IVF – When Limiting Choice Is A Good Thing
Britgirl | April 8, 2007 | 12:00 amMy earlier article titled Fertility Treatment To Be Rationed touched on the changes the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) wants to make to IVF. I mentioned that some quarters are none to pleased at the changes. They see it as taking away their choice.
To summarise, the HFEA is proposing to limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted to reduce the risks to the mother and, more importantly, the risk to the children. The regulator in particular wants to cut down the unacceptably high number of IVF-assisted multiple births, that occur because of assisted conception.
The more I read about fertility treatments – or rather the quest for them, the harder I find it to understand why women will go to these lengths to have a baby. It can’t possibly be because they are so desperate to bring another worker bee into the world to support them in their old age, or to keep the economy moving or even to keep the human race in existence. Can it? Even though these are the reasons (sorry, bingoes) routinely trotted out for why childfree women have no business being so, and should be pursuing IVF if it’s even remotely possible.
Given the low success rate of IVF, how expensive it is, the health risks to the mother and the very high risks of having children who are going to have difficulties even breathing, let alone living, urging women to go down the IVF route is profoundly stupid. And let’s not forget the multiple births, of which several of the babies are likely to die.
Women seeking IVF want babies, because, let’s see now: they just want a baby, they’ve always wanted a baby, they’ll feel unwomanly without a baby, they feel incomplete without a baby, they want their own flesh and blood baby, they want to pass on their “gene heritage”, they want to go through the “miracle” of pregnancy, they want to be pregnant, they want to give birth, they need a baby to love, their marriage needs a baby, all their friends have babies and they don’t… and so on.
Yet, in their quest for a child with their genes (however defective these may be), they are perfectly willing to risk the lives of the babies who may be “surplus to requirements” as well as risk having a child with possibly severe abnormalities.
Is it me or is something very wrong with this picture?
The fertility industry is only too pleased to encourage women down the IVF route however, since this is a multi-billion dollar business that depends on women and couples who are frankly desperate to have a baby.
I was reading this article by Dea Birkett in SocietyGuardian and I thought it was a perfect example of a whiney selfish woman, who cared about nothing about the risks. If multiple births was what it took to have a baby then so be it.
Rather that than taking away her “choice in having children”. In case you are thinking that she’s a first-time mother, she isn’t. She had one child already and used IVF to conceive another. Birkett says:
“The HFEA proposals are more complicated. They seek to limit women’s choice on the familiar argument that twins and triplets put the mothers and, in particular, the future children’s lives in danger. I know all about these risks. I have a disabled child, conceived by the old-fashioned method and born with very little medical intervention. With the knowledge of what it means to bring up a child with a disability, I still decided to have two embryos implanted during fertility treatment. I am all too aware of the risks. What the HFEA needs to recognise is that this was a risk I was prepared to take.”
The familiar argument? That’s all it is to her? She has a child already but had to have fertitility treatment with two embryos implanted. She “knows all about these risks”, and was prepared to take them. In other words she was prepared to allow yet another of her offspring to grow up disabled because SHE wanted another child.
Selfish or what?
Since she had one disabled child and she needed IVF to conceive more this would indicate that her gene pool is somewhat defective. That in turn would indicate an increased risk of having another disabled child – particularly with IVF. Now she may not care for herself (nor that the public bears the brunt for her health care), but does she really have the right to inflict potential complications on the child conceived through IVF – knowing the risks?
Presumably, that too is a risk she was prepared to take. And no, the HFEA is not seeking to limit women’s choice, it wants to limit the number of multiple births, who, strangely Birkett seems quite flippant about.
The fact that that multiple birth babies might not live or that they may have life threatening complications also seems to be less important to her than allowing women to choose the number of embryos transferred – even if that choice results in multiple births with the attendant complications or deaths of the babies.
Instead of society at large – including doctors and the fertility industry – encouraging women to seek children by assisted conception, should they not, in addition to counselling be mentioning alternatives to IVF? Like adopting, fostering or the childfree option?
I have to say that though I mention risks to the mother here, I have little no sympathy for them. They have a choice as to whether they go for IVF. A child is not a right, and there are plenty of unwanted children in the world for those who truly have the interests of the child at heart. My sympathies are entirely with the IVF babies, who have such a high risk of dying, struggling to live or having complications in life.
