Sending IVF back to the ’70s

Re “My wife and I navigated IVF just fine without judges’ input,” Opinion, March 2

Paul Thornton notes that March 2, the day his piece on his family’s in-vitro fertilization experience was published, was his twins’ 12th birthday. Happy birthday to his boys.

If court rulings and legislation before his wife had her IVF cycle defined embryos as live human beings, there may not have been a birthday to celebrate without those 10 or so embryos Thornton said they had to choose from.

The consequences of such court action or legislation would bring IVF back to the beginning in the late 1970s, when usually one egg was retrieved and one embryo created, without any stimulation of the ovaries. Success rates would be dismal, multiple cycles would be needed, and future generations of prospective parents would be denied the opportunity to have a family.

From a religious perspective, there can be differing opinions on when life begins. But scientifically there is no question that an embryo created in the laboratory from a couple’s eggs and sperm has no prospect for life without a complex protocol of hormone treatments and precise timing for transfer into a properly prepared uterus.

Arthur L. Wisot, MD

Boynton Beach, Fla. The writer is co-founder of a fertility practice in Southern California.

The debate over abortion and IVF is hypocritical and insidious.

No one wants an abortion, and women using IVF would rather get pregnant naturally. The anti-choice crowd wants this to be a battle about decisions of last resort, and the prochoice crowd goes along.

The facts are in. To reduce abortions, reproductive decisions must be made without fear of financial ruin or psychological trauma.

We must debate that politicians legislate policies that support strong families with solutions that do not make child conceiving, birthing and rearing — or the choice not to do so — a mixed blessing at best or, for too many people, a traumatic experience.

Maggie Light

Carpinteria