On The Sheer Ridiculosity of IVF

[Jeffery]

It seems more and more lately, I've been hearing about all this IVF rubbish that folks are getting into. For those who don't know, IVF stands for "in-vitro fertilization".

Granted, a couple's desire to produce offspring together is a natural urge. Yet when they are so Hell-bent on having a baby that it leads to things like this, isn't that when rational ethicists and legislators should step in?

IVF uses gametes to create 6-10 embryos in a petri dish. Usually 2-3 are implanted at a time, because there is a very high failure rate. The rest are suspended in a canister in the freezer, where they await their day of reckoning. I mean, after all, what the heck are you going to do with six or seven extra embryos? You can't just let them sit around at the lab, because they'll soon be deceased, if you don't get those little darlings into the freezer.

Oftentimes, they stay in the frozen canister for years, coded and marked with their parents' names and the date, e.g. BRECKENRIDGE 50107 or STAN & MARILYN SPENCER, 6-20-08. If they still have not been used in 6 years, the lab attendant flushes them down the drain, perhaps accompanied by some expletives.

A few cases have arisen in which the couples, who had frozen embryos still on file, got divorced. The courts considered the microscopic youngsters to be "indivisible property" and ordered them to be sold or destroyed. Usually what happens is both: they are "sold" to embryonic stem cell researchers, who destroy them in their "research".

Not to mention the potential physical effects of IVF upon the parents. Collecting gametes typically involves ovarian surgery upon the wife, and the use of targeted electrical currents upon the husband.

To those who argue that IVF allows those who could not otherwise have children, the question can be raised "But should they?", and oftentimes the answer, when you logically think about it, is "probably not". Like the man who was dying of a terminal illness, and had a child with his wife through IVF. Or the 65-year-old lady who used IVF to have a baby with her 20-something husband. (Don't barf.)

The supporters of keeping IVF technology legal don't want to answer the hard questions. They don't want to think rationally about it. They just spew their stuff about love, love, love, freedom, yata yata yata. And when you hear them start that old routine, it's time to get out your boots and a big, sturdy shovel.

Jeffery

[likesmountains 52]

1. What are the 'targeted electrical currents upon the husband"? I thought they just..well you know..

donated some sperm.

[Warpy]

6. It usually requires a dirty magazine and a jar

in the clinic bathroom. However, extraordinary stimulation might be required if the male is impotent through illness or injury.

However it might squick people out, IVF has been a gift to some couples. It's been a curse to many others, as the procedures are lengthy, risky, and extremely uncomfortable for the woman in question and have a high failure rate. However, it's also her choice and even though there's no way for me to understand it, I'll respect it.

Some folks accept the fact they'll never reproduce and compensate by being part of the village that raises all the children around them. Others find themselves with the wealth and leisure it takes to undergo IVF and make the one final, desperate try to produce children.

As to the law governing frozen blastocysts, it's a little silly, but men are always afraid they're going to get stuck for more child support than they signed up for, and that's the reason for all the legal wrangling over frozen genetic material after divorce. A more rational approach might be to settle the matter at the time the blastocysts are created, but couples who are dewy eyed and dreaming of perfect pink infants are not in the mood to figure this stuff out.

[Jeffery]

20. No, nowadays one way they do it...

...is to use an electrical "shocker" device to expel the sperm. That way they get more live and less dead ones.

[EstimatedProphet]

2. Who the fuck are you?

[Barack_America]

4. If you look at the profile, it appears we might be conversing with Lou Dobbs.

How exciting! :eyes:

[uppityperson]

15. FYI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=39719&mesg_id=39719

[Jeffery]

24. Who's that?

[Richard Steele]

28. Pull the other one, Jeffrey- it's got bells on!

Honest.

[Jeffery]

21. Who?

Please don't cuss, but I am an agro-political writer living in southern Missouri. A beautiful area, by the way.

[EstimatedProphet]

55. I know. I'm from Missouri.

Let me rephrase my question:

Who the fuck are you to decide for other people that they don't need IVF? Why do you think you have the authority to make that decision for them?

[RayOfHope]

57. That explains it.

I also live in S MO, and this area has a ratio of 200-1 ignorant, judgemental asses to reasonable people. Its not hard to see into which category you fall. :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

32. That, sir,

is an excellent question.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Thank you. That so needed to be said. nt

[LeftishBrit]

63. From his profile...

he seems to be someone who is against the war, but right-wing on almost every other issue.

[Barack_America]

3. My ovaries, not yours.

My choice, not yours.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

By the way, what are the boots and shovel for? I certainly hope you're not advocating violence.

[Jeffery]

23. Boots and shovel

No, I'm not advocating violence. Boots and shovel are to clean out the BS.

[Ilsa]

5. 2-3 implantations isn't as dangerous as it used to be.

Medical management of pregnancy helps in these cases, and babies born prematurely have higher risks for health problems, but it is not anywhere as bad as it used to be. I think it should be limited to two, though.

Personally, I am against naming gametes and attributing personhood upon them. They won't get anywhere unless and until they are implanted and allowed to develop. I don't believe they have the rights or characteristics of personhood. Hence, I have no problem with IVF in general, or ESCR (embryonic stem cell research).

I have a bigger problem with doctors practicing any fertility therapy without training, especially with respect to the health consequences of implanting more than 2-3 fertilized eggs, or endorsing sexual intercourse when multiple eruptions of ova are imminent after fertility drugs and hcg therapy.

I also have a problem with couple beyond a certain age, like fifty, tackling parenthood for the first time. There are advanced paternal and paternal age issues associated with various disabilities. I personally think there is a time for a person to just say No to the urge. But I don't believe in imposing my beliefs upon them.

[Richard Steele]

7. Wait, wait, hang on...just a second......

:popcorn: OK, go ahead.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. If you don't like it, then don't do it.

:shrug:

[Greybnk48]

9. My 1st grandkid, Eli, arrives next friday @ 8a.m. via c-section!!!

Thanks IVF!! We were knocked off the Chinese adoption list because her husband had taken prozac in the past. We were going to adopt a Vietnamese baby, but that is very expensive (as is China). Her insurance covered this procedure and here we are.

Anyone who has a problem with this can GFTS.

[SidDithers]

10. On The Sheer Ridiculosity of OHS...

It seems more and more lately, I've been hearing about all this OHS rubbish that folks are getting into. For those who don't know, OHS stands for "open-heart surgery".

Granted, a person's desire to live is a natural urge. Yet when they are so Hell-bent on living that it leads to things like this, isn't that when rational ethicists and legislators should step in?

To those who argue that OHS allows those who could not otherwise live, the question can be raised "But should they?", and oftentimes the answer, when you logically think about it, is "probably not". Like the man who was dying of a terminal illness, and had OHS. Or the 65-year-old lady who had OHS to live with her 20-something husband. (Don't barf.)

The supporters of keeping OHS technology legal don't want to answer the hard questions. They don't want to think rationally about it. They just spew their stuff about life, life, life, freedom, yata yata yata. And when you hear them start that old routine, it's time to get out your boots and a big, sturdy shovel.






They're both fucking medical procedures, and neither are any business of yours.

Now, bugger off.

Sid

[HCE SuiGeneris]

13. Wow, Sid.

I agree wholeheartedly.

:wow:

[SidDithers]

14. First time for everything, I guess...

:toast:

Sid

[HCE SuiGeneris]

16. Great rejoinder in response to the OP!

:toast:

[emmadoggy]

35. !!

:applause:

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Well said, Sid! nt

[MH1]

11. The ridiculousness of IVF is

that it is seldom attacked by the anti- stem cell research folks, or the anti-abortion extremists that want you to believe that all human embryos should have the rights of persons.

Of course those folks also don't seem to talk much about the immorality of war and all the embryos and ex-embryos that are killed in war.

How come I never hear the militant right-to-lifers decrying the destruction of embryos for IVF, and claiming the position that if God intended you to have kids, "he" would have made it possible without requiring the "killing" of other "innocents"?

THAT's the "ridiculosity of IVF". You don't have to take a position on IVF per se to see that the politics of it is astoundingly hypocritical.


Edit to add clarifying (hopefully) quote marks.

