Fertility treatments, what are your opinions?
- Thread starter Dogdragoness
- Start date
I should not have to explain myself to the degree in which you are asking to an Internet forum of strangers ... My view is my view, perhaps you want me to further explain it because you don't agree with it or the reasoning behind it.
That is fine, I can respect that but please also respect my feelings as well
That is fine, I can respect that but please also respect my feelings as well
If you have a very strong opinion on ANYTHING, you should be able to explain it thoroughly. So far you really haven't beyond 'I don't like it because I don't like it.' Blind dislike is not a good thing....
Saying 'I prefer natural conception' is like saying 'I prefer to just have my body work correctly'. OF COURSE people prefer for everything to go smoothly and naturally.
No one is disrespecting your opinion. The whole point of forums is to debate and converse. Of course if you come out with a controversial idea you're going to be asked further about it. No one can disagree with your reasoning if you haven't given your reasoning. It's just frustrating because every time people ask you a question you reply 'I don't need to explain myself'. Between that and then basing your opinion on things that are completely untrue (like couples not getting counseling for their decision), it's impossible to take your stance seriously.
Tldr; I believe this because I do. End of story... is a weak stance.
Saying 'I prefer natural conception' is like saying 'I prefer to just have my body work correctly'. OF COURSE people prefer for everything to go smoothly and naturally.
No one is disrespecting your opinion. The whole point of forums is to debate and converse. Of course if you come out with a controversial idea you're going to be asked further about it. No one can disagree with your reasoning if you haven't given your reasoning. It's just frustrating because every time people ask you a question you reply 'I don't need to explain myself'. Between that and then basing your opinion on things that are completely untrue (like couples not getting counseling for their decision), it's impossible to take your stance seriously.
Tldr; I believe this because I do. End of story... is a weak stance.
This.
If you feel strongly about something, you should own it.
Dogdragoness, t's very hard to take you seriously when you appear to have no idea what you're talking about. I have a feeling you think that people just decide on a whim to take fertility drugs, when it's not like that at all. You don't just walk into a clinic and say "2 months of fertility drugs, please" and have them handed to you.
There are MANY, MANY things you have to go through first. Getting your body ready with prenatal vitamins, sperm count for husband, less invasive medications like clomid, counseling, etc, etc, and oh yeah: SPENDING TENS OF THOUSANDS PER ROUND OF IVF.
If you feel strongly about something, you should own it.
Dogdragoness, t's very hard to take you seriously when you appear to have no idea what you're talking about. I have a feeling you think that people just decide on a whim to take fertility drugs, when it's not like that at all. You don't just walk into a clinic and say "2 months of fertility drugs, please" and have them handed to you.
There are MANY, MANY things you have to go through first. Getting your body ready with prenatal vitamins, sperm count for husband, less invasive medications like clomid, counseling, etc, etc, and oh yeah: SPENDING TENS OF THOUSANDS PER ROUND OF IVF.
I'll take a stab at it. There isn't ONE reason why I feel this way, it's more of a collection of thoughts and running into some pretty interesting tidbits over the years that I don't really think it's a good idea.
But first I worry about the health of the mother. Hormones are not something to mess around with. I don't think there is anything in the lit. that proves causation of anything, but when you're doing things to women from so many backgrounds and there are a thousand things that can happen, some within years, some take decades to show up, and the results can very so wildly it would be rather hard to prove or disprove any of it anyway. some never have anything happen other than happy healthy children.
They shown that simple diet changes have genetic impacts generations down the line. There were some rather interesting findings from studying descendants from the Irish potato famine. What do these treatments do 2-3 generations down the line? So far they say nothing, but do we really know? Can we really understand the ramifications? Short term I think we can, but we're not very good at looking too far into the future.
I wonder about the development of the child. I know they appear to be normal in everyway for the most part. I'm not aware of anything that seems to "run" in AI babies as they grow, but what's happening 2-3 generations down? or what will happen? Smoking and drinking are harmful, artificially manipulating hormones and using other meds can also have a profound impact on any development as well. It's hardly a stretch to think so.
