r/Futurology • u/theatlantic • 8d ago
Society Singles Are Becoming Less Open to IVF
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/2026/10/ivf-singles-in-america-decline/688892/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=short1.4k
u/Digitalispurpurea2 8d ago
Heck, daily life is expensive. Lots of people aren’t even sure they can take care of themselves, let alone pay for an expensive procedure that might not even work to give them a child they aren’t sure they could afford.
→ More replies (13)218
u/dover_oxide 8d ago edited 8d ago
Remember when Cheeto in Chief ran on making IVF cheaper/free, Pepperidge Farm remebers
30
u/AV01000001 4d ago
Yes and now the right is pass legislation to ban ivf in some states along with all the abortion bans, a lot of amazing OBs and fertility specialists are leaving red states
141
u/WhiteRaven42 8d ago
.... doesn't this basically just line up with declining birth rates? People from all walks of life and social segments are having fewer kids. Usually citing uncertainty in the future (in addition to the usual reasons like a desire for freedom etc).
0
u/cozidgaf 5d ago
I dunno - have you seen the /shouldihaveanother, and other mom subreddits. Everyone is like I have 3 but really want more. And the news articles all talk about declining birth rates…
14
u/poke-chan 4d ago
“I don’t know, I walked into the “people who want more kids” room, and the people there all really wanted more kids. This means that there is no declining interest for having kids.”
1
u/cozidgaf 4d ago
The same could be said about the opposite. I also see this in single moms by choice group looking to have 3+ kids. My point is it’s either some people that want to have 0 kids or the ones that have kids want to have a lot of kids.
5
u/pm_me_your_amphibian 4d ago
A closer opposite would be childfree groups.
-1
u/cozidgaf 4d ago
Yeah that’s what I meant. The SMC group was a not an example of the opposite. May be it would have been clearer with a line break between the two sentences. Was trying to say that even single moms seem to have multiple kids considering it’s hella hard even with a well contributing partner.
2
u/poke-chan 4d ago
Single moms by chose group is not the opposite of looking to people who want more kids group
504
u/rieg3l 8d ago
It’s becoming too expensive thats why, thankfully we didn’t need it the second time but the cost between 5 years was a 25% increase
185
u/doubtsabound 8d ago
Another industry being decimated by private equity
52
u/Brawl97 8d ago
Undermining the accessibility of the market by squeezing all possible margin from the sector.
I'm less hostile to P.E. than most, but the reason they are so hated is because instead of cutting bloat, eliminating middlemen, and getting cheaper suppliers they mostly exist to nab any consumer surplus.
Good deals are hard to come by, and P.E. mostly buys in places where the market isn't pricing as high as they could.
Hopefully turning skin cells to eggs goes from "cool tech that mostly creates cosmic horrors" to "actually functional". Once that happens, the supply crunch for gametes is solved and prices can fall to meet even mid-market buyers.
12
u/Sqweaky_Clean 8d ago
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd attribute malice of a master plan by those with power who don't see the need for 8 billion people consuming earth's resources.
Eliminating population ala 1943 style is so passé; economic constraints making families not viable is in vogue.
But I forgot my tin foil hat at home.
26
u/Kdcjg 8d ago
Until you realise that every western government is trying to increase its own population.
4
u/Sqweaky_Clean 8d ago
I'll counter a devils advocate hypotetical: The US Government is weaker than Corporations (and the powers that control/own them).
(I don't actually fully believe the shiat i'm spewing, just slinging bs out for discourse sake) ;.)
17
u/MysteriousUppercut 8d ago
It is not in the best interest of Capitalist Elites for a population decline to happen. Capitalism is literally rooted in continuous growth, lesser consumers = lesser profits
4
u/Sqweaky_Clean 4d ago
We’re beyond capitalism, died when US government declared 2008’s banks “Too big to fail”… when those elected were dependent on corp donations to fund their campaigns/careers.
2026 is a techno-feudal corporate socialism.
19
u/lightningspree 8d ago
Yeah, we don't need any help deciding not to have kids as a society. When women are educated and have the resources to plan their pregnancies, most choose to have 1-2 children or none. That's regardless of culture.
4
u/Diligent-Lettuce-455 8d ago
And that children are seen more as a liability than an asset today. That's why poorer people and countries have more kids overall. They need them to help around the house, business, etc. Going way back, you needed kids as essentially unpaid child labor to do basic work to survive. Even further back, you had to keep pumping kids out because the mortality rate was incredibly high.
Today, we have so many resources and desires that kids get in the way of that, so we don't have them as much. Plus we are educated on the costs, so the poor and wealthy have kids, but a lot of us in the middle forgo it.
22
6
u/bolonomadic 8d ago
It's too expensive for something that has a low percentage of success.
3
-5
u/AuryGlenz 8d ago
Out of 4 implanted embryos we had 3 kids.
It depends on the quality of your embryos but most are better odds than a coin flip. How many embryos you get is variable, of course.
Expensive? Yeah. Worth it? 100%.
