Thread: Fertility treatments

Whats your take on fertility treatments? It's not natural to me to have 8 kids in one go, like this: BBC NEWS | Americas | Octuplets' mum 'already has six'

This family now has 14 children. I love kids, I plan on having a few of my own, but if someone said to me "ok Mr. Orange, you're either going to have to adopt or have octuplets, and there's a chance a few of those might die", I'd be asking directions to the orphanage! This approach feels like dog or cat breeding to me- most live, some die, but it's ok because we've still got 5!

Opinions, comments, humor?

In the early 80s my wife and I visited several fertility doctors before we decided to change direction and adopt two daughters from Korea. I felt that they were all a sort of Dr. Frankenstein and had very little regard for human life. It's a personal decision and I would never criticize a couple for wanting children in that way. It's just that it wasn't for me.

my only experience with friends or family that have either gone to fertility clinics or have seriously considered it may be a bit off but i have noticed a pattern of them not being very healthy, not necessarily over weight but just not healthy. i feel like people should address their physical concerns first before thinking that they should bring a child in to the world.

that being said there are obviously many circumstances that don't have to do with a persons health which can come up. i see no problem with using the procedure at times, but i think it should be a last resort.

this just my take on things and i know this can be a very sensitive subject for many and if anything i said offends anyone it is definitely not meant to. i just feel that people are not taking responsibility for their health and then cursing everything but themselves when things go wrong.

Medical ethics is a funny thing. Certain types of research are banned even though there is no risk of anyone suffering. At the same time insane things are allowed to be done, like giving fertility treatment to women in their sixties or who already have six children. Why is there no balance? Don't any lawmakers or doctors have plain common sense any more?

At least in this case the father is working, although being a contractor in Iraq is not a particularly safe line of work.

My question is, why did they implant so many embryos? This woan didn't simply take fertiliuty shots, if I understand correctly. I read they actually implanted multiple embryos. I have family that used IVF, and they implanted THREE embryos. One did not take, then there were twins, one of those twins failed inside 7 weeks. She is now a few months into what looks like a healthy pregnancy. Now, they are both very healthy people, but there were reasons why the traditional method couldn't work. I see nothing at all wrong with giving nature a helping hand in bringing a child into a loving family.

This woman already had SIX children. Why then implant so many? then, when given the option of "selectively reducing" she refused. If it is a moral concern, that destroying the embryo is murder (very very early abortion, is she not concerned with the fact that non-used embryos (those that they choose not to implant) are destroyed?

I don't get it. You are bringing children into the world with vastly increased chances of lifelong health issues. Why would you do that?

I dunno, it seems a lot more efficient. I mean, if you want 10 kids, why have 'em one at a time over a decade when you could have a litter of pups all at once and be done with it. Don't really see why human breeding should be held to different standards than every other animal.

Alright devil's advocate

I agree with smoke on this one. The increased health risks are incredible. Evidently they can have a lot of heart issues, especially as infants. Crazy stuff.

Why does it seem that the media is villanizing this woman? Has she done anything wrong?

The Los Angeles Times later carried an interview with a woman identified as the babies' grandmother, who said her daughter already had six young children and never expected the fertility treatment she had received would result in eight more babies.

Fertility shots are one thing, in-vitro fertilization is another. My understanding is that it is usually the case that multiple fertilized embryoes are implanted.


In this age of "abortion on demand", where people everyday choose to end the life within them, and it gets nary a second thought, then comes this woman, who chooses to take responsibility for all of the embryoes implanted within her, and it causes some sort of uproar?

"She already had 6 kids...tsk, tsk, tsk...."


So, who are we to say how many children someone should have? One? Two? Three? Four? Five? None?


And for the devil's advocate:

So, if the chance of health risk is there..., how much more so for that child's health if it were simply aborted?

Don't you know it is all about the baby boomers? They wanted the career, and could not be bothered with kids while engaged in their ever present pursuit of material possessions. Now they have the possessions, and no kids to share their lives with, and are well past the prime time in their life for child bearing, so they turn to medicine. for them it is all about ME, ME, ME. What I want and damn the consequences to others (the kids).

Granted, you have the few outliers that truly cannot get pregnant, but by in large, the people that are turning to these treatments are those that "put off" having kids to pursue their worldly goods, and when it turned out that possessions would not fulfill their life they are trying to fill the void with kids, when they are at a point in their life where they should not be having kids. Before the baby boomers passed their child bearing years, there really were no "fertility treatment" centers. Now, given the age of the boomers, these facilities are becoming prolific.

I do not hold the baby boomers in high esteem.

Matt

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, if the chance of health risk is there..., how much more so for that child's health if it were simply aborted?

Well, if an embryo is not a "child" (which if I recall correctly, we have debated and will likely never agree), then there is 0% risk of any adverse impact to a child if the embryo is "selectively reduced' (A euphamism of course).

If it IS, then at what point would the abortion be mercy? If the odds (I am making these up) are 90% that the child would be born to a short life of unimaginable pain? Is that the line? 50%? Pretty bad pain? Bad itchy feet? If there is a line...what is it? Or if life, no matter how miserable, is ALWAYS prefereable to termination of a 3 day old embryo, well...once again, we will never agree.


By the way....I found the article that states she had them all implanted, not simply using the shots...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/30...ef=mpstoryview
Second paragraph....now, is this accurate? What does this do for anyone's opinion?