And it's just a basic life philosophy that nature is not usually "wrong". I know dogs were brought up earlier as a comparison and my feelings are that at some point we will ruin most breeds and we will have to start "over" by allowing things to happen a bit more naturally for a while. Our selective breeding for animals is good for our own short term wants, but I don't think it's good for the overall health of the species. How do I prove it? I don't know, i think there's enough out there staring us in the faces on that topic, but if others don't see it, I guess I don't care either. I still look for dogs from a breeder
rather than some bush dog from Australia.
I think once humans start doing that on any more than a research type scale, we're screwed. It's one thing to artificially manipulate conditions so a fetus can be brought to term, and quite another to manipulate that and then the genome. We know very little about genetics and how everything meshes. Things we do now will have rather large impacts down the road. When we select for certain things, other things always creep up. Temple Grandin's story of the "raping roosters" comes to mind. we see those things in animals because they breed more often, but in humans, some of this stuff won't be visible for 100 years or more and when it's done on a small scale, it might take even longer before these changes get "paired" up thru mating down the road to show us anything if there's anything to be seen.
I'm not going to begrudge someone that choses to do fertility treatments to have a baby. I don't think it's a good idea, it's why we haven't done it. I do stand against specifically selecting genes and making test tube babies. I don't care if it's to "avoid" a genetic condition or not. Our success ratio at predicting such conditions isn't exactly great, though many think it's almost an exact science.
But first I worry about the health of the mother. Hormones are not something to mess around with. I don't think there is anything in the lit. that proves causation of anything, but when you're doing things to women from so many backgrounds and there are a thousand things that can happen, some within years, some take decades to show up, and the results can very so wildly it would be rather hard to prove or disprove any of it anyway. some never have anything happen other than happy healthy children.
They shown that simple diet changes have genetic impacts generations down the line. There were some rather interesting findings from studying descendants from the Irish potato famine. What do these treatments do 2-3 generations down the line? So far they say nothing, but do we really know? Can we really understand the ramifications? Short term I think we can, but we're not very good at looking too far into the future.
I wonder about the development of the child. I know they appear to be normal in everyway for the most part. I'm not aware of anything that seems to "run" in AI babies as they grow, but what's happening 2-3 generations down? or what will happen? Smoking and drinking are harmful, artificially manipulating hormones and using other meds can also have a profound impact on any development as well. It's hardly a stretch to think so.
And it's just a basic life philosophy that nature is not usually "wrong". I know dogs were brought up earlier as a comparison and my feelings are that at some point we will ruin most breeds and we will have to start "over" by allowing things to happen a bit more naturally for a while. Our selective breeding for animals is good for our own short term wants, but I don't think it's good for the overall health of the species. How do I prove it? I don't know, i think there's enough out there staring us in the faces on that topic, but if others don't see it, I guess I don't care either. I still look for dogs from a breeder
rather than some bush dog from Australia.I think once humans start doing that on any more than a research type scale, we're screwed. It's one thing to artificially manipulate conditions so a fetus can be brought to term, and quite another to manipulate that and then the genome. We know very little about genetics and how everything meshes. Things we do now will have rather large impacts down the road. When we select for certain things, other things always creep up. Temple Grandin's story of the "raping roosters" comes to mind. we see those things in animals because they breed more often, but in humans, some of this stuff won't be visible for 100 years or more and when it's done on a small scale, it might take even longer before these changes get "paired" up thru mating down the road to show us anything if there's anything to be seen.
I'm not going to begrudge someone that choses to do fertility treatments to have a baby. I don't think it's a good idea, it's why we haven't done it. I do stand against specifically selecting genes and making test tube babies. I don't care if it's to "avoid" a genetic condition or not. Our success ratio at predicting such conditions isn't exactly great, though many think it's almost an exact science.
I haven't had a chance to fully read this thread yet since there are so many pages... I'll get around to it later...
That said... I have PCOS symptoms (though still need to see a dr for possible diagnosis) and might not be able to easily conceive a baby without some form of treatments or medical intervention. So does that mean I should NOT be able to have a baby? hmmm???? I find it SUPER offensive that ANYONE would tell ME that I should NEVER have a child because my body might have a difficult time conceiving naturally. To anyone that tells me it would be wrong of me to seek medical help if I can't conceive naturally... F*** you!!!
