judecorp | To procreate or not to procreate? (Reply)

It was recently asked of me if I thought it was responsible to go through fertility treatments to potentially bring a child into the world who might also have infertility issues, thereby creating familial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. The comment and question was: I don't really consider fertility drugs a good idea. I understand the urge to be pregnant, to carry and give birth - I have that same urge. But I'm also aware that pregnancy may not be the best option for me and my child. If you push to have biological children, they will likely suffer the same infertility problems you're having, condemning generations of your offspring to dependence on Big Pharma.

My quick response:

Interesting perspective.

I don't consider myself any more dependent on "Big Pharma" than your average Joe Schmo American. My family history, like most people's family histories, is full of pharmaceuticals - high blood pressure, type II diabetes, cholesterol, heart disease, skin cancer, depression, et cetera. All of these are fairly common problems these days, especially as people get older and "modern medicine" keeps them going. My grandfather is 88 years old and has had 2 heart attacks and one bypass surgery, takes medication for heart disease, blood pressure, and type II diabetes (largely diet controlled). Should he have not had children?

I think the push to adopt existing children is admirable, and more than admirable, it should be considered and pursued by more people. However, I think that discouraging people from having children (biological, adopted, or whatever) usually ends up boiling down to trying to create some superior class of people who 'should' have biochildren over others who 'shouldn't' - queers, single parents, poor people, sicker people, older people, people without health insurance, people in poorer countries... I could continue to go on.

I'm appalled by a statement that implies that a child with the potential to develop endocrine problems (like PCOS) is somehow less desirable or would be 'suffering' more than an adopted child. My parents actually /don't/ have a history of PCOS or other endocrine problems, although PCOS is now seen largely as an insulin problem more than an ovary problem... and since my grandfather developed type II diabetes later in life it's /possible/ that I've inherited some sort of predisposition to him. Of course, it's also possible that I could have a heart attack in my 50s like my father, or have high cholesterol like my grandmother.

What /is/ a shame is the way pregnancy and childbirth have become big business for medical and pharmaceutical companies, with scheduled inductions and pain-free laboring and intervention after intervention that in most cases are not necessary and may impede progress. In that sense, /anyone/ who chooses (or doesn't choose) to be pregnant is feeding "Big Pharma." What next? End all pregnancies? Decide no one should give birth?

I think it's fantastic that you have soul-searched and come to the conclusion that pregnancy may not be the best option for you and your child. My hope is that every person is able to do the same amount of thinking and have the same amount of choice.

I thought this would make an interesting interactive debate, because I know that I have a lot of different friends with a LOT of different perspectives. SO HAVE AT IT!