Nothing gets me grumpier than having a peaceful morning shattered by an inflammatory news story -- especially before my first cup of coffee.
Yet there it was on the front page of the Sunday New York Times: The Gift of Life, And Its Price. Mellow morning ruined.
Why? I was reminded again that society loves to cast aspersions on those who require more than candlelight and Barry White tunes to reproduce. I was also transported back to my hell-on-Earth experience of learning that my husband and I both had conditions that added up to compromised fertility. We were left with what amounted to a Hobson's Choice: drain our bank account and embark on a surreal emotionally and physically demanding course of treatment not guaranteed to work, or to keep at it the old fashioned way and pray that we would be the sub-fertile couple who beat the olds.
Fertility even in the best of times varies wildly. Some men and women succeed in their 40s without outside help (though they are the exception rather than the rule), and some men and women in their 20s can't conceive despite following all the usual instructions. Much as we modern types like to think we've bested Mother Nature, she still has her own ideas.
Therein lies the double-edged sword of fertility treatment. Advanced reproductive medicine has been both a boon and curse. It has helped hundreds of thousands of couples who need extra help in the biology department, but it's also created inflated expectations for couples who can't conceive naturally -- especially in today's child-centric society. The amount of unsolicited advice, judgment and insensitivity that infertile or childless couples face is off the charts. How many helicopter parents do you know who can't begin or end a conversation without including kid talk of some kind, including asking if and why you don't have children of your own -- as though we owe them an explanation.
I know from experience that every time my husband and I tried to accept that not all are guaranteed to successfully conceive and deliver -- even in our prime reproductive years -- the siren song of the latest fertility treatment beckoned. Fertility treatment clinics marketing promises of success are damned hard to ignore when you’re at your most vulnerable. I've yet to meet any couple who willingly embraced the financial, physical and emotional gamble that fertility treatments represent. Yet, at the same time, those of us who step away from the fertility treatment route are deemed failures -- because we didn't try hard enough, gave up too soon, etc., etc. (Like we need extra help feeling bad about our situation).
Until conventional wisdom catches up with reality -- that fertility treatment is far from a sure thing and is not without great financial, emotional and physical risk -- those of us with conditions causing infertility are in the unenviable position of being damned if we try treatment and damned if we don't succeed.
Further evidence that society has yet to come to grips with issues around infertility is the strong emotions the topic evokes. When The New York Times wrote a story last year about my choice to end fertility treatments and mentioned my blog, Coming2Terms, about the difficulty associated with being involuntarily childless, I was amazed and aghast by the number of hateful comments people attached to the story.
I wouldn’t wish infertility on a-n-y-o-n-e, including those who condemn infertile people the loudest.
My hope is that one day fertile people think twice before damning their infertile brethren and the difficult choices they face. There was more than one comment attached to the Gift of Life article bordering on eugenics -- stating in so many words that anyone who can't reproduce easily shouldn't.
I'm pretty confident that if there were, in fact, a set of standards for all to meet before reproducing, most wouldn't qualify.
Pamela Mahoney Tsigdinos is the author of Silent Sorority: A (Barren) Woman Gets Busy, Angry, Lost and Found.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
liza Donnelly
ephykk
A R
LadyMiko
katina choovanski
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks, too, for taking the time to comment. Good to know I made sense here.
(PS, your book title is missing an 'i' in your byline at the bottom of the post)
I dont believe that matches the definition of eugenics per se.
something you dont consider (or many scientists) is that infertility may have a genetic component. have you asked the question, do you want kids with the exact same infertility problems that you & your husband have? I reject the insination that all such questions of this type are impolite. no, they are (perhaps harshly) realistic. something that our culture repeatedly fails at. is reality harsh? sometimes, absolutely. is that the fault of people living in it? not always.
Rated!
I thought of you when I saw the article in the NYTs. I skipped the comments, quite wisely. I mean, even dear VZN's comment here is making my head hurt. So you and many scientists don't consider that infertility may have a genetic component and infertility is a way of preventing you from having children with infertility?