Sure there is the adoption route... and that is something I've considered as well in the future, but is it so wrong for a woman to want to conceive a child??? To have a child that shares her and her SO's DNA and some traits???? Is it so wrong to want to be able to look at MY child and know that I carried him/her for 9 months in MYYYY womb????
Sorry... this is a topic that really drives me fuming mad which is a big reason I've been trying to stay out of it... but ya.... a lot of the women in my family have fertility issues.... but all that have had medical help to conceive have had HEALTHY babies!!!! I'm 26 years old and would really like to have a child before I'm 30 and that might honestly not be possible without me spending the money to seek medical help unless by some miracle I end up pregnant naturally. It's no one else's business but MINE whether I choose to seek out a dr for medical intervention or not.
That said... I have PCOS symptoms (though still need to see a dr for possible diagnosis) and might not be able to easily conceive a baby without some form of treatments or medical intervention. So does that mean I should NOT be able to have a baby? hmmm???? I find it SUPER offensive that ANYONE would tell ME that I should NEVER have a child because my body might have a difficult time conceiving naturally. To anyone that tells me it would be wrong of me to seek medical help if I can't conceive naturally... F*** you!!!
Sure there is the adoption route... and that is something I've considered as well in the future, but is it so wrong for a woman to want to conceive a child??? To have a child that shares her and her SO's DNA and some traits???? Is it so wrong to want to be able to look at MY child and know that I carried him/her for 9 months in MYYYY womb????
Sorry... this is a topic that really drives me fuming mad which is a big reason I've been trying to stay out of it... but ya.... a lot of the women in my family have fertility issues.... but all that have had medical help to conceive have had HEALTHY babies!!!! I'm 26 years old and would really like to have a child before I'm 30 and that might honestly not be possible without me spending the money to seek medical help unless by some miracle I end up pregnant naturally. It's no one else's business but MINE whether I choose to seek out a dr for medical intervention or not.
So, it's mostly worry about the what ifs? Honestly that's not enough for me, not at this point.
What we know is AI babies tend to be shorter around age 7. That's the one negative study I have found. I don't have a strong stance because I'm not well educated enough but I've attempted to research the negatives for a base.
I would like to see more research before writing this off. If anyone has any, please bring it to the table.
Dogdragoness, if you're seriously uncomfortable having an intellectual debate where people challenge your views and question your resources then I strongly support your initial idea of hiding your head in the sand and avoiding conflict on forums. You'll never grow but you'll also never feel uncomfortable, to each their own.
What we know is AI babies tend to be shorter around age 7. That's the one negative study I have found. I don't have a strong stance because I'm not well educated enough but I've attempted to research the negatives for a base.
I would like to see more research before writing this off. If anyone has any, please bring it to the table.
Dogdragoness, if you're seriously uncomfortable having an intellectual debate where people challenge your views and question your resources then I strongly support your initial idea of hiding your head in the sand and avoiding conflict on forums. You'll never grow but you'll also never feel uncomfortable, to each their own.
that's fine if the what if's aren't enough for you. But it's not like I just sat in bed at night and said "what if". They are mostly based on observations made on things that have happened that weren't "what if's" and suddenly became "oh ****, what have we done" It happens in science all the time.
It's not surprising there aren't a lot of negative studies out there. Short term, there aren't many issues. I know there are some, I know there are some that will never be attributed. I know you can't manipulate things to that degree and NOT change something biologically speaking. Whether or not in manifests itself in 20 years or takes 150, I don't know. and these changes most likely aren't going to just affect an individual, those changes will be incorporated into the species. Will it still be "good" in 300 years???
This also hasn't been done on large scale, not in the grand scheme of things, so the odds of those changes bumping into each other and showing themselves aren't really great at this point or in the near future.
Since the "what if's" aren't a strong argument against, can those in favor of fertility treatment provide a better answer than "I want"?
It's not surprising there aren't a lot of negative studies out there. Short term, there aren't many issues. I know there are some, I know there are some that will never be attributed. I know you can't manipulate things to that degree and NOT change something biologically speaking. Whether or not in manifests itself in 20 years or takes 150, I don't know. and these changes most likely aren't going to just affect an individual, those changes will be incorporated into the species. Will it still be "good" in 300 years???
