF is what causes surrogacy: the entitlement of having a biological kid. If they fail to conceive even through IVF, they turn to exploit other women. And what what if a woman can't do any of these things or even adopt because there aren't any kids avaiable, what should she do? This is why fertility treatments are bullshit, the best way to make infertile women happy would be to help them to accept themselves.

[–] Amareldys 5 points Edited

Her body her choice

Honestly the anti fertility treatment stance feels like one more way in which we have decided women’s health issues are not worth fixing.

No one ever says it is unnatural when diabetics use insulin, cancer patients use chemo, lyme patients use antibiotics etc. Even though those people may go on to reproduce as well!

No, it’s only women whose health problems we shouldn’t be bothered to cure.

A woman who can't get pregnant is not broken.

A woman who can't get pregnant due to some medical glitch than can be treated has a medical problem, and should be able to have treatment if she wants to.

The difference is that diabetes/cancer/lyme can kill you, not having children cannot.

The need for insulin/chemotherapy/antibiotics is physical, the need for a child is emotional.

It' s not a question of it being unnatural for the sake of it, it' s a question of it being unnatural to satisfy an emotional whim.

OK, so should we not provide prosthetic feet to people who lose a foot? Not provide wheelchairs to people who need them? Not offer breast implant surgery to masectomy patients who want it? Not offer hearing aids to people can't hear? Not offer seeing eye dogs to the blind?

Completely ridicoulous comparison.

A person who loses a foot is having physical repercussions from their disabilty that impair them in daily life. Same thing for someone who can' t walk and deaf/blind people.

Not having children is not even remotely the same, not being able to procreate is not going to bring the same kind of physical problems that being an amputee is going to bring.

As for mastectomies, to me even that is not comparable: I may not be the biggest fan of plastic surgery, but even I can tell the difference between replacing something that you lost or, in case it' s a malformation we are talking about, fixing something that hasn' t developed regularly to "I am obsessed with having children!".

No but one could extend your argument and say diabetics/cancer patients/etc by nature shouldn't live long enough to reproduce. It's absurd and cruel.

diabetics/cancer patients/etc by nature shouldn't live long enough to reproduce

LOL, what? I don' t even know how that comparison works in your head, especially considering that I made it perfectly clear that I consider the two issues completely different and as such they should be treated in completely different ways.

You' re the only one here who is "extending my argument" so that disabled people/cancer patients/diabetics are somehow dragged into it just because you desperately want for the two things to be the same to make your point.

They are not the same thing, so they shouldn' t be treated in the same way.

Load more (10 comments)