The Instigator
zackSanchez
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
zuckSanchez
Con (against)
Losing
14 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 7 votes the winner is...
zackSanchez
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 153 times Debate No: 90338
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

zackSanchez

Pro

Why should we restrict a couple from the grand miracle of having a child. Even if they are unable to do so naturally. If they have been stricken with infertility and the fear of birth defects.
zuckSanchez

Con

They may be true contender, but have taken into account the global effect that these technological advances in birthing would create. The increase of females creating baby's would also increase the population size, once more halting Darwinism, which is trying to have a the one's that can reproduce live and boosting the overpopulation problem to a new degree. Creating less and less stability with our current ecosystem. (pbs.org)
Debate Round No. 1
zackSanchez

Pro

Yes Darwinism, leaving those that can adapt and evolve shall live. Well with the advances of IVF we would be able to select the best specimens, the ability to remove possible birth defects/ unwanted traits from being passed on from the mother or father, his could be made by using donors (Create health). Also the allowance of IVF would not drastically increase to a significant degree. Since the procedure would cost a average $20,000 dollars per chance of fertility (advancedfertility), so only people who would make of the upper-middle class and above which is %16 percent of the population of the U.S (house hold income). And as the IVF became more popular it would increase the job market, according to (LifeScienceIndustryResearch.com) the market would increase by a average of 11 percent.
zuckSanchez

Con

Well it may be true that the allowance of IVF would increase the job market for that field. It would also decease the availability and need to other jobs. Such as jobs in orphanages, since people with fertility problems or other problems where they cant have one naturally would no longer need or wish to adopt a child, since they would be able to create a child with IVF. There are an average of 120,000 orphans currently in the U.S alone, and they are facing a steady decline of possible family with the influences such as IVF (The Orphan Crisis In America). Also you seem to have failed to mention to input that there is a little over then 25 percent chance that the outcome of an IVF would be a live child (Fertility Solutions). Statically the price for a single child for a unlucky woman would be about $75,00 for having a child on the fourth attempt. Taking account for the rare chance of a health insurance company to cover IVF, since there is a lack of medical necessity (Growing Family Benefits). Meaning that the inability to conceive is not a life threatening condition and it is not a treatment does not result in the cure for a medical condition.
But this also opens up the gateway to the thin line that is morality. As IVF technology evolves, it increases the ability to gain more control over the embryos (Tech Insider). With IVF advances, couples would be able to change the outcome of a child. This creating a new level of power and responsibility to mankind, as they swap and replace traits to there liking . This also removes the expression of marriage, removing the symbolic and reinforcement of the essential bonding act for the couples; and replacing it with technology becoming the maker (Creation and Transfer of a Single Embryo in Reproductive Technology).
Debate Round No. 2
zackSanchez

Pro

Well sir, there are certainly advantages to analyzing embryos. for instance genetic screening allows for seeking of embryos with abnormality. This could refer to embryos with a abnormal amount of chromosomes. Which would lead to disability and deceases in the child if where fully created (advancedfertility). This is useful since genetic abnormality are more prominent as a female ages, especially around 40 where 50-70 percent of them have a chromosome abnormality(Slate). The older females being a prime contributor towards IVF. The healthy ones are collected and some are stored away. This process allows there to have the greatest chance for the child to become healthy, then there would be if it where a natural birth. This also assists prevent large genetic diseases from being transmitted towards the next generation(Preimplantation Genetic Screening).
Also when there is a abundance of healthy eggs, they can be stored and donated to those who need them.
zuckSanchez

Con

Yes the embryos are frozen and stored for future use for you, if the first 3 attempts didn't work out or others, Actually there are hundreds of thousands of embryos accumulated in fertility clinics thought the country. Some of those are awaiting transferred, but most of which are frozen in time (Laura Beil). But freezing these potential children does not come free. The storage itself costs a average of $500 and another $5,000 for the thawing and embryo transfer procedure(uscfertility.org). There is also a danger to storing random embryos, since there is a possibility that the embryo has a abnormal amount of chromosomes, even with a genetic screening. Since the test would normally only look at 5 chromosomes out of the 23 leaving large areas of possible chromosome abnormality where the test would say it was normal. And this process leaves a fairly large hole in the embryo's shell since the test requires two cells of a six to ten cell embryo (advancedfertility). Causing potential damage to the embryo itself. Another problem is ownership of the embryos. Since the embryos are joint property of the couple, legal debates are complicated. In the process of signing of IVF papers there is a section involving ownership of embryos due to a accident or divorce. But according too attorney Susan L. Crockin "Nobody agrees on whether these documents are enforceable,". So we have court decisions such as Sofia V Nick where they fought to determine who could keep the embryos (K. ALEISHA FETTERS). Which ended up leading to more problems (telegraph).
Debate Round No. 3
zackSanchez

Pro

Well the problem with ownership already has multiple possible solution. Well if the couple decides to go to court of this dispute. If the court considers the embryos as people then they would use parens patriae reasoning; a best interests of the
child (duhaime) In which it would become a custody dispute, where the embryos would go to the human who would have to best ability to take care for taking them (Donna M. Sheinbach). And if the court deems it as property, making it go with property law, in which the item would go to in general whoever paid for it or who ever gave the most amount of money (britannica). But also they could enact contract law if they decide to determine the documents that the participants agreed on, in which they would decide the validity (Donna M. Sheinbach) These documents validity in these disputes are more valid in some country's then others, such as the U.K which deems the documents much more valid then the U.S (Oxford Journals).
zuckSanchez

Con

Well even after the remaining embryos ownership problems, there is also a more lively issue that could very likely come into play in a IVF. Since a IVF uses multiple embryos, normally 2-3 and in some cases 4 too maximize the success rate. Well it is possible that all of the embryos are fully successful in coming out of the female, this would be in simpler terms multiple births (Multiple Births in IVF). There is a significant higher chance of multiple births in comparison to conceiving naturally. Its a average of 16 percent with the use of IVF in comparison to a 1-2 percent chance naturally (oneatatime). And the problem with these multiple births is that the baby's would be weigh less then 5.5 and 65% of them where born premature (LAURIE TARKAN).
Debate Round No. 4
zackSanchez

Pro

Well the professionals do a clear and thorough procedure for the IVF. They would begin to do some baseline ultrasounds and some blood testing usually for follicle stimulating hormone and estradiol. Then they do ovarian suppression for two to four weeks. Also two weeks before ovarian supprestion the do a daily ejection called lupron to complete the pre-stimulation ovarian suppression. Then ovarian stimulation is started with injectable fertility medications and a reduced dose of lupron for eight to twelve days. Regular office visits have now begun until follicle aspiration. During each office visit, an ultrasound and blood test for estradiol are performed. Then ovulation is triggered with an injection of human chorionic gonadotropin, administered when the follicles are judged to be mature. One the day follicle aspiration happens the egg collection will start and the sperm collection.Then the fertilization could begin and the screening to collect the healthy ones. Then embryo transfer will begin three to five days after egg retrieval in which the patients are given Valium to help relax the muscles. Then the remaining viable embryos would be frozen for more use. Then the patient would return to the clinic for pregnancy tests (uscfertility.org)

The IVF procedure seems to be a successful and safe procedure in comparison to alternative births. Allowing there to have healthier pregnancy's and more families for those who cant conceive one naturally.
zuckSanchez

Con

Well as I stated prior, there are many issues involving the ownership of eggs,. If there is ever a dispute or divorce of the couple and they can not resolve who would keep them and decide what would happen to them, then they would possibly go to court to resolve this issue. Which would cost more money, about an average of $10,00 (legalmatch). which would cause more problems, since the court would have to decide to what the eggs would be, they would decide if it would be a custody or property dispute. In which they would fallow there respected prepossesses (pcblawfirm).
This would be one of the many problems with the use of IVF. Which would include financial dents, medical problems, legal issues involving custody, and moral publications. In which would greatly over come the good, since those who use this alternative pregnancy's as a last resort.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by relliston7594 7 months ago
relliston7594
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: i just agree with the pro side much more.
Vote Placed by chenacious 7 months ago
chenacious
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Zack is going to win this debate, RIP Zack.
Vote Placed by taylor_camba 7 months ago
taylor_camba
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro side had better arguments and made more use of their sources.
Vote Placed by ccerrillo4381 7 months ago
ccerrillo4381
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro side did have some valid points, but he also seemed like ab it of jerk. The con side successful countered most of those .
Vote Placed by jbrown2047 7 months ago
jbrown2047
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: More factual
Vote Placed by jamieeppinger 7 months ago
jamieeppinger
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: same person...
Vote Placed by sharlock2797 7 months ago
sharlock2797
zackSanchezzuckSanchezTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Though both arguments are convincing, Zack obviously was more informed on the subject than Zuck was.