This also hasn't been done on large scale, not in the grand scheme of things, so the odds of those changes bumping into each other and showing themselves aren't really great at this point or in the near future.
Since the "what if's" aren't a strong argument against, can those in favor of fertility treatment provide a better answer than "I want"?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2006
- Messages
- 15,349
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
I'm not sure about large-scale studies, but I do know that IVF used in animals does not cause any problems passed from generation to generation. And in animals you can see the effects of manipulating biology much faster than you can with humans.
I would be concerned if it became very, very common. Right now around 1% of babies in the US are born via IVF, which is a small percent. At 1%, 2%, or even 5%, I wouldn't really be concerned about effects on population as a whole, even if 150 years from now problems arose. But any more than that, and it would be concerning, not just because of the effects but why is it so difficult for that percentage to conceive naturally? What are we putting in our bodies or environments that's causing that rate of infertility?
I would be concerned if it became very, very common. Right now around 1% of babies in the US are born via IVF, which is a small percent. At 1%, 2%, or even 5%, I wouldn't really be concerned about effects on population as a whole, even if 150 years from now problems arose. But any more than that, and it would be concerning, not just because of the effects but why is it so difficult for that percentage to conceive naturally? What are we putting in our bodies or environments that's causing that rate of infertility?
Should we clarify the why as well? Why does one need treatments? Was it an accident? Is an older mans sperm count low? Does the woman have an issue?
I'm not yet convinced that someone, filling all other ideals for breeding, should be precluded from the gene pool because they have trouble conceiving. I don't think that's merely an I want, I feel that as a greater picture aspect. There is also no guarantee the next generation will retain the mothers or fathers difficulty in conceiving. Men gain baldness from their mothers father, it is believed, but there is no guarantee there will not be a gene mutation along the way, what makes this anymore reliable? I understand its a more serious defect but its still genetics, no?
I'm not yet convinced that someone, filling all other ideals for breeding, should be precluded from the gene pool because they have trouble conceiving. I don't think that's merely an I want, I feel that as a greater picture aspect. There is also no guarantee the next generation will retain the mothers or fathers difficulty in conceiving. Men gain baldness from their mothers father, it is believed, but there is no guarantee there will not be a gene mutation along the way, what makes this anymore reliable? I understand its a more serious defect but its still genetics, no?
See, its different for you, release the hounds, IMO. You are coming here and giving reasons and have actually done research, rather than came here, spouted off wrong information (they walk in and walk out pregnant! My friends both have Downs Syndrome and had a kid, now the kid will have it! Etc) as your reasons. You've obviously educated yourself on the topic before making such statements.
Haven't read most of this thread, seems like a lot of drama...but wanted to say:
Isn't always the ones that "can't get pregnant" that get pregnant? LOL. I wasn't supposed to be able to get pregnant due to severe PCOS... But yeah. That didn't work out.
And on topic:
I fully support a woman's NEED to reproduce. I also see it as way more than a want. So if she wants to go through treatment, I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to have control of her own body in that aspect and try to "fix" herself.
Isn't always the ones that "can't get pregnant" that get pregnant? LOL. I wasn't supposed to be able to get pregnant due to severe PCOS... But yeah. That didn't work out.
And on topic:
I fully support a woman's NEED to reproduce. I also see it as way more than a want. So if she wants to go through treatment, I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to have control of her own body in that aspect and try to "fix" herself.
Except from CDC:
Further reading:
Further reading can be done at cdc.gov
(Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a general term referring to methods used to achieve pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means.)
These are some (not all) things that are considered fertility treatments:
Fertility Drugs
Artificial Insemination
Donor Sperm
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI)
Donor Eggs
Surrogacy
Donor Embryos
Reproductive Surgery
Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT)
Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT)
Further reading can be done at cdc.gov
(Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a general term referring to methods used to achieve pregnancy by artificial or partially artificial means.)
These are some (not all) things that are considered fertility treatments:
Fertility Drugs
Artificial Insemination
Donor Sperm
In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI)
Donor Eggs
Surrogacy
Donor Embryos
Reproductive Surgery
Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT)
Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT)