Yes. I suppose it’s easy for me to say because I didn’t have this problem, but IVF seems like vanity. If you just can’t have children, then maybe you’re not supposed to have children. To force the issue through IVF because you NEED to pass on your genes seems wrong to me.
Adoption, on the other hand, is quite a noble thing. You can have children without IVF.
I agree about the vanity. Someone I know was determined to have kids despite a potential terminal illness, had two kids via a surrogate, then had triplets via a surrogate. Now she and her husband are overwhelmed with caring for five young children, begging for help. None of my business, I know, but it is sad that they went down that foolish path since the kids will be motherless in the near future.
Just replace "IVF" with any other run-of-the-mill medical therapy like "kidney transplants" or "bypass operations," and "children" with "the ability to live a half-way normal life," and you'll see just how specious your argument is.
Regards,
The cost of adoption is and has been prohibitive for many, CCG.
“...but IVF seems like vanity. If you just can’t have children, then maybe you’re not supposed to have children.”
....and telling people with depression to “Snap out if it” is a viable cure?
It is a terrible misfortune, when to have life and have it more abundantly cannot include the blessing of having children.
John 10:10
Adoption, like immigration needs some serious reform. Biological parental rights included.