I for one am glad that at least some, in the form of the HFEA are standing up for them, because no one else seems to be. It’s long overdue.
Lastly – why is it that now, whenever anyone dares to say that perhaps those seeking babies so desperately should perhaps accept that they are not going to have them and re-evaluate their life choices, there is an analogy to cancer??
WTF has cancer to do with infertility? There is absolutely no correlation between having cancer(or any other life threatening disease for that matter) and wanting a baby.
They shouldn’t even be in the same sentence.
Technorati Tags: IVF, multiple births, childfree, fertility industry, fertitility treatment
Quote: “Selfish or what?”
As you say… BINGO!
Ugh. This all just reminds me of that terrible case here recently about the woman who killed her severely disabled son. The one she’d had her womb stitched shut in order to bring to term after multiple miscarriages. D:
I do think there’s something severely wrong when people are “willing to risk” horrible complications for the children they just absolutely must have (why, for godssakes?). Yet abortion is evil (it’s okay to inflict hideous birth defects that will cause a lifetime of suffering, but not okay to destroy a small cluster of cells) and choosing to live without children is ’selfish’. And no-one seems to question any of it…
i am in a strange position, i say, if nature, or god, or the divine entity of your choice, says, dont have a child, either by making you lack the parental instinct, or by the body saying nope.. you cant.. then shouldnt people be more accepting.
part of me wonders, how many children conceived through ivf, have ivf to have their children. if there is a genetic infertility problem, or they will create a disabled child, then what are the chances of the next generation having similar or worse problems.
ah dee, but you forget, having a disabled child must be part of gods plan, (and infertility isnt????), everyone must have a quiverful of children, and if its disabled then it teach compassion.
(sarcasm off)
Chris… It’s completely nuts! I had to read that bit several times, because sometimes you do begin to wonder if it isn’t just you
Dee – You raise a very interesting point. I have been thinking of that question all day. Nobody questions this blatant reproductive double standard, and one has to wonder why. I think it’s because of this disturbing fact:
Anything done to produce a child in our pro-natal society is either good, o.k or people are willing to live with. Which means that even if mulitple birth babies die or will have complications that will render their health sub standard, the end seems to justify the means.
Whereas anything to do with a woman’s right to have the choice of what to do with her body or to control her fertility is bad and must be either removed/banned/restricted or criticised.
As we speak in the US they are still trying to overturn Roe vs Wade. And, fueled by the religious right, they won’t stop until they get what they want. Yet there is a stony silence on IVF and all it entails.
Mercurior – People are not encouraged to accept the fact they can’t have kids. As Ann-Marie has said, and from my own experience and observations, in general “others” seem to think they need to encourage them to “try IVF” instead of just accepting.Those ecouraging may know little or nothing about IVF, or the risks. Only after several tries at IVF have failed does the question of possibility of accepting ever come in.
And your second question about whether those with fertility problems will give birth to children with fertility problems – the answer is that it is quite likely that they will. The thinking is that when those children present with fertility issues, the doctors will also treat them with IVF. Go figure, as they say.
Well, now there certainly are a whole lot of assumptions going on here. IVF success rates are actually not that low. When in any given so-called natural cycle the chances of conception each month are only around 20% for a normal fertile couple…IVF actually is better than that per IVF cycle. Expensive…yes, it is relatively expensive, but overall, not bad compared to many other medical procedures.
And yes, there are some health risks, I don’t know of many medical procedures or medications that have no risks. And the health risks to IVF children are actually not “high”. Is there a slight increased risk? Yes. The IVF risk is only slightly higher than is associated with a “natural” pregnancy (around 3% for IVF vs. just under 2% for “natural” pregnancies). That hardly makes IVF babies at “high” risk. And with IVF, multiple births can be avoided or limited by transferring only one embryo, which is becoming more common (especially when the treatment is publicly funded).
There is nothing “stupid” about choosing to treat one’s medical condition if one chooses to. And as for why women would choose to do IVF, the reasons are as varied as the people who simply choose to have children “naturally”. If you are going to make this argument about women who use IVF, you need to apply the same judgments to any woman who chooses to reproduce (and keep in mind, those are judgments and assumptions for people’s reasons). Reproduction is a normal biological process. Why would treating it with medical treatment when that biological function is not working be any different than treating any other biological function that is not working?