Good lord, I think my head is going to explode! Does s/he really think that scientists haven't looked for genetic components of infertility and assessed infertility in families? Yes the scientists haven't ever considered this genetic link, but you'll be passing it on to your kids! Riiight.
Infertility sucks. But listening to others with no scientific training explain the reasons and rationale of infertility sucks even harder.
I remember one person telling me, re my sister's infertility, that most couples who really want a baby end up with one, as if stepping off the fertility treatment roller coaster was a sign that she was, at heart, more of a career woman than a natural mother.
First, the likelihood that most infertility is genetic is not that high, seeing infertility treatments are quite recent and, therefore, most adults' parents had their children before infertility treatment was available. Untreated infertile people don't pass on their genes.
Second, there are plenty of reasons why people lose their fertility. Mumps can make men infertile, for example. Most people don't really like to discuss the function of their reproductive organs with strangers, making such inquiries rude.
And something else - you wrote: "Yet, at the same time, those of us who step away from the fertility treatment route are deemed failures -- because we didn't try hard enough, gave up too soon, etc., etc." I kind of think I understand this. My rational side says that each person/couple has a time at which it's better for them to stop pursuing infertility treatment. My less rational side wishes for everyone to have a 'happy ending' to their story... and then my rational side steps back in and asks: Do you really need to have a baby to have a happy ending? I'm not at all sure...
I think those who have that need for everyone to have a happy ending to their infertility story are terribly disappointed when it doesn't happen, which could be viewed as 'blaming' you for not fulfilling THEIR need for you to have a happy ending.
Does that make any sense?
And that's the really sad part. Your piece ends up exactly where those of us who have been through this ends up. With those hateful comments. I remember, later in the process, when fertility stopped and adaption started, looking at the itemized bill from the lawyer managing the adaption process and seeing that I was being billed for her call to the birth father---who was in prison. Counting up the people I was supporting in the adaption process, that I was supporting in this little journey through the second ring of hell, and there were nine. Soon after that the marriage ended.
Every word of what you right here rings with total truth.
This is not to knock you, or your difficult choices, but if I hear one more of my mother's friends wail, "But it's got to be MY BABY!" I will tell them that they deserve no children at all.
Honestly, I'm too fertile for my own good, and I'm about as bitter about that as the women mentioned above.
For my wife and me it got to be kind of a joke. We couldn't walk into the clinic without dropping at least $120 on something. We never knew what it would be, but we knew that our wallets would be at least $120 lighter when we left.
And those were the cheap days. Other days we'd drop a grand, two grand, three grand, for the procedures and medications that can only be described as cruel and unusual punishment.
And at the end? Nothing, except an empty back account, and the offer that we could "try again." Thanks but no thanks.
I feel empathy for those that wish to conceive but cannot. My partner and I have chosen not to have children because I don't want to pass on my multiple health problems - not eugenics per se but a logical choice. Explaining that to some (because the question ALWAYS gets asked eventually) means listening to reports on the amazing breakthroughs that medical science has made for babies with health problems, and women with fertility problems. They just don't get it.
The fertility industry has made a decent profit off of people's insecurities and 'need' to reproduce. For all of their successes there are so many that have simply lost all of their $$ on a string of hope that they would have been forced to accept earlier and easier. Adoptions have gone down, but children needing a home have not, as fertility treatments have gotten more popular.
And then there is Kate (plus 8) who believes society should help pay for her fertility-treatment conceived kids because society encouraged her to reproduce.
Rated.
I'll cop to asking 'if', if the general flow of conversation warrants it. But I can't imagine in a million years asking 'why' - if someone does or doesn't have kids.
Come to think of it, 'why' makes more sense for most people who DO have kids....
Good post. Thank you.
Also, vzn: Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
Validating the fertility-industrial complex is like being in a car rushing towards a concrete wall and deciding you need to put an expensive brick on the accelerator.
Sheesh, Think Globally folks. For those for whom their ability to do critical thinking has not drowned in waves of oxytocin, I suggest Wm. Catton's "Overshoot" and Paul Chefurka's research at www.paulchefurka.ca.
