BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids Increase in IVF leading to global fertility issues

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Well DUH. I've been saying this for a while, (although of course it isn't a popular view) if YOU have problems conceiving, then you'll more than likely pass that on to your kids! That's called Darwinism, folks! Survival of the fittest and all that. Well, we're negating that "fittest" thing just so you can scratch that baby itch, but you're passing on your woes to the next generation. Congratulations! :P

Yeah, I've always thought this too. Very interesting article.

I don't condem those who do it (much) but if I wanted kids and couldn't have them, I could never do IVF because it would feel like the worst kind of sin. Someone's gotta adopt the orphans.

It really does seem like modern science is ignoring Darwin's theory of "Survival of the Fittest".

When you take inferior genes and reproduce with them, you will just get more inferior genes. Don't people understand that?

I strongly believe that genetic, as well as environmental, factors contribute to whether an individual can/should reproduce or not.

For example, you live in an area with an unusually high rate of birth defects, most likely due to the fact that there is a former landfill just a few miles away. And then you wonder why your child has a birth defect?!?!

Or, a certain debilitating genetic condition runs in your family, but you choose to reproduce anyway, and then you get angry and wonder why your child has this genetic condition.

If you want to be a parent, that's great. Instead of sinking all of your money into IVF treatments that may not work, adopt a child instead.

What's sad is when the parents don't tell the children about that debilitating genetic defect because of some idiotic reason like they're afraid too, or it's too embarrassing. One of my cousin's had a baby with all sorts of complications, it turns out he has Cystic Fibrosis...A death sentence. Science is pretty advanced, so if you're lucky you live to your late teens, but still. His wife was the carrier, and her family told her NOTHING about it. I was absolutely disgusted with her family for that.

It's SO true! Have we learned nothing after all these years? Of course, many people don't believe in Darwinism--which still shocks me every time I hear someone say it.



YES. That's exactly what I meant by saying IVF is a sin. All that money wasted to create a new human being, when there are tons of them already here who need homes right now. All just so some lady can say she birthed it or it has her eyes and his nose. Rediculous and selfish.

Greydrakkon said:
That's deplorable! I just can't believe how awful that is. How could you hide something like that? WHy is the adoption option such a bad thing to some people?

I loved this quote - "Any research which helps ensure that in the future couples are not faced with having to deal with the difficulties of not being able to conceive must be encouraged."

Because as we all know, it's all about the baybees. God forbid that anyone who wants one should have to do without, even if your genes do suck and you're dooming it to a life of suffering and misery.

Was it Manatee who put up the post the other day, about how the ancients understood that infertility was nature's way of keeping the population in check? We've all become so damn entitled ... it makes me sick. "The waaaaahhhhhhmbulance wails past in full force"

That is such a thought provoking discovery. I always thought IVF was a little suspect because it's so unnatural and so many chemicals are involved. And I agree, if you can't get pregnant naturally, it's probably better just to learn to love and accept your life the way it is. Now that IVF has gone on for a while, we're seeing the bad effects it has on the planet and the individuals/their families. Doesn't sound good...

The article states: "Infertility is an extremely distressing illness."

I don't consider infertility an illness. My dictionary defines an "illness" as "in poor health" or "the condition of being ill." Low sperm count by itself does not result in poor health.

I resent that many insurance companies pay thousands for infertility treatments. Infertility by itself results in zero deaths a year, while cancer patients have to fight for payment for bone marrow transplants and other treatments need to save their lives.

I know many people will make the argument that this impacts their lives and they're correcting a "defect" that prevents them from having the opportunity to have the same "quality of life" as others who don't suffer from infertility.

If that's the reasoning, there are a lot of cosmetic defects that impact the quality of peoples lives that aren't covered by insurance why should infertility be any different.

I personally believe IVF is wrong. Most of these people create more embryos than they will use. They then maintain that abortion is wrong and oppose stem cell research.

Then when they have enough children, they then abort their own children by defrosting the extra embryos or letting them sit in limbo until they are no longer viable.

I mean if people want to maintain it's wrong to use embryos for stem cell research because it might lead to the creation of embryos just for research, then it should be wrong to intentionally create more embryos than you can birth and parent. The end result is the same of both situations are the same.

I think it's hypocritical.

I hate to be so straight out and say the raw truth that the rest of the world does not want to hear, but here it is.

People are animals. More civilized (seemingly) but they are animals. Animals procreate to perpetuate the species. If they do not procreate, whatever unique genetic features in that animal do not pass onto the next generation. It is that simple.

If a man's sperm are not capable of reaching the egg, and the cause can not be remedied by non-invasive means (ie by changing underwear, etc), he got dealt a bad hand in the reproductive department. It is nature's way of saying "You are weak. You are not worthy of spreading your genes to others." Tell that to a man who wants a child who does have baby rabies and he will spend a billion dollars, because he will NOT be told "No. Your body is not good enough."

If the problem is with the woman's body then it wasn't meant to be. Whether it be a hormone imbalance, bad eggs, etc, it is the body's way of saying "Things aren't right. Deal with it."

Life isn't fair, people! Having a child depends on a good number of factors that have to be right. If things are wrong, it doesn't happen!

An illness is something that causes the quality of life of a person to be degraded. I can deal with that. Examples of an illness are diabetes, cancer, viruses, infections, -- things that physically attack the state of the healthy body.

Tell me how the body of a person is being attacked by NOT being able to have a child!

In this line of thinking, I have always been bothered at a deep level by drugs that increase the natural, physically-predetermined reproductive life-cycle of a person. If the time comes that you can't "get it up", that is saying that you are either not healthy enough for such activity, you have too much stress on your mind, or something is just physically wrong with your reproductive equipment. In other words, what is happening is not a disease!

I can not imagine what would happen if everyone WERE fertile like "everyone" wants to be! Infertility is probably one of the reasons why things are not as bad as they could be nowadays!

Also, think about this: Babies are killed naturally every day, and people do not know about it! What happens to the successful conceptions that don't hook up with the walls of the uterus? That fetus doesn't get mourned. What about the spontaneous natural abortions that happen? Is there active research on drugs that will be given to a woman to suppress the tendency to reject "malformed babies" in the womb when she is found to be pregnant so that spontaneous abortions won't happen?

I find this line of thought very, very disturbing.