Suggesting that women who have a medical problem should be specifically counseled on alternatives such as adoption or fostering when they choose to use IVF is ridiculous (and I think most people don’t need special counseling to be aware that those things are options for anyone – not just infertile people). It is like suggesting that someone who can’t walk due to a medical problem that could potentially be overcome by medical treatment, should be counseled on options such as a wheelchair over the surgery that could help them walk because surgery is “risky” and expensive, and isn’t it rather selfish to think they should want to do what is a natural normal biological function when they have been dealt the cards of having a problem with walking? There is nothing wrong with using a wheelchair. Walking is not a “right” after all.
Infertility is a MEDICAL issue. It is not a “choice”. Choosing to have no children, one child, or twelve children is a choice. Having a medical problem that prevents one from being able to have children is not a choice. Adopting children in need of homes is not the responsibility of infertile people by virtue of them having a medical problem. It is a responsibility for everyone is society, including those whose reproductive system is not impaired. And I know many infertile couples who choose to do both, adopt and use IVF.
Are you people from another planet or something??? Infertility is not a choice, it is a medical condition – one that doesnt only cause a person to be infertile but also comes with life threatning attachments like heart desease, cancer, high blood pressure and the list goes on and on and on. A person and i say person because who ever wrote this ridiculous article seems to think that its just the women who are infertile, sorry buddy there are just as many men out there that are infertile as well, so a person who is infertile does not want a baby as an accessory – they want a baby to make their family complete. To think that someone would want a baby as an accessory to begin with, infertility or not is being selfish! and the writer of this article is so ignorant when it comes to this topic that maybe you should consider a different pastime!!!! Adoption is such a copout when it comes to arguing about infertility – the people who conceived these children and then didnt want them anymore, had a choice to do so – it was their choice and to sit there and say that infertile couples should ‘adpopt’ is like saying infertile people have the responsibility to make the adoption problem go away, in my opinion there is another solution for adoption to decrease, CLOSE YOUR LEGS!!! if you are not capable of looking after a child USE PROTECTION! its that simple. How selfish to tell a couple who have been trying to have a baby and enduring so much frustration, pain, anguish that this is God’s way of saying it aint gonna happen, this is what God intended, what a load of crap. I have 4 children that i concived naturally and yep my dear husband and i are wanting to have a #5, i have PCOS and apart from many other medical conditions that come along with having PCOS, infertility is one of them, i am 32 years old, we have our own company and we are a very loving family – to the writer of this article, the IGNORANT writer of this article i ask you one thing, before you go and shoot your mouth off at something you know nothing about get your facts straight.
in regards to adoption, these children come from under privelidged places filled with desease and more often or not these children are not well and have many things to overcome, whether it be health, culture, communication etc it is not right to take a child away from its whole culture and community and then try to dress them up and make them part of your own culture and community – that is selfish. A child who is adopted has many emotional issues, its not that easy and you dont have an istant brady bunch family.
I am appauled that anyone would sit here and tell a couple trying to conceive that its all in their head and to get over it absalutely appauled.
i am not surprised that mommy 24 is so upset about us talking about infertility. did you actually read and learn about it,
“To summarise, the HFEA is proposing to limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted to reduce the risks to the mother and, more importantly, the risk to the children. The regulator in particular wants to cut down the unacceptably high number of IVF-assisted multiple births, that occur because of assisted conception”
so children who arent you dna are diseased children, and arent worth being loved. is your desire to have your own child so great that you will go bankrupt (which has happened),
why do you think people are infertile?, nature of which we are part, decided that for some reason the DNA of ourselves is inadequate, ok so your conceived 4 children, isnt that enough, but no you want a 5th, at any cost. what if the child you bring in next has health problems due to the pcos and other medical health problems, will you want another and another until you get that golden child.
i would check the official site, for the details of problems when it comes to ivf.
Treatment and success
The average success rate for IVF treatment using fresh eggs in the UK is
28.2% for women under 35;
23.6% for women aged 35-37;
18.3% for women aged 38-39;
10.6% for women aged 40-42.
The risk of treatment
The single biggest risk from IVF treatment is multiple births, and particularly triplet births. These carry potential health effects for both the mother and the unborn child.
Multiple birth babies are more likely to be premature and the babies below normal birth weight.
The risk of death before birth or within the first week is more than 4 times greater for twins and almost 7 times greater for triplets than for single births.
The incidence of cerebral palsy is approximately 5 times higher for twins and approximately 18 times higher for triplets than for single births.
The latest figures (2003-04) show that 23.7% of births are twins and triplets (23.2% twins and 0.5% triplets). This is down from 29.1% in 1991 (24.5% twins and 4.6% triplets)
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/406.html
Risks associated with treatment
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1207.html
Firstly Mummy24 – If you don’t like my views you are welcome to go elsewhere. I do not mind you commenting, and I have decided to leave your comment up this time, as I think it shows more about you and your lack of coherence than anything else – but if you hurl insults at anyone on this blog or have a problem being civil and are offensive again – I will delete your comments. I advise you to read my disclaimer – it’s pretty clear.
Second – I suggest you actually read the article – slowly this time – and get your facts right. I say this because almost everything you mention are things that I haven’t said. And you missed the entire point of the article.
Your reasons for not adopting children:
“in regards to adoption, these children come from under priveliged places filled with desease and more often or not these children are not well and have many things to overcome, whether it be health, culture, communication etc it is not right to take a child away from its whole culture and community and then try to dress them up and make them part of your own culture and community – that is selfish. A child who is adopted has many emotional issues, its not that easy and you dont have an istant brady bunch family.”
is an interesting perspective.
According to you, because these (adopted) children are so “filled with disease, not well many things to overcome, underpriviliged etc they are not worthy of adoption, of love or of anything else a child deserves? And of course a child with of your own DNA is far more worthy – because they have none of these problems. I doubt that people who have adopted, or adopted children themselves would agree with you.
That is a pretty lame reason for not adopting instead of chasing one’s own dna in the form of a child.
And yet you say that those who do adopt are being selfish….
People will continue multiple ivf treatments, with multiple embryos despite the risk to the children, bankrupt themselves in an effort to fulfill a want or need for a child, or perhaps their need for their own DNA, while if it was a child they wanted to love, rather than to fulfill their own need for a child-but-with-their-own-dna, well we at least can see that there is a lot of selfishness there. Some things just aren’t meant to be. No matter how much you rant and rave.
mercurior – I’m not surprised either
since they didn’t bother to read the article first. That always helps. Thanks for your very well made points and the additional information.
well i am a research maniac
.. i like for people to be accurate, even if i disagree with them, there is a lot of it wont happen to me in a lot of these people like mummy24, they have a happy clappy view of the world which usually focuses on children, but when they see someone saying, it may not be a good idea, it could be dangerous, or there may be problems, they think it will never happen to me.
the problem is they are blind to the possible negative outcomes, some due to the societal pressure, some are unable to think that a person without a child is somehow defective, that we are only on the look out for ourselves, when in actually a lot of childfree think about the child coming into the world, and decide its not worth having a child, in todays world.
mummy24 is a classic example of this kind of thinking, she has combined my dna is better and i wont suffer from any problems, and neither will my children. but when you give facts and truth to them, they start to insult you, telling you that you are wrong,
Unfortunately, when something goes wrong with any of these fertility treatments, SOCIETY pays the consequences. When you run up over a million dollar bill for a two to three month Neonatal ICU stay for one or more premature fetus, can YOU pay it? I bet very few of the people who have such treatments, including IVF can come up with that kind of money. Sometimes it is better to accept infertility and find other ways to make your life complete. Society is paying for your choices, and that is where I draw the line. If you can’t afford the potential medical care and the cost of feeding the multiple children who do survive, you have no right to put that burden on society. It is completly irresponsible.
Yes, and in some cases they want to go even further by making it available to be funded by taxpayers.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but walk a day in their shoes and im sure you will not be so quick to put those wanna be mothers down. I am happily married and when the only choice left to have a baby was IVF we didn’t think twice about it, I dont know if you low rates there of babies being born but at my clinic in the states it’s 68% take home baby rate and a lot of those born are twins or triplets or even more. Being a mother is a huge part of doing IVF but also I have a medical condition that pregnancy will help but at ease. I can get off my pain meds which cause danger in themselves and live a painfree life without having to go through menopause at 27. We don’t all snub our noses at adoption we plan on adopting someday but I think everyone should be allowed an attempt at becoming pregnant and having a child. Like I said walk a day in my shoes with all the pain I was in before I was pregnant. You are entitled to think whatever you want. I only hope that we pass the bill in congress to make insurances cover some of the costs if they can pay for birth control, abortions and such then they should pay for the other spectrum in some cases it cost more to have someone on birth control for a year then to have IVF or IUI’s done. We did pay for ours in full and it didnt put us in the poor house one bit but I know a lot of couples who will not get over that hurdle. It’s not that they cant afford the children they will have but paying 22k for treatment that will put just about anyone under unless your last name is Trump. We got lucky that my husband is in the military so we were able to use a military hospital and it cost us 5k. I just thought I would give you the other side of it.
