The Student Room Group

Ban ivf

Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by olivia.francesca
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?

Should that apply to fertile couple too? If not, why not?
Nope.
I wouldn't ban it.. if you can afford it, go nuts.

But I wouldn't fund it either.. having a baby is not a right and the lack of a baby isn't a medical problem, I don't see a reason why it should be funded on the NHS.

I can see the counter argument being that if you consider a women with fertility problems to be 'disabled then the NHS does serve to help normalize life for disabled people and help the function in a positive way.. but its not an argument I can agree with, given that the difference between fertility and disability is that one has a net-positive effect on society (increasing the number of functional citizens, and decreasing the number of dependents) whereas one has a much more mixed effect on society (increasing the number of people in an already over-crowded country).
Original post by olivia.francesca
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem.

Why not ban cancer treatment?
Original post by olivia.francesca
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?

Most of the population crisis is in East Asia and Africa. If you look at this country our birth rate is actually resulting in less than 1 person being born to everyone that does. IVF is helping to keep our population stable
Original post by olivia.francesca
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?

Interesting, but then poor infertile people wont be able to reproduce. That would be unfair.
Ban anything that preserves or extends life then. We have an ageing population.
The world isn't overpopulated, that myth has been perpetuated for decades and is usually accompanied with apocalyptic predictions that never come to fruition (Paul Ehrlich being a notable example). The issue is sustainability, the global north lead the most unsustainable lives despite a lower birth rate and population than the global south. Emissions, waste and consumption are all higher in the highest income countries.

The suggestion that to become more sustainable we need to reduce the population whilst retaining consumption per person is a ludicrous argument, because when selecting the population to reduce a form of racist thinking usually emerges where folk want to curtail the reproductive rights of those in the developing world rather than the developed. On a national scale, who do you think those in power are going to target? It will be the poorer people, who lead far more sustainable lives than the wealthiest, who will be targeted for population reduction.

The choice to not have a child should be respected with the choice to have a child. You either lack empathy or are totally ignorant of the plight of many infertile couples who long to have a child of their own, yes they could adopt, but that doesn't remove the pain of not being able to carry a child yourself or the grief that they go through. IVF has allowed thousands of couples to have a family of their own, if you remove that you're denying them the right to family life.
Original post by Wired_1800
Interesting, but then poor infertile people wont be able to reproduce. That would be unfair.


That is why I said adopt. I don’t see the appeal of having children if you already live in poverty anyway. I think it’s a selfish ****ty thing to do
Original post by the beer
Why not ban cancer treatment?


Pre existing humans have a right to life. They are relied on by god knows how many other people. Potential foetuses have no impact on society if they are never born
Original post by SteveyStack
Most of the population crisis is in East Asia and Africa. If you look at this country our birth rate is actually resulting in less than 1 person being born to everyone that does. IVF is helping to keep our population stable


That is why we need to fix our immigration policies. That is the most logical solution to our ageing population
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by olivia.francesca
That is why I said adopt. I don’t see the appeal of having children if you already live in poverty anyway. I think it’s a selfish ****ty thing to do

Adoption is expensive. Also, were would the children come from, if there are restrictions?
Original post by RogerOxon
Should that apply to fertile couple too? If not, why not?


I mean yeah I do believe that fertile couples should adopt instead of having biological children but it’s a lot harder to control the fertility rate of majority of the country than to ban treatments
Original post by Wired_1800
Adoption is expensive. Also, were would the children come from, if there are restrictions?


If you think adoption is expensive you should reconsider whether you can afford having kids. There are millions of kids in the care system worldwide, around 73,000 in England alone. Once this number severely decreases, then the ban should be lifted
Original post by olivia.francesca
Pre existing humans have a right to life. They are relied on by god knows how many other people. Potential foetuses have no impact on society if they are never born


And they've had a life, they don't have a right to be cancer free. What if they don't have anyone relying on them, what if they're a menace to society?
Original post by the beer
And they've had a life, they don't have a right to be cancer free. What if they don't have anyone relying on them, what if they're a menace to society?


Letting people die and preventing more people from ever being born are wildly different ethical concepts
Original post by olivia.francesca
If you think adoption is expensive you should reconsider whether you can afford having kids. There are millions of kids in the care system worldwide, around 73,000 in England alone. Once this number severely decreases, then the ban should be lifted

Fair enough. Temporary ban.
Original post by olivia.francesca
Letting people die and preventing more people from ever being born are wildly different ethical concepts

Would you also ban treatment of any health problems that can lead to infertility as long as it's not life threatening then?
Original post by olivia.francesca
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?

The overpopulation problem is a over-exagerrated issue that has led people and governments to take extreme/unessecary measures to 'solve it' despite the fact that it is quite apparent that we are capable of feeding the worlds population. This is a good documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XOF3SOu8I

Banning IVF is unessecary as the birth rate in the UK is already at a stable 1.8 per woman. Considering that the vast majority of births are done without ivf it is reasonable to assume that banning it will make a small difference in the birth rate, thus it will probably not solve this 'problem'.
(edited 4 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you