Replies

Very true about procedures. I know friends who are done having kids and it was their husbands who got fixed, mainly because its an outpatient procedure with little pain and low recovery time.

As for other factors such as blocked tubes, etc., that's referred to as 'unexplained infertility with underlying condition'. Trust me on this. I have endometriosis and am all to familiar with this term. I am still fertile, but another condition is making the likelihood of a natural pregnancy very difficult, if not impossible. Men can also be classified as 'sterile' and yet become fathers through IVF.

I don't think IVF is an evil thing. It helps so many couples become parents. Its the whack jobs like this doctor and Octopussy mom that ruin it those who are sincere and want to have a family.

I have a friend who had to use IVF due to male factor infertility (basically no sperm). She had two girls via IVF and had a very unexpected natural pregnancy. They were so thrilled, especially when doctors told them it would never happen.

It's astonishing how many people have been told by doctors that they could "never have children," and yet they do. This should cause us all to regard doctors' opinions on a variety of points, such as life expectancy, as something less than God's Oracles.

It's the whack jobs like this doctor and Octopussy mom that ruin it for those who are sincere and want to have a family.

Who can say that Ms. Suleman isn't "sincere" in her desire to "have a family"? Who can rule that her version of "a family" is less legitimate than that of any other single woman who seeks artificial reproductive technology? I would be calling this "sarcasm," but it's the basic premise of an unregulated reproduction industry. The desires of the customer are the only consideration - not common sense, not public finance, not the interests of the children.

I'm sorry about your endometriosis. I have friends who suffer from that condition, and I understand it's very unpleasant.

"I don't think IVF is an evil thing. It helps so many couples become parents."

One must distinguish between ends and means.

The "end" of becoming parents is a good one.
The "means" of genuine therapeutic intervention ---actually correcting the underlying cause of infertility, so that the couple could procreate via sexual intercourse--- would be a good one.
In contrast, the "means" of IVF doesn’t cure your underlying problem and enable you to achieve pregnancy through intercourse. It abandons the goal of natural procreation through sexual union and substitutes, instead, a laboratory procedure. That's what makes it intrinsically wrong.

On a hopeful note, there ARE legitimate therapeutic advances which can often make natural procreation possible for previously-infertile couples. To manetion just a few:

Assessment of uterine and tubal structural competence by imaging techniques (e.g., ultrasound, hysterosalpingogram, etc.).
Appropriate medical treatment of ovulatory dysfunction.
Appropriate (usually surgical) correction of mechanical blockage of fallopian tubes.
If tubal function cannot be restored, transfer of an ovum past the point of blockage into the uterine cavity -- "low tubal ovum transfer" (LTOT) preceded by normal intercourse during the fertile phase. In England, this procedure is called NEST (normal egg sonographic transfer).
Possibly, Gamete intra-fallopian transfer (GIFT)

Any procedure which heals the underlyng causes of disability, and assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential, is morally good, and usually much preferred by the couples themselves.