So IF nature says you cant have children, are you going to play god.
Thats the point we didnt think twice about it. Is your DNA so much superior that you couldnt adopt, or be childfree.
And your deluded in thinking that a lot of insurance pay for b/c and abortions, and tubals. Most childfree have to PAY beyond.
If you cant afford to have children, then why have them, why spend 22K, when you dont need too. why go into debt, But the baby is all isnt it.
if you have a child “god” provides. Did you ever consider that maybe not having children was a way to go. I bet not.
And your comment about walking a day in their shoes, try walking a day in ours, try being childfree, the peace. But No your DNA is superior.
And btw whats the medical condition, you never name it.
Bayleigh,
So what you’re saying is that you have some medical condition that causes you to be in severe pain. But, if you’re pregnant, that severe pain goes away.
You were also unable to conceive. But, you were able to get pregnant through IVF.
So what you’re telling us is that since being pregnant causes your severe pain to go away, you went and got pregnant so the pain goes away? Essentially, you USED YOUR BABY to help ease your suffering?
How selfish is that?
Further, you’re saying that it only cost you $5k because you’re in the military? Great! But what you’re not saying is that it is the tax payers who picked up the costs for your IVF treatments. Don’t forget, your husband’s benefits and salary are being paid by the regular civilian tax payers. Those people you military people like to put down in saying that we don’t have the “courage” to put our lives on the line to be in the military.
Maybe not, or maybe yes, but if it weren’t for us, you wouldn’t have a paycheck. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for military expenses? The government? Hello! We ARE the government (in the U.S.) and we’re taxed!
Thirdly, I’ll need to find the article I had read, but there is an increasing number of birth defects showing up – all due to the increase of IVF treatments and women getting pregnant by IVF. There’s a BIOLOGICAL and “Mother Nature” REASON you can’t get pregnant: that’s because you’re NOT SUPPOSED TO. i.e. By using IVF to get pregnant, women are bypassing Mother Nature’s way of cleaning out the gene pool by forcing pregnancy.
The backlash to that is a rising number of birth defects, deformities, and other medical and health issues.
Way to go for supporting the continuance of bad genes!
Bayleigh – I have no wish to “walk in your shoes” as you put it. I am not and never will so consumed with the NEED to reproduce that I have to indebt myself. The whole premise of pursuing IVF, underscored by the I want, therefore I must have, no matter what astronomical cost, no matter what the risks to any children.
The father of a recent outcome of IVF, triplets, was on the news here recently. The parents said they’d need 10,000 diapers a year for the new additions. That’s a good bit of landfill there. Of course, they weren’t expecting triplets, but they took the risk. And here’s a link that mercurior found recently – you should read it. It’s to CFSince6’s point…passing on bad genes and diseases. My only regret is that my tax dollars, where IVF is subsidized, are being used to support something so unecessary.
If people want to bankrupt themselves in search of their own flesh and blood they won’t get any sympathy from me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/nivf115.xml
Britgirl, thanks for the link! That’s another article on the subject.
It just occurred to me by reading the comments on that site how these people are so full of themselves they cannot POSSIBLY conceive that their DNA is simply not “good enough.” Inspite of doctors saying there’s nothing wrong with them, perhaps maybe there is and that’s why they’re not getting pregnant.
I asked my boyfriend last night if his sister and her husband were still trying to conceive. I know that last year they were going through IVF treatments. He is assuming that they are still trying to have a baby. When I think of them, I think of these articles about IVF.
This should be interesting.
I am continually surprised at the notion that if you have a medical problem, for example…a heart defect, or some other medical problem, that is more than acceptable to treat with modern medicine and no one bats an eye. No one is simply saying you don’t “deserve” medical treatment, or “Some things just aren’t meant to be. No matter how much you rant and rave.”