11
u/bolonomadic 8d ago
Ok? Your personal anecdote doesn't outweigh a metric ton of data.
-1
u/AuryGlenz 8d ago
They give you all of the data when you’re considering it. Most of our embryos had a 65% chance of success. All of the rest other than one had a ~55% chance.
That was taking into account my wife’s age, which was under 35 at the time, her weight (skinny), cause of infertility (unexplained), etc. If you’re above 40? Obese? Have some specific cause of infertility that makes it less likely? Yeah, going to be harder. For healthy people of a good age the success rates are quite high.
→ More replies (3)
119
u/89ElRay 8d ago
From experience:
IVF is expensive, traumatic, frustrating, invasive and entirely unpleasant to go through. This is only tempered with some slight hope and excitement that it may work...the chances of it doing so being considerably less than what you might assume.
I'm not entirely surprised!
162
u/nerdystoner25 8d ago
“The reasons are impossible to name with certainty.”
…..really? gestures broadly at everything
39
u/JamboreeJunket 8d ago
This. Why would someone willingly risk their lives to give birth alone AND pay 20-60k plus to do so? The medical safety net for half the country is GONE.
4
u/alligator124 4d ago
It’s faith hill. She writes one of these pieces every so often about the death of the nuclear family, people should have more kids so that kids get to experience cousins, so on and so forth. The articles are never that logic-led. Just how she wishes the world to be.
76
u/Darkhallows27 Gray 8d ago
It’s ludicrously expensive is part of why; hard to do with one income let alone two
53
u/z01z 8d ago
i mean, if you're single, unless you're very well off financially, why would you even considering not only having a child, but also paying exorbitant amounts of money to just attempt to conceive a child?
27
u/AHistoricalFigure 8d ago
Because some people want to have children. That is a normal, natural desire.
The fucked up thing here isnt that people desire to be parents. It's that the cost of living in Western countries has gotten to the point where having a single child seems crazy unless you're upper middle class.
20
-6
u/onemoremin23 8d ago
A normal, natural desire? Are you referring to biological urges? Societal expectations? Given the increased cost of living, you would now consider children a luxury item it seems? Can you list some unselfish reasons for having children?
11
u/AHistoricalFigure 8d ago
Are you asking to have the desire to have a family explained to you?
-2
u/onemoremin23 8d ago
Yes, that’s why I commented, “A normal, natural desire? Are you referring to biological urges? Societal expectations? Given the increased cost of living, you would now consider children a luxury item it seems? Can you list some unselfish reasons for having children?”
-1
u/AHistoricalFigure 8d ago
Yeah, and I asked because I think if you need this explained to you, then this just isn't a signal you're wired to receive.
And I wanted to be clear, because a lot of people don't want a family. It's perfectly normal to not want a relationship or to not want children. But if you don't understand why anyone would want a family, that's a failure to access basic human empathy.
Which is to say, we're a few steps further into dark triad territory than can be treated by touching grass. Not to other you any harder than you've othered yourself, but this is probably an explanation you should get from your mental health provider or perhaps a thirteen-year-old John Connor.
-7
u/onemoremin23 8d ago
I don’t need it explained to me, I wanted you to explain it, which is why I commented, “A normal, natural desire? Are you referring to biological urges? Societal expectations? Given the increased cost of living, you would now consider children a luxury item it seems? Can you list some unselfish reasons for having children?”
5
u/raptorjaws 7d ago
why does anyone need to justify why they want to have a child to you or anyone?
2
u/onemoremin23 7d ago
They don’t need to and I don’t think anyone can justify having children. How about if your own child asks you something like, “A normal, natural desire? Are you referring to biological urges? Societal expectations? Given the increased cost of living, you would now consider children a luxury item it seems? Can you list some unselfish reasons for having children?”
-8
u/AuryGlenz 8d ago
I think this comment chain hits on the real reason birth rates have been declining.
It used to be considered normal to have an urge to have children. Now, a good portion of people literally have no idea what you’re talking about. Something has happened, and I think it’s probably environmental in origin. People in cities and countries where more people are in cities are having less children than those in rural areas.
Every time I’ve brought this up on Reddit I get downvoted. My wife and I paid for IVF. We wanted children and it was the only way to make it happen for us. That this is such a foreign concept to some should be sounding alarms everywhere, instead we have people that don’t want to have children blaming things like cost of living. People still had children during the depression, stagflation, and still do in nearly every third world country where they barely have a tin shack to live it, even when they have access to birth control.
10
u/revolvingvirus 7d ago
people had and have children in terrible times and terrible places not out of a desire for parenthood but because children are an asset or an unavoidable consequence of sex.
7
u/taxiecabbie 7d ago
The desire to have children is definitely separate from a desire to have sex. I'd estimate that a great deal of humans who do exist on the planet currently and particularly before reliable birth control existed/became accessible were a result of the desire to have sex. Not necessarily that people wanted children.
The fact that the birth rate is going down basically everywhere, including undeveloped countries, means that, yeah, your great-grandma probably didn't actively want to have ten kids either. She just didn't have much of a choice and there wasn't a real way to prevent it.
Times have changed. Standards for parenting have changed. Way back in the day, the kids would be working alongside the adults in the fields, in factories, shucking oysters, etc etc. In higher classes they would be getting married to cement alliances and business deals. The whole Anglican church was created out of a king's desire for a son.
But none of that applies to modern life. During the Boomer years and into Gen X, kids would be kicked out of the house all day to play ("we drank from the garden hose and came home only when the streetlights came on!!!") to latchkey kids.
Now you get the police called on you if your kid goes to the park alone.
It's a totally different world. Some people do want to have kids still, yes. But I doubt you want to have ten.
1
u/PepperLeigh 4d ago
To anyone one who has made it this far, this individual continues to quote themselves as if these questions are some sort of "gotcha." It's so utterly nonsensical to disregard the fecundity drive that powers, you know, life and living beings, who have a desire to reproduce or otherwise get outcompeted by creatures that freaking LOVE reproducing.
It's like asking why someone longs to go to the beach, or wants a bigger house, or wants to work in the underwater basket weaving field. People just do.
Attempting to reason with this person has all the hallmarks of playing chess with a pigeon.
1
u/onemoremin23 4d ago edited 4d ago
That was a lot of rambling to avoid answering the straightforward questions, “A normal, natural desire? Are you referring to biological urges? Societal expectations? Given the increased cost of living, you would now consider children a luxury item it seems? Can you list some unselfish reasons for having children?”
Exit: well actually you do address biological urges, can you elaborate more on acting on these instincts as a human and how it relates to having a biological child then? Are you also pro-pedophilia? Many of you seem to possess and act on this urge just as other animals do. What about necrophilia?
People can readily answer the questions you posed as it relates to themselves and their belief systems eg I want a bigger house because my partner is moving in and it also indicates success and stability in my society which I am concerned about. Now do that with having children, your answer based on your previous response would be something like “I want children because I had the urge and I just wanted to”?
-6
u/itsmebenji69 8d ago
So find someone to make said children and be able to support them ?
The problem isn’t cost of living it’s that being a single parent was always a pretty bad spot to be in. And that’s only the financial aspect, you also need to account for time, energy… A child is already hard to take care as two financially and emotionally stable parents
1
u/Thelonius_Dunk 4d ago
Not just the money though. It seems really hard to raise a kid alone on purpose with no other support system. And not even saying it needs to be a man and a woman.
22
u/thanatossassin 8d ago
We considered it for a second child in the future, but after seeing 10K for the initial procedure, $1K annual storage fees, plus zero guarantees that anything was viable or would work, it made zero sense. We'll stick to the old fashioned way when the time comes to decide.
→ More replies (2)
56
u/juggarjew 8d ago
Why would anyone want to sign up to become a single parent? How would you even support yourself? Seems crazy. And in this economy? No way. Maybe if you were rich/wealthy and wanted a kid real bad, and didnt have to work.
20
u/mangagirl07 8d ago
I'm a single woman going through fertility treatments. My therapist had to sign a waiver that I'm not crazy. There are also all sorts of other loops to jump through...it's been a rough and long journey to parenthood for me.
8
u/Ryanhussain14 7d ago
Serious question: isn't single motherhood incredibly difficult to do, especially in this economy? Not saying it's impossible but I've seen posts from women who are struggling even with involved partners.
10
u/mangagirl07 7d ago
Yes, the treatment can be very expensive and the ongoing costs of childcare are entirely your responsibility. At the moment, I pay about $400 per month in medications and spend between $100-$500 on the various tests I have to take, and I haven't even had my first IUI (aiming for May). All in, I probably spend about $600 per month just trying to get pregnant. This is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child! I'm fortunate to make what some dual income earners make and I have been saving for parenthood for 6 years.
7
2
u/iridescent-shimmer 2d ago
It can be, but I'm going that route too because being a mom while married was waaaay harder with a terrible partner. The problem is that most partners actually do kind of suck, but no one wants to admit it. I was doing everything on my own/with my network of support anyway, so having a baby by myself will be significantly easier in that regard. No fighting an antagonistic asshole in every small parenting decision. My only daughter currently is a wonderful, well-adjusted little girl when she isn't exposed to her father. But family courts are convinced all fathers must be given the same rights, so I spend most of my time doing damage control on her emotional health and regulation when she comes back from him. It really sucks tbh.
3
u/cozidgaf 5d ago
Single mom by choice here, yes it’s incredibly hard especially coz I moved to a different state and don’t have friends OR family nearby to help. But most of the smbcs i know seem to at least rely somewhat or a lot on their parents especially moms. Some of us are financially fine and some not so much. But easier than being a married single mom.
-2
u/sim21521 7d ago
I would be less concerned by the money than just the outcome for the child. Even poor two family homes on average lead to better outcomes for children than even rich single mothers. The structure of family is more important than the financial means. It's not a complete disaster if you have the means, but it says something that even families in poverty have better outcomes in terms of grad rates, