# New Scientist says people are using IVF as an excuse to wait to have children



## KateMart (Jul 14, 2014)

Unfortunately the whole article is not accessible online unless you subscribe - but I think it's free. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730323-200-ivf-can-be-both-a-blessing-and-a-curse/

I have read the article in the magazine and it made me so angry. Lines used such as 'IVF is both a blessing and a curse' and the whole article is angled towards saying, if you want three kids and don't want IVF, you have to start trying in your 20s. The reason for growing problems with fertility, they say, is that people are leaving it later to have children because they know they can have IVF in their 40s, they see it as a fail safe option.

What an ignorant thing to say - and in the New Scientist too - I'd expect this from the Daily Mail, but not them.

As you will all know, when you are infertile, it's usually the same whether you are 20 or 40 - especially with my issue which is mainly MF! IVF isn't something people take lightly, it's a last resort and it's incredibly scary. Who just says, 'oh, I'll have a load of hormones pumped into my body at 40, minor surgery and not even much chance of it working, just so I can have fun now'. 

/links


----------



## Offthewall (Apr 28, 2013)

Couldn't agree more, Kate. Not what you'd expect from a scientific publication. No-one has IVF by choice!


----------



## KateMart (Jul 14, 2014)

It has got to me even more than the daily mail article I had the misfortune to read last week that said people were being forced into IVF and not offered IUI!x


----------



## miamiamo (Aug 9, 2015)

KateMart said:


> It has got to me even more than the daily mail article I had the misfortune to read last week that said people were being forced into IVF and not offered IUI!x


agree with you both


----------



## Blondie71 (Oct 26, 2011)

Hahaha yeah I just soooooo enjoyed parting with 30k to put myself through this for the sheer hell of it   utter twats putting this out there (trust me mr/mrs newscientist I'd have enjoyed opening my legs so much more given the option but seeing as I have no tubes that option ain't so viable  )


----------



## wibble-wobble (Apr 16, 2011)

Just to throw the cat among the pigeons, I actually know someone who has said she is putting  her career first and has said there is always IVF if she has problems being older and getting pregnant. Saying it like IVF is an easy option. 

I don't know if she sees it a fail safe/sure fire way of having a family or if she is aware of stats on it working

I guess there will always be people on the flip side of the coin


----------



## Pippi_elk (Feb 7, 2013)

Having done by ph. D in science I or my colleagues would never look at new scientist. It's not where scientists publish their research....so whether new scientist is the daily mail version of science publications. 
I would expect an article like this should highlight the obstacles if this is indeed what people are doing...


----------



## smallbutmighty (Aug 5, 2013)

I too have an American friend who works in the Valley and advised me she'd be freezing her eggs with a view to IVF later in life so that she could get on with her career and not be dictated to by a ticking clock about when to settle down.

She got a pretty strong lecture from me on both the science behind that rationale and the impact of IVF on your life. You'd have to be bonkers to make it plan A.


----------



## carrie lou (May 16, 2006)

What a load of rubbish. As if anyone who actually knows anything about IVF would consider it a lifestyle choice! 


I was 27 when we started trying for a baby but it still took us nearly 3 years before baby #1 was born. Ours was purely male factor so I really don't think waiting a few more years would have made much difference in our case.


----------



## bombsh3ll (Apr 19, 2012)

Rubbish - IVF is a treatment for infertility not advancing age! 

If the only problem is the female partner's age there's nothing to be gained from IVF - unless using DE or eggs frozen years previously.


----------



## K jade (Aug 11, 2013)

Totally agree , IVF doesn't overcome poor eggs  due to advancing age. What the hell r these people on? Do they even know what ivf is....?


----------



## FlyingCat (Jan 23, 2011)

Mm bombshell not quite true... IVF allows older ladies to try lots of eggs in one go to try and find the needle in the haystack of eggs which are still good. So it does help older women with only age of eggs as an issue.


----------



## bombsh3ll (Apr 19, 2012)

Except it takes most people longer to save up for an IVF cycle than it would to ovulate the number of eggs harvested! 

So if you were going to get 6 eggs & there's nothing else wrong apart from age, you may as well just bd for 6 months for the same effect.


----------



## Squiggly (Sep 20, 2013)

If fertility isn't a priority, one risks losing it over time. Freezing eggs for IVF sounds like a simple back up plan to a young woman who desperately wants to compete with the boys. Anyone who has been through it knows it can be far from simple - it can be incredibly stressful and so heartbreaking when it doesn't work. There are side effects and risks. It's a rollercoaster ride. So maybe it's right that someone is telling these women that they need to consider carefully what their priorities are, but they should also be warning them that IVF is no picnic. What I don't appreciate is this implication that the majority of couples who are doing IVF are hard-nosed women who haven't given a thought to their fertility until it's too late. That really doesn't describe most of us. I have wanted to be a mother since I was 15, but I wasn't going to get knocked up with just anyone. I waited years and years to meet the right guy (having tried out several that were not life partner material). I remember being in floods of tears in my car outside a wedding because I hadn't found the right guy and I so desperately wanted children. I was 27. Then, when I finally met the right guy, I waited (not-so-patiently) to get engaged. We finally started trying 5 months before the wedding, when I was 33. Okay, so maybe not optimal fertility at that age, but that shouldn't be too late. I'm not convinced that a few years earlier would have made a big difference, though possibly when I was a LOT younger, it might have. But then I would have had a kid with a narcissistic control freak or a nice guy who would have left me to go and 'find' himself.


----------



## CrazyHorse (May 8, 2014)

It's all part of the endless judgement that everyone seems to feel self-righteously justified in doling out about women's reproductive and childrearing choices. Thing is, it's set up to be a no-win game. No matter WHAT choice you make, it will be judged and found wanting -- the message all boils down to, "You should be ashamed of who you are." I.e., female.

_Have kids young? You didn't give yourself enough time to grow up, your career will suffer, you're irresponsible because you had kids before you could 100% afford to support them without help. You should be ashamed.

Use birth control to keep from having kids when you're not ready or can't handle another one? You're probably a promiscuous floozie who can't handle the responsibility of parenthood. Have you even thought about the fact that when you stop using birth control you might find out you're infertile and then have to spend lots of money you don't have on fertility treatments? You should be ashamed.

Have a kid when you weren't planning on it? You're probably a promiscuous floozie who can't handle the responsibility of parenthood. Have you even thought about how you're going to pay for that kid? You should be ashamed.

Infertile and having fertility treatment? Have you thought about how over-populated the world is, or how many abused children need good foster/adoptive homes? And yet you're spending all that money? You should be ashamed.

Infertile and not having fertility treatment? Have you thought about how not having grandchildren of their own is going to affect your parents? Are you really so selfish that you can't put up with a little inconvenience and spend a little money to give your parents grandkids? You should be ashamed.

Have a kid when you're over 40? You're a self-centered careerist, you spent too much time focusing enjoying your life instead of getting married and having kids, you were a fool to wait so long, your kids will suffer because you'll be decrepit when they're young, and they'll be at higher risk of certain diseases because of your old gametes. You should be ashamed.

You put your kids in day care? You're a selfish mother who only cares about her career and abandons her kids to strangers for 8+ hours a day, why did you even have them? You should be ashamed.

You're a stay-at-home mother? You must be a lazy do-nothing, have you thought about how hard your partner and/or the taxpayers have to work to support your lifestyle? You should be ashamed._

I could go on and on for days. Funny thing is, I never hear anyone implying these value judgements about men's choices (whether deliberate or accidental) in their reproductive lives. Tearing women down and keeping them full of self-doubt makes it harder for women to claim their rights and to work for meaningful systemic changes that would bring them greater equality with men, and give them more agency in controlling their own fertility and having children when they both want them and are physically able to reproduce. It p*sses me off when a supposedly non-political publication like New Scientist gets in on this misogynist act.


----------



## Blondie71 (Oct 26, 2011)

crazyhorse I'm gonna stick that on my fridge as all of it is SO TRUE it's just one big guilt trip this fertility/reproductive business for women - damned if you do, damned if you don't!


----------

