I dont think its fair on the children , its all thinking me me me I want I want , ok theres the possiblity a young mother could die in an accident ( thats natural its part of life )  we cant prevent all accidents and we cant prevent old women dieing of old age
we can  prevent old women giving birth at those ages and leaving little souls to foster homes , dont we have enough orphans without creating more ?
Can you imagen this lady dieing at say 75 and leaving an 9 year old , not only that at older  ages you dont have the energy like young parents have , you hold the child back , infact the child might end up having to be nurse to you while your care people arent there . IMHO they should make it illegal .

hiya spook, thanks for your message, this topic is sure getting a lot of replys, im horrified by it, least i say the better
   my little girl was born in jan 2003, shes called bethany, & is an ivf/icsi baby, we are all doing just fine thanks, not sure on who your sister in law is though, the staff there are fab i cant thank them enough, we hope to try again some time this year, just waiting for me to feel the time is right
 

To me it is cut and dried, normally I see both sides, my friends say I'm good at that but not with this. We should leave certain things to nature/God, we were designed to have babies or not depending on different factors, it is not a right and we should not meddle. Even now we are being told there may be repercussions in the future for people who have had treatment to help them conceive, its a minefied best left well alone.
I  suppose the Church here is trying to discourage bad feelings towards the child who lets face it is not going have an easy time anyway . A good thing I hope

So are you saying you would refuse medical treatment if you were ill - if we should leave things to nature and to god?

Of course she is, Chloe, otherwise she'd be hypocritical, and I'm sure she's not that.
:)

I do believe that coleystaff stated that certain things should be left to nature/God-not that I am saying I agree with this view, however when you gave your interpretation of this ChloeH, you omitted the certain from that statement.  How are you able to ascertain that to coleystaff, medical treatment would be included in "certain things"?  I also fail to see how she could be called hypocritical by saying otherwise, given that she has not stipulated what would be included in "certain things"?

-Kay

She wasn't called hypocritical ..read JG's post again

The implication was there. :)

So who decides on what should be left to God and to Nature and on what basis? Why is it that, for example, someone can have treatment for a debilitating disease to improve their life, yet a woman may not have intervention to help her have a child she desperately craves? Why is one more worthy than the other when both can have catastrophic consequences if denied?
And may I say that I simply asked a question? I can't see where using "certain" would have made any difference:

So are you saying you would refuse medical treatment if you were ill - if we should leave certain things to nature and to god?

ChloeH: again, you omitted the part of my reply to your post that stated that I wasn't saying I agreed with that specific view. :)  In addition, I am aware you were simply asking a question.  However, to my interpretation, it was potentially unfounded given that what you were basing your question on wasn't actually what Coleystaff had said.  The word certain as used by Coleystaff implied that he/she wasn't giving a definitive description on what he/she believes should be left to nature/God.  I have to admit that I'm also unsure if the remainder of your questions were rhetorical or not, I'm hoping so though! :)

sorry when I meant certain things, it was just a turn of phrase. I was referring only to the conception of children. Using someonelses eggs or another mans sperm to have a baby is not having treatment to cure fertility medically.
I have been fortunate not to have ever had to seek treatment for serious illnesses and although I have a problem with experimentation on animals I wouldnt be strong enough to refuse treatment based on those grounds

I don't understand the points you are making

The poster said they do not agree with fertility treatment and it should be up to god/nature...therefore I asked if they would refuse medical treatment - a simple question. Whats the problem - its a reasonable question and I have made no assumptions on the answer nor the reasoning behind any potential answer. I don't understand what the problem is? :)

I think its more the age of this lady then the actuall treatment thats the problem . they should put a limit on whats healthy and not . Its up to the individual to decide if its for them or not

The assumption was there with the phrase "so you are saying" used by yourself.  The point I was making was that you should not read things into someone's post that are not there.  Aside from that, I have no problem, far from it! :)

No, I said "So are you saying"...there's a big difference there - and you say I read things into posts!! :D

My apologies, that was the bit I came back to edit! :D  However, the implication remains.  But I think we shall leave it at that, shall we not? :)

Whenever anyone expresses doubts about the ethics of assisted conception it's pretty certain that the comparison with receiving medical treatment will be made.  However we need to recognise the difference between illness and infertility.
I agree that not being able to have children can bring a lot of anxiety and unhappiness to individuals but it's not life threatening in itself.  People have to face all kinds of adversity in life - it's just the way things are, unfortunately. We just have to find ways of coping. 

In this particular case it's worth mentioning that the woman will actually be bringing up someone else's child. But I think we've already had that debate ! :)

There are many medical conditions which aren't life-threatening in themselves, but can cause a lot of mental and/or physical pain, but which are rightly treated. Think about hip-replacements. Arthritic joints aren't physically life-threatening, are they? Perhaps the sufferers should be advised that they simply need to find a way of coping?

Im going to ask a potentially dumb question here ........... I always though IVF was carried out using the sperm and egg of the parents and not a donor - or am I just being blonde ? :p

Blondebird - medical science has advanced much further than that, I'm afraid.  They'll be cross fertilising from other species before we know it :)

but what exactly is IVF, is it using donor eggs or those from the parents ?

Either or Blondebird...In Vitro Fertilization just means taking a sperm and an egg and combining them outside of the womb and then replanting them (as far as I know - but there will be others who have more knowledge on the subject than me)

Using donor eggs for IVF treatment is a relatively new procedure, blondebird. But AID (artificial insemination by donor) has been around for decades. This has resulted in lots of children being brought up by fathers who aren't their biological fathers. For some children it's brought a lot of anguish when they've discovered the truth.

That's not the fault of the treatment, Joyce - it's the fault of the parents for not being honest from the outset.

Well if the treatment wasn't available in the first place there would be no cause for people to be dishonest.
Young children would find it difficult to comprehend the real facts anyway so most would be grown up before they were told the truth. So there's always going to be a degree of dishonesty there. 

But AID (artificial insemination by donor) has been around for decades. This has resulted in lots of children being brought up by fathers who aren't their biological fathers.

Joyce ..according to research, there are LOTS of children being bought up by their non biological fathers because of the mothers infidelity. In fact, the figure could be up to 20%.

(Just a clarification point)

Sad fact don't you think, Melody ?!

Biological imperative apparantly Joyce and yes, very sad. Unlike the children born to IVF and AID though, these children and fathers will probably never know....

Joyce, I watch football ...I think they have already done that :p :p :p

Good one, Melody ! :)

I see we're in for another hair splitting day, J/G.

Not at all, Joyce - just trying to discover where the boundary lies. How much suffering has be undergone before it's considered worthy of treatment, and how that's quantified and established. I'm not qualified to make that judgement about how other people feel, so I wouldn't dare tell them how much they should put up with.
:)

Just like to make the point about saying infertility not being life threating that it can be!
My daughter had the highest grade of endometriosis, she had an ovary & tube removed at 23yrs, was at high risk of ectopic pregnancy before & after which is life threatening as was the operation. She was adviced to have hysterectomey but didn`t cos she wanted to try for children. Ironicly, being pregnant can help & halt this disease! She then went on to have further treatment for the endometios, all life threating as any operation is. Then after 1 IVF treatment worked & gave her a beautiful daughter she went on to finally have adviced hysterectomy. It had complications that of a collapsed lung & phneumania. So some cases of infertility are life threatening.
Without IVF my daughter wouldn`t have her child nor would I have my granddaughter :) for which I`ll be eternally grateful for :)

Christine, Spain.

I wonder how she (and you) would have felt if told to "find a way of coping with it". :(

I can`t think of any word to say how we`d have felt J/G  ;(

Christine, Spain.