To be clear, I think it’s marvelous that people, even feminist-types, are talking about female fertility and “waiting too long.” It seems that it’s not so politically incorrect to mention that fertility wanes and not everybody can get pregnant with fertility treatments. That’s good in that maybe some younger women will feel more comfortable choosing family while they’re fertile and focusing on career later.
But, can I just bring up the fact that as devastating as a series of IVF miscarriages and non-starts must be, what about those babies? Reading this article, I was struck most by the fact that, as much as the writer was sensitive about the subject, at least, as sensitive as one can be when one accepts the premise that one can buy sperm, impregnate oneself, intentionally deprive a child of her father, and accept that numerous children will fail to thrive before one eeks out a baby, she did not consider any of the costs associated with the fertility industry aside from those borne specifically by the women seeking pregnancy.
To her, that 16 babies die for every one born of IVF isn’t even part of the equation, nor is the fact that women are ill-informed of the tremendous health and emotional risks when they “donate” their eggs for a few thousands dollars. Babies aren’t babies until they’re both wanted and have survived the minefield of waning fertility. It may seem odd that someone who is writing about women who want nothing more than to get pregnant, does not actually recognize the humanity of the baby until birth, but it is perfectly consistent with the abortion culture. If we can make love-making baby-free, why not make babies without love? If we can get rid of babies we don’t want, why not see the loss of babies we do want in terms of me, myself, I, my pain? How can the babies’ pain matter if they’re here on our whim?
To someone promoting abortion, the important thing is to dehumanize the baby to make killing him easier. To someone promoting IVF as a valid moral choice, even for single women or gay couples, the important thing is to dehumanize the baby to make the killing of his siblings seem like just one’s own personal loss. Some claim that the babies which are miscarried weren’t killed, but they were at minimum placed very much in harm’s way. Who does that to a beloved child?
Anybody who has ever lost a child, or known a young person who died, can tell you that the pain stems not just from one’s own personal loss, but from knowing that the world has lost the huge potential that person had to offer, the unknown gifts. When a young person dies, it’s a bit like watching a library, whose exact contents are unknown, burn to the ground. You don’t even know what you’ve lost, and that’s what hurts the most.
Unless of course you’re not watching the library burn down, but you’re haphazardly setting fires as you seek to find a particular book. Then you can say that the cost was necessary, that it wasn’t your fault, that it isn’t really a loss because there was no less destructive way to find what you wanted.
The option of foregoing what one wanted because the cost to others is too high is simply not imaginable to the mind that sees others as things to be wanted or not wanted, rather than as valuable entities who don’t need to be wanted in order to matter.