I don’t hear anyone saying anything about “nature” or “Gods” intention for someone to be ill, or to die due to their problem…or even that they should just deal with it, live with it, get over it….and are “by-passing” mother nature by getting treatment (let alone any talk about say a heart transplant survivor who mother natured supposedly didn’t intend to live passing on their dna to offspring)…
But if your problem relates to your reproductive organs, well then it is “meant to be” and you should live with it…it is for a “reason”, “mother nature” is “telling you something”…etc…and treating that would be “playing God”.
Choosing to use medical treatment is about more that just “DNA”. It is also about experiencing a pregnancy, childbirth and the shared experience with your partner…and about experiencing something that is a normal part of life for most people (and that doesn’t mean it is therefore “abnormal” to choose not to have children or have no desire to). There is nothing wrong or selfish with having the desire, even if you need medical treatment to do so.
And lastly, yes, there are some increased risks for IVF children. But the overall risks are still very low. There are risks in ALL pregnancies, so no one goes into it “risk free”. And one can reduce the risks of multiples by transferring less embryos…something that is more common when IVF is funded like other health care treatments and the cost of medical treatment is not overwhelming for individuals. Infertility is a disease. It should be treated like one.
but INFERTILITY affects the breeding population.
if it has a genetic component, then all thats being done is increasing the problems for the next generation. as has been shown in many studies, infertility is increasing.
Now take animal populations, when they grow too big they inbreed, they have infertility problems, and more wars, and more diseases occur. Look at the world today. You bring up the point that having a bad heart is the same as IVF, It is upto a point. BUT the human form is only supposed to live to a certain age, thats nature. and the human body fails. thats nature too. NOW, theres darwinism, survival of the fittest. in terms of genetics, people with genetic infertility or problems that stop them from having children, the genepool would soon have none of those contraindicated disorders. (now before people accuse me of eugenic constructs I beleive its NATURE that decides)
So eventually there will be less, infertility as the genes expressing it will die out (but there are mutations so there will be a smaller population). But wouldnt that be better.
People forget that we as humans are part of evolution. IVF is Tempting fate/nature/god. Or Susan do you want everyone to have IVF? and so by increasing the powers of the ivf industry.
First of all, there’s a huge difference between getting medical treatment for a life-threatening illness and getting treatment for infertility.
Secondly, it’s all well and good to say that “it’s in [G]od’s hands” when a woman is carrying 5-8 fetuses and won’t do selective reduction in order to have the best chance of having healthy children, but it’s not okay to say “it’s in [G]od’s hands” before the IVF treatments are begun.
Thirdly, as for the ‘must have our own instead of adopt’ because of the whole ’shared experience’ thing…eh. The adoption process, with all its ups and downs, is also an experience the couple can share. One of the coolest things I’ve done in my employment was to pick an infant up at the hospital and take him to his new home with the couple adopting him. To say that the experience of adopting a child is less ‘bonding’, whether between the parents and/or the parents and the child, I think is a slap in the face to all those people who have adopted.
No one as far as i know has died from not giving birth(having children). People have died from heart attacks.
Just sounds to me like you people that have decided to live “child-free” have too much time on your hands to sit around and judge other people. Maybe you should take some of that time and go do something that benefits the people around you instead of putting them down to try and make yourself feel better about the choices you have made.
Just sounds to me like Carmen is our latest troll!
If you don’t like what’s said here, hit the red x on the top right corner of the screen.
I swear I will faint with shock if a troll ever came up with something original to say. . .
Lord, have mercy. This is silly: we have HOW many children in foster care who need homes, and yet these people MUST get IVF treatments to have their own little copy? It’s pitiful. They’d do the world so much better if they took on those kids who so desperately need a home, and the love of, a parent who needs a child.
But what do I know? I’ve never wanted children, and can’t, as a rule, be bothered with them.
Ironically enough, I’ve been the ‘den mother’ of sorts to homeless teens at the local LBGT center. Most of these kids didn’t know me from Adam, but considered me a parent figure. I have no idea why, but there it is.
@Liz: Don’t you just love it when the trolls roll in see no angst or trolling and decide to try and stir it? They don’t know how idiotic they look
IVF, of course, is a good option but I think it is expensive, time consuming and carries some side effects. And the chances of success are also less. It is better to go for tubal where there is a chance to do.
-Mini
Carmen needs a little editing:
There, I think that’s what you really meant to say.