I’m sure we’re all familiar with in-vitro fertilization and the various ways to get all the needed parts (egg donation, sperm donation, surrogate mother, etc.). The costs I’ve seen for such treatments run in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and may have to be repeated several times.
My question: is all this effort just a throwback to our evolution and the instinct to pass on our own genes? Or do people go to such great lengths to have a child that is biologically related for other reasons?
It seems to me that some of the effort and money spent on these procedures could be better used elsewhere. I realize that people have the right to spend their money as they see fit, and that I cannot tell them what to do. However, from a purely biological point of view, it seems that not being physically able to have a child is an indication that perhaps you shouldn’t; by this I’m pointing out the increased probability that your children will be infertile if the problem is genetic.
If the problem is genetic, the egg and sperm won’t be viable no matter where its conceived.
Or perhaps you mean that infertility is genetic - sometimes, probably, but things like low sperm count are often the result of environmental factors (exposure to chemicals, for instance).
In many cases, IVF is used to overcome “transport” problems – blocked fallopian tubes. This usually isn’t genetic in nature, its often blamed on a case of PID or endometrosis.
There are lots of reasons people pursue bio kids and are willing to spend thousands to get them.
As one who spent literally tens of thousands of dollars on infertility treatments, I can say that, for us, having children of our own was something that we desperately wanted. Yes, I realize that we could adopt, but the length of time waiting and money spent for a newborn was equivalent to money spent on medical procedures so we could have children.
We were a driven couple.
And the only explanation I can give is that it’s something that we both wanted enough to go through a LOT of time/trouble/effort to accomplish.
On a side note, I am my father’s only child. My wife’s only sibling (brother) probably won’t have children with his wife. So the only possiblity for grandchildren was our responsibility.
Let’s say I’m an infertile woman with polycystic overies. You are suggesting I don’t have children via technology on the chance that:
a) This is inheiritable (which is an unknown).
b) I’d concieve a daughter and not a son.
c) My daughter MAY then be infertile (who knows, could be recessive).
d) My daughter would want to have children, she may choose to be childless.
e) That it would be very important to her that those children be bio
f) That she wouldn’t have resources to technology to help her conceive these children
and that
g) this would ruin her life?
Infertility is tragic, but it isn’t that tragic. We aren’t talking about the possiblity of passing along something that kills you.
Reasons people spend this money (one or more may apply, this list is not exhaustive):
They have it.
They have some evolutionary/biological need for bio kids
They don’t want to undertake the risks of adoption, but are willing to take the risks of bio kids
They have a cultural need to keep their blood line going
They have an emotional need to fulfill their gender identities - the see bio children (being pregnant, giving life, proving virility – whatever) as this fulfillment
Thank you, Dangerosa, for two interesting replies. I can only add that people’s emotional need for kids isn’t just about fulfilling their gender identities; I think lots of people feel that having children completes their human identities. And for various reasons, adoption is, as Dangerosa says, too vexed to offer a satisfying alternative to infertility treatments–at least for some, for a while.
But Sparklo, I am still intrigued by your evolutionary logic. You wrote: However, from a purely biological point of view, it seems that not being physically able to have a child is an indication that perhaps you shouldn’t…
My question is, what’s the point of deducing anything about what people should and shouldn’t do from “a purely biological point of view.” Should I not have laser surgery to correct my vision so I can become a pilot simply b/c I wasn’t born with perfect vision? Should we not vaccinate children again diseases simply because some children would have died had these vaccines not been available? I’m not suggesting that you were being narrow-minded, but only that biological arguments almost always lead people in that direction. We are asked to let “nature” dictate its course even though nothing is more evident in nature than the human tendency to use intelligence to overcome adverse circumstances.
Please understand: I’m not saying that it’s wrong to question whether infertility treatments are worth the cost to individuals and societies. I’m saying that if we were to take on that debate, biological arguments would–to my mind–be the least useful and relevant.
I was approaching the issue from a (simplistic) natural selection viewpoint; something has gone wrong along the way to reproduction - could be genetic, could be environment, probably a combination of the two (just to hedge my bets). No children = no chance of passing whatever the problem is on. But, as I said, this is simplistic.
As Dangerosa and Mandelstam have pointed out, it’s a calculated risk, and as each situation is different, the risks have to be analyzed individually.