PS: The word "eugenics" no longer has any clear meaning. Consider, if you choose a mate based on any characteristic (physical appearance, intelligence, income, religion, etc.), and have a child with that mate - guess what? You practiced eugenics.
Rest easy, my impact on the planet is quite small (not to mention the fact that I recycle with the best of 'em). You'll also be happy to know it's been several years since I spent a dime on anything associated with the fertility industry...
And unlike you, I understand the power of empathy. You should try it sometime...
You are ever so welcome of course ;-) It's nice to be appreciated.
I do have empathy for all sentient beings, and include practically all humans in that category. :-)
However, I admit to having more empathy for those who resist social and evolutionary forces (even the ones that got them here) when it seems glaringly clear that it is appropriate to do so. I see our current overpopulation, overshoot, and coming crash as such a case.
In other words, I have more empathy for those who make difficult personal choices that result in reducing the future suffering of others, rather than those who choose to add to it.
Women have always been the infertility regulating force
as there have been "a few more" in my life
but only one said: I want them NOW !!
Tjuuzzz... Donah....
We were very, very fortunate in conceiving our oldest child on our second IVF cycle (I delivered at age 42) which was covered by insurance. But, we were not so lucky in a new city, surrounded by younger moms with their broods. And no insurance.
We finally chose adoption as we were more concerned about the end result than the road to get there. One promised a happy ending. The other ... a lot of questions, pain, effort, and MONEY. Adoption domestically (in a program funded to support African-American adoptions) was by far less expensive and by far more rewarding. A little stress in the waiting. A lot of work to qualify (as there should be). But in the end ... pure joy.
My best to everyone in EVERY choice you make. But those choices should be private. And respected.
Your data are incorrect. In any case, think globally. The environment, global carrying capacity, climate change, ocean fishery sustainability, water quality, arable farmland degradation etc. are all quite apathetic about mere human imposed national boundaries.
One birth anywhere on the planet has a negative impact immediately and adds to future human suffering. One less birth anywhere on the planet avoids that immediate negative impact and minimizes future human suffering.
Do a little research on 'carrying capacity' and 'overshoot'.
"If you were really interested in reducing population growth, you'd be supporting women's rights in poorer countries, including the right to an education, safe and affordable birth control, legal protections against domestic violence and full participation in the workforce." (AR)
Yep, and I have been and am doing all of that and more, and have been for about 40 years. To me, that includes (as part of 'education' both formally and otherwise, and online and otherwise) trying to help people become more aware of the consequences of their actions and their available options beyond traditional social constructions such as the 'romantic social script' and framing the primary value of women as that of baby makers.
" Instead you're taking potshots at random women on the internet and cloaking it in self-righteousness."
Call it what you will, but to me, I was responding to the public presentation of a set of values and norms, including the dominant "making babies is always a good thing" one. There is substantial evidence to support the view that that is not a valid position. I was merely presenting an alternate view and references to sources of that evidence for those interested in doing some critical thinking and research.
I kinda thought that was what these sorts of forums were for. If not, I suggest that a caveat be posted next to the "post a new comment" button that says "Only comment if you agree with the initial post."
PS: I consulted my vasectomy scars (acquired when I was 18, a VERY long time ago ;-) and they assure me that they are not at all self-righteous.
Comprehensive and rational post.
Rated.
As hard as it might be to imagine (and I know some people are going to roll their eyes and groan when they read what comes next) IVF enabled me to experience "alpha pregnancies." For the first time ever my husband and I managed to achieve conception and, with that big step, great hope in the form of embryos ever so delicately transferred to my womb. I had a window, for a few weeks anyway, into the magical world of nurturing life and, oh some lovely, big dreams took shape.
In my own way I, too, had a brief taste of "the joy of motherhood." The hormones infusing my swollen abdomen brought physical sensations and a deep attachment that has stayed with me to this day. An alpha pregnancy was, as you say, "like becoming addicted to heroin--knowing the high that is possible, without the fix, means that even if I never have a child in the future, I always have that longing for that fix..."
While our experiences were different, the sense of longing for what might have been feels similar.