The Instigator
Baltzell17
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
brynmmyers
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

IVF Debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 291 times Debate No: 73864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Baltzell17

Pro

Some of the basic benefits to an IVF is that families with infertility are able to have kids in order to make a family. A person might undergo IVF to get their significant others gametes if they are going to die of a disease or if they are going into the military. This will allow a family to have kids even when their significant other is gone. Another benefit to IVF is that homosexual couples will be allowed to have children. They would be allowed to have kids a natural way with they help of science.
brynmmyers

Con

It is true that families with infertility can have kids through IVF, but major complications can come of this type of fertilization. If the significant other of the family is for some reason is not going to be around, as you said, they still have the ability to have a baby. If the male member of the family dies, the mother can be left to face multiple health problems alone while raising her child. These health problems can include injury to surrounding organs like the bladder, bowel, or blood vessels that call for emergency surgery, pelvic infection that may require hospitalization, or maternal hemorrhage. This can leave the mother alone to recover and pay for her medical bills. In the case of maternal hemorrhage, or any other serious complication, the mother could die, either leaving the baby alone with no mother or causing it to die. Even if the father does not leave, leaving the mother and baby alone, these complications can still arise. The fact that the significant other may die only makes these complications harder to deal with, and raises the risk of the baby becoming an orphan. These health issues are statistically less common with natural pregnancies and therefore prove that IVF is not worth the risk. If a family, for any reason, whether it be infertility or that they are a homosexual couple, cannot have children, adoption is always an option. Adoption from a local foster program instead of a non-profit adoption agency can also be drastically cheaper than an IVF procedure.
Debate Round No. 1
Baltzell17

Pro

It has been used for a long time and has a safe track record. The first "IVF baby", Louise Brown, was born using natural IVF in 1978. Since then, the technology has advanced, and techniques refined in order to create safe and successful treatment. They use only the safest forms of IVF with the lowest drug regimes in order to prevent side effects such as Ovarian Hyper stimulation Syndrome (OHSS). You point about having to pay for medical bills can be avoided by signing up for organizations around the country offering infertility treatment financial aid to those that qualify. Several non-profit organizations are in place around the US that are raising money to pay for IVF. Another point about pricing for is on average, IVF costs around $12,000-$15,000 where on average adoptions in the US cost around $27,000-$28,000 and overseas adoptions cost as much as $58,000. So it is a lot more expensive to adopt than it would be to get IVF.
brynmmyers

Con

Despite issues with cost and medical complications, ethical implications can rise from the advances in IVF technology. Genetic screening allows the parents to see the sex of the baby, as well as whether or not the baby will birth defects, chromosomal issues, or genetic medical problems. The ability to see these about the baby things raises ethical issues- when is it okay for the parent to decide the embryo should be destroyed because of genetic factors? If the couple sees that the baby will have medical issues, they may want to destroy the embryo and others like it to prevent the baby from having to deal with the medical problems when it grows up, especially if they have a healthy embryo. In this case, the parents, if they believe that life starts when the egg is fertilized, will have to decide which of their offspring they will get rid of. Seeing that the embryo has medical issues makes any parents more likely to decide to destroy it in place of a healthier embryo than if the child was conceived naturally. In natural conception, the parents get what they get and don't have the pressure of choosing which embryo has the better genes.

If IVF technology with regards to genetics continues to advance, we could be able to eventually change the genes of embryos and create "designer babies." The things that could be changed could range from eye color and gender to fixing medical issues and maybe even things like intelligence or athletic ability. Multiple issues could come of creating "designer babies," including the potential deterioration of the concept of, "survival of the fittest." This could potentially halt or drastically change human adaption. In the case of some sort of epidemic or disaster, naturally, only the best would survive. However, if we were to make it so people could choose genes that are seen as the best, there is a risk of every human being somewhat alike. In this situation, one disease could wipe out an entire country because everyone could be so alike that no one would be "strong enough" to endure and adaption or development would not work the same way as it would if there was genetic variance. On top of this, if "designer babies" became big enough of a deal, a race similar to an arms race or space race between countries could surmount of who can create the best people. This can cause an irreversible change to human characteristics.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com...

http://kidshealth.org...

http://edition.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Baltzell17

Pro

Genetic screening can be useful for IVF because it can allow parents to begin treatment and genetic modifications to the baby before it is even born allowing the baby and parents to live a longer and healthier life. At the same time it will allow for the babies to be born normally after they are implanted into the mother and normal safety precautions will follow. Another factor about genetic screening is that the scientists and doctors that do the genetic screening may force patients to sign a waiver saying they are not allowed to abort the baby unless the mother is experiencing life threading issues do to the baby. If the babies have a disease which would lead to a very early death genetic screening would allow doctors to catch the disease before its too late and solve the situation. Finally genetic screening would allow parents to prepare to pay for medical expenses by taking out loans or applying for medical help before the baby is born. This will allow the parents to provide for their children at a very early age.
brynmmyers

Con

There are more ethical issues besides genetic screening. Because there is risk of the eggs not being fertilized, multiple must be used and often more are fertilized than the mother wants. All of the eggs not implanted into the woman's body may be either frozen and kept from life or destroyed. A study done on embryonic fertilization through IVF claims that 3.5 million embryos have been created since 1991. 93 percent of these embryos were never used. This means about 3,255,000 embryos have not been used after fertilization through IVF. 839,325 of these embryos were put into storage for future use and 2,071 were donated to other families. 5,876 were given to scientific research. This means about 2,000,000 of the embryos had nothing done with them or were destroyed. It depends on personal beliefs whether or not one thinks life begins when the embryo is fertilized and a new, completely original genetic code is made inside a living mass of cells. The belief that life does begin when the embryo is fertilized, however, may create backlash if IVF were to become commonly used, as they would see many potential lives being destroyed.. The fact that about 6,000 of these embryos were used for research raises another question, because if one believes that life starts at fertilization, 6,000 lives were volunteered to be researched on without consent or an ability to protest. The large amount of eggs that are implanted into the woman's body because of the risk of low success rate may also result in her having more babies than she wanted to have, possibly being too much for her body to handle.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Baltzell17

Pro

All though it is very sad that millions of potential people on this plant are being wasted, it might be to the lack of information. Instead of destroying the embryos or freezing them and having to pay the bill for the rest of their lives, there are several options for parents trying to figure out what to do with their embryos. The first option is to donate their embryos to other infertile couples. The embryos would for example be donated and promised to stem cell research which would help with getting rid of disease and advancing people today. The other option instead of just destroying embryos is donating them to medical research which would be a way to know that you helped contribute to the future and help to develope a new means of science. A way to let the embryos pass is by passing them in the uterus of a mother right before she begins her menstraul cycle which doesn't give the embryo enough time to develope and stop the menstraul cycle allowing the embryo to pass naturally.
brynmmyers

Con

To add to health issues that mothers and their babies face because of IVF, multiple pregnancies can have negative impacts on the human body. Again, because the success rate of IVF is not always 100%, multiple eggs are fertilized and, commonly, up to 4 can be placed in the womb. Some of the embryos can fail to survive, leaving the mother with only one baby in her womb at the end. However, all the embryos can survive resulting in multiple pregnancies, putting the mother at risk for complications ranging from not serious to life-threatening. The less serious implications include early admittance into the hospital or unnaturally induced birth because of hypertension, diabetes, or other conditions. The more serious risks include higher risks of miscarriage, higher usage of cesarean section intervention in the birth process, and higher mortality rate for mothers (2/25,000 for twins or more children being birthed compared to 1/25,000 for just one child being birthed). The baby can also suffer from being in the womb with other babies, the biggest issue being prematurity and the vast range of complications that come with it. A study found that at least half of all twins are birthed prematurely or before 37 weeks at a low birth weight. Twins are also six times more likely to die in their first year of life than babies in the womb alone, and the risk goes up as more embryos survive in the womb. 40%-60% of IVF babies from multiple pregnancies are transferred to neonatal centers about 12% spend around 4 weeks there. This means there are health complications with the baby, and also will result in expensive medical bills for the parents. Other risks include disability (7.4% of twins), congenital malformations (6.3% of twins), respiratory ailments (8% of twins) and more. Of course, these numbers apply to triplets and quadruplets and the risk rate probably increases. Research has also been done that suggests that parents of multiple pregnancies have a more difficult time raising their children, correlated with their difficulties regarding infertility. Therefore, IVF, because it can result in multiple pregnancies and bring harm to both mother and child, is not worth it.

Sources:

http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...

http://www.azfertility.com...

http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...

http://www.oneatatime.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
Baltzell17

Pro

The reality of the situation is that IVF is allowing families that aren't able to have children the possibility to have them. It is taking the embryo from the mom or a donated embryo and mixing it with the dads sperm or donated sperm to create a fetus which is then put inside the mother that will have the baby naturally. The embryos that aren't used for the mother can be donated or saved. The donation process can consist of donating the embryos to a medical foundation where they can be used to help advance science or then can be donated to another family in order to help with them start a new life. Besides IVF is a lot more expensive than adoption and quite frankly it's a lot fast to deal with IVF and their doctors than it is to deal with an adoption agency. IVF is the way of the future and eventually it will be a normal thing to the every day society, but it has to start somewhere.
brynmmyers

Con

IVF may present legal issues for people who decide to use it. The most common legal issue is created after a couple who had IVF done and have embryos frozen for later use decide to get a divorce. Because there really are no exact laws that define what should be done with disputes over pre-embryo ownership, different courts may decide in different ways and for different reason. A couple therefore can never really be sure of what will happen after they have IVF done if they divorce. The most common divorce issue happens when one of the parents wants to destroy or donate the embryos they had with their partner because the relationship is over or because they don't want to be responsible for a child they have no say in creating (in the present, of course - not speaking of their initial IVF fertilization), while the other parent wants to keep the embryos for other or later use or would like to have another child with their stored embryos. This creates a "status of property" dispute over who has the right to decide what happens with the embryo, and whether or not something that would grow to be a human is property. It may also create a "right to life" dispute if one of the parents wants the embryos destroyed but the other believes the embryos are alive and therefore that they have a right to life and should not be destroyed. The courts have trouble deciding who to side with in these instances because of the pre-conception agreement made between the parents before the IVF procedure and the decision of whether or not to force a parent to have a child against their will. The courts have decided in favor of destroying the embryos someone else wants and also in favor of forcing someone who does not want to be a parent to be a parent. Because of this risk of legal issues and the ambiguity of how legal cases would be dealt with, IVF can create a host of problems for the parents.

In conclusion, IVF is not worth all of its risks. It can present many health issues to both mother and baby, can produce ethical complications over genetic screening and the destruction of embryos the world is not yet ready to deal with, can leave a mother in a situation she doesn't want to be in, or can create legal problems between parents that are especially hard to solve. If a couple truly wants to be parents and cannot have children, there are other less risky options including adoption.

Source:

http://www.babymed.com...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.