[Jeffery]

27. They do.

Many of the pro-life organizations are opposed to IVF.

[uppityperson]

12. Your first post in a year. Where have you been jeffery?

I think you are saying that all technology is not necessarily good in all situations.

So what is your stance on using technology to keep preemies alive? How about abortion rights?

[readmoreoften]

17. So it's bad because why? Because there are frozen embryos that if they're thrown out go to research?

And because an ovary that isn't helping produce children anyway is operated on?

okay then

[WillowTree]

18. Very ridiculous!

The two gorgeous little two-week-old babes I held and cuddled Friday afternoon are just adorably ridiculous. And, considering what their parents went through to get them, incredibly loved. Same goes with their older sister.

In both instances, all viable eggs were implanted; no viable eggs were destroyed or stored.

They're all ridiculously loved, and we thank God for every one of them. So you can feel free to take your judgementalism and.......well.......you know.

[uppityperson]

19. Are you saying IVF is always bad, or sometimes wrong?

[Jeffery]

29. Usually.

[uppityperson]

37. I have been torn on the technology at any cost issue.

IVF can and has been used properly. Also open heart surgery, and preemie care, and other such high-tech medical things. They also can and have been used, imo, inappropriately.

If you look at it as limited resources, which everything is, it is difficult to decide who and when should get what. Should resources be used to provide vaccinations for thousands, or preemie care for 1? Now try telling the parents of that preemie why they have been denied care. Of course you may never have to face the parents of those thousands who were un-vaccinated since they are in a different third world country.
Do you put people on a transplant list towards the top when they are bad enough to die, or still healthy enough to tolerate the transplant? Or do you use those resources to provide some other healthcare, like dental care for a whole bunch of kids?

Difficult decisions.

[Skinner]

22. What a pile of horseshit.

Tell me, O wise Jeffery, what do you advise for people who desperately want to have children but can't?

Grin and bear it? Accept God's Will? Volunteer to babysit for the neighbor's kids?

Fuck that. IVF is a godsend for millions of parents. Millions of beautiful, healthy, happy children owe their very existence to IVF. You probably even know some of them, although I bet you aren't aware of it.

Speaking of "spew" -- your post is incredibly insensitive. And ignorant.

[MonkeyFunk]

33. I'm alerting on that...

oh wait.

Excellent reply. :thumbsup:

[emmadoggy]

34. Thank you, Skinner.

:applause:

[uppityperson]

41. OP is poorly worded but try this before jumping on it's case.

Is all technology, all medical technology, good and proper in every case? Search doesn't show me a record on this poster, though today is first postings in a yr. So, yes, IVF is a godsend in many cases, but can also be misused.

[Skinner]

46. I think "poorly worded" is charitable.

That OP does not say anything remotely close to "IVF is a godsend in many cases, but can also be misused." Its tone and substance are both strongly suggestive of an "IVF is always bad" point-of-view.

[uppityperson]

47. True.

Hence I did a search and my jury is still out. Though other post today is suggestive.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=39719&mesg_id=39719

[Hekate]

42. Go Skinner!

:hug:

Hekate

[Cerridwen]

51. Naw, our little Jeffie here is just a member of the

"snow flake" brigade.

On the surface, jeffie's arguing against IV-F; guess he doesn't even want "snow flakes" at this point since there's a risk they may lose that battle to stem-cell research.

Look closer (you may need your code book for this one) and you'll see the Orwellian "family values" tripe throughout little jeffie's post.

For example:

"...couple's desire to produce offspring together is a natural urge." Just wee bit hetero-centric, don'tcha think? It's also very much aligned with the catholic hierarchy's justification for denying marriage to non-procreating adults.

"they await their day of reckoning...they'll soon be deceased...those little darlings" To summarize, they are human, they have souls. Again, very catholic hierarchy.

"flushes them down the drain, perhaps accompanied by some expletives." In other words, their very "humanity" is "invalidated" as they're treated like just so many dead gold fish. A constant accusation from the snow-flake-brigade.

"the microscopic youngsters" Save the children! Second verse, same as the first.

Throw in a little sexism with a sprinkling of ageism and you get "the 65-year-old lady who used IVF to have a baby with her 20-something husband. (Don't barf.)" Wanna take bets what little jeffie thinks of older men married to younger women? Bet it's not quite so barf inducing for our little jeffers.

And finally, notice what isn't said. No where in our master jeffrey's OP is there a woman involved. Not once. She is a wife, (presumably) one half of the parents, she's a lady or (presumably) half of a couple. I'm actually pretty impressed he managed to get man in there once given how he was trying to hide the people involved by emphasizing "the little darlings."

This is "snow flake", my beliefs will be shoved down your throat, anti-stem cell, anti-choice, anti-woman clap-trap from start to finish.

Served up using all the slippery "logic" of "rational" debate about IV-F.


edit to add: and don't even get me started on "ridiculosity". Nearest I can tell, it's a blend of the word "ridiculous" with "religiosity." I wonder if he meant that on purpose? LOL

[emmadoggy]

76. .

:thumbsup:

That's exactly the vibe I got from it too. All very thinly disguised and politely stated, but the underlying gist is there.

A couple of people on this thread are baffled by the nasty responses this poster is receiving. I happen to have posted one of those nasty replies. Honestly, I have NEVER said anything even remotely that nasty to ANYONE on this board, but this poster really found some of my buttons - especially when a reply upthread gave a link to one of this person's other posts which had a very similar tone and undercurrent.

I find this person's views to be quite disturbing.

[Cerridwen]

79. Disturbing and exceedingly accurate in its portrayal of the

insidious nature of such "rational debate."

It "resonates" on so many levels it's almost impossible to extricate and highlight the various "points" being made; all of which appear to invoke a visceral response.

Thanks, emmadoggy. It's nice to know someone else (as well as all the others in this thread) know how to read code.

:D

[emmadoggy]

80. : )

:pals:

[gulfcoastliberal]

60. Adopt, maybe?

That is an option for those not hell-bent on making sure their DNA is in the child.

[LeftishBrit]

62. Adoption is not as easy an option as all that...

there are all sorts of restrictions as to who can adopt; and who can be adopted. Some of them valid ones; some not.

[emmadoggy]

74. Not to mention,

it can also be very expensive and take a long time.

[Runcible Spoon]

78. adoption is easier if you're not hell-bent on getting a perfect little white baby.

if you can settle for a different color, and have enough money, you can arrange adoption through international adoption agencies with less red tape than adopting through American agencies, especially the radically religious ones.

I think adoption is a beautiful choice, and while the OP is harsh, I don't think ravaging one's body with hormones in order to have your biological own is a good use of resources and money. But it's a personal choice.

[AlCzervik]

25. "probably not" Who the hell are you? oh yeah, if you ever need an organ transplant

you better hope someone who has the list doesn't look at your name and say "probably not".

[madaboutharry]

26. Your post is shameful and completely

disrespectful of people who choose to have families. I really can't believe that anyone would think this way in the 21st century.

[terrya]

36. I completely agree.

Shameful is the only word I can think of to describe the breathtakingly insensitive tone of his post. An insult to the couples who have used IVF to conceive.

[AlCzervik]

30. after reading your profile it makes sense now. Maybe you should join a militia group.

and vote for Ron Paul.

[Jeffery]

31. So what...

I think Ron Paul is a man of good character, and a knowledgeable Constitution expert, but what does that have to do with anything?

[TheWraith]

38. In a free country, you don't need a reason to keep something legal.

You need a reason to make it illegal. And none of the nonsense you just cited is a good reason to make IVF illegal.

[Posteritatis]

52. I wanna tattoo this backwards on a lot of folks' foreheads...

...So they can be reminded of The Way Things Work every time they look into a mirror.

I swear, the number of people who are of the opinion that anything not mandatory must be forbidden is one of the more depressing things in modern culture, and indicative of how much people don't understand their basic rights.

[emmadoggy]

39. That is one fucked up attitude you've got there.

Oops!! Did I utter a curse word?? Too fucking bad.

Your post is vile. :puke:

[Hekate]

40. (1) We need more medical ethics boards, (2) jurisprudence is still playing catch-up, (3) it's not...

...it's not about you.

That is, it's not about you until you try to have a kid --the most natural thing in the world -- and find out that you can't.

Incidentally, did you know that a preponderance of Missouri men have low to vanishing sperm counts? What have you got in the water out there?

Hekate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Jun/20080615News002.asp

Sperm count concerns specialists
Mystery affects Missouri males.

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Two years ago when fertility specialist Gil Wilshire came to Columbia from his practice in New Jersey, one detail jumped out at him. His male patients in Mid-Missouri were much less fertile than those he treated on the East Coast.

"Nobody I saw had a normal sperm count," said Wilshire, a reproductive endocrinologist at Mid-Missouri Reproductive Medicine and Surgery Inc. "It took about two or three weeks until a normal semen analysis came through the door. I kept asking myself, ‘Am I in a hellhole of toxins?’ " <snip>

[Jeffery]

44. Yes

Upper Missouri is a very toxic place, owing to the factories and reactors up there. As far as I know, the low sperm count problem does not effect lower Missouri.

[Hekate]

48. Try looking at the situation through a more compassionate lens then, since you seem to think...

...your own little swimmers are just standing at the ready for when you might want them.

For most people, infertility is heartbreaking -- and the "industry" promises much but often cannot deliver. Legally and ethically it's still pretty much the Wild West out there, so yes, intervention is needed -- but it's not ridiculous to those who suffer.

Hekate

[emmadoggy]

49. Hmmm, so according to your great logic then

those unfortunate men who, just by bad luck of living in an area that is toxic and has caused them to lose their fertility, should be denied the right to have a child. Because, you know, they just weren't "meant" to. GOD didn't make them infertile, human carelessness and pollution did, but "too bad, so sad", you just lose the right to have a family then.

Wow.

[Posteritatis]

53. Isn't social Darwinism awesome? :P (nt)

[EstimatedProphet]

70. You're right

Southern Missouri has an education problem instead.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. I'll ignore most of the douchebaggery and focus on but one thing:

Why the quotes around "research"? Please explain.

[timtom]

54. I am astonished at the polarization on this subject.

Whether I agree with the OP or not, I am more amazed at his vilification than I am of the main issue. Especially from Skinner.

Frankly, I have absolutely no opinion on the matter. But if I wanted another child, I'd go through the IVF procedure with my mate.

But it's the flipping constant ad hominem attacks that get me when someone on this "big umbrella" site disagrees with the prevailing conventional wisdom. Or, as I like to think of it, "group-think".

Agree or disagree, but why be so damned nasty?

[EstimatedProphet]

56. Why?

You come onto a post from someone who is passing judgment on people's reproductive choices, and he's the good guy?

Arguing for taking away people's choices is not an academic exercise. People get upset because their lives are impacted. The heavy-handedness of the OP brought on all the "nasty" by itself.

[timtom]

59. "He's the good guy"?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I posted? Really...I mean , how did you --

Never mind. You seem to have a predisposition.

[EstimatedProphet]

71. OK, maybe I do

That was what I thought you were saying at first. If not, I apologize.

[timtom]

73. Thanks. Glad we straightened that out.

I am, by the way, totally in favor of in vitro fertilization.

[uppityperson]

66. I am very much in agreement with you.

First thing I did was a search which showed no prevailing tendency. And I agree that agree or disagree, but why be nasty?

If I wanted to IVF, I would. I can also see reasons to not use it, like most technological medical things. But why be nasty? This is incredible. And yes, esp from Skinner which seems to give everyone else the right to be nasty.

Just disagree.

[LeftyMom]

58. My best friend may need IVF.

She might not be able to use it, unless she avails herself of donor eggs, since she's got PCOS and doesn't ovulate. But if the clomid works, she might need it to have a baby. She did everything right, started young, she and her husband are healthy, they both love kids, and have already made some changes in their lives to accomodate a family (he got a job that won't take him away from home, they moved, they got a family-friendly vehicle) and are going to be great parents. Bad luck stepped in, and she'll probably never be able to get pregnant without significant medical intervention.

That's the real face of infertility, not some random weirdo trying to get pregnant when normal people are grandparenting.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Wow.

Talk about judgemental.

'Not to mention the potential physical effects of IVF upon the parents. Collecting gametes typically involves ovarian surgery upon the wife, and the use of targeted electrical currents upon the husband.'

So all that is a very good reason for not MAKING anyone have IVF; however, if they choose to take the risks, it's up to them.

'The rest are suspended in a canister in the freezer, where they await their day of reckoning.'

So what is your problem here? Is it a religious objection? Do you consider that pre-implantation embryos are already people? It should be noted that many people think that 'conception' involves both fertilization and implantation; if you take it as before implantation, then it means that a majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Even naturally fertilized embryos frequently do not implant. However, I can sympathize with a religious objection BUT it is not right to impose it on people who do not share your religion. If it's not a religious objection, then I don't understand it at all.



'To those who argue that IVF allows those who could not otherwise have children, the question can be raised "But should they?", and oftentimes the answer, when you logically think about it, is "probably not". Like the man who was dying of a terminal illness, and had a child with his wife through IVF. Or the 65-year-old lady who used IVF to have a baby with her 20-something husband. (Don't barf.)'

Such cases are a tiny minority; and need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. MOST IVF treatments are due to infertility in otherwise healthy people. It's a tough form of treatment, with an uncertain chance of success- but it should be up to the couples concerned (after receiving medical advice) whether to take the risk or not.

[MilesColtrane]

64. Self Deleted

If I responded in the tone I wanted to, it would probably just be deleted anyway.

[Zuiderelle]

65. In your profile you say you are against genetic engineering... do you oppose stem cell research too?

You also say you oppose Affirmative Action yet you are in favor of "gender egalitarianism." And you say that you support "the right to life and liberty"... is that a sneaky way of saying "right to life?"

And finally you support "a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border"... are you for fucking real?

[undeterred]

67. I think the most serious problem with IVF

is that more embryos are implanted than are expected to survive. An infertile couple is going to be happy to have one or two babies. With multiple births the risks go way up. So, in those cases where there are multiples, sometimes couples are ask to selectively reduce the number in order to make the chances better for the rest. This is a no win decision. Imagine having to abort a fetus you've tried so hard to conceive; imagine having 5 or 6 children at once with multiple physical problems. Also, its ridiculously expensive and not covered by insurance.

[leftchick]

69. it is not "implanted"

it is transfered. Multiples are more of an issue with hormone stimulation of the ovaries and IUI (intra-uterine Insemination) where it is literally a crap shoot how many eggs are fertilized. As opposed to IVF where there is control over how many fertilized eggs/embryos are transfered.

Anyone using ART should be educated on selective reduction as it is always a possibility. Yes it is very expensive and my insurance did cover it, Thank God, because I have two 'ridiculously' beautiful boys thanks to IVF and a fantastic doctor.

[undeterred]

72. I didn't realize that.

Congratulations on your beautiful boys.

I worked on (computers) an OB unit where they specialized in managing multiple/high risk births. In most hospitals this is a very happy place, but at this hospital there were often deaths among the multiple births and it was really sad.

[xfundy]

68. Quotes around"research"?

You forgot to mention anything about TH' DEMOCRAT PARTY.

Didn't you, "FR"iend?

[SoCalDem]

75. Simple solution..

Make the DOCTORS financially responsible ( for the neo-natal AND child rearing costs) if more than TWO embryos develop (unless DNA shows they split after conception, naturally)

That would immediately, put a stop to the over-implantation of embryos..

Another possibility would be for women to stop delaying pregnancy for so many years..

A doctor once told me that the PRIME years for a safe pregnancy and for ease of GETTING pregnant are the years between 18-24..

Women who avoid pregnancy until they are 38 or older may find themselves unable to conceive...by ANY means..and the ultimate financial cost may be impossible..

[OhioChick]

77. And tell me....

How is it 'any' of "your" business?

I know of several child-less couples who were very fortunate to conceive using this method.

You're pathetic.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

81. I'm all for stem cell research, so keep it legal

although many of the stories (and freak litters) that have been produced are indeed barf-worthy. GO FOR IT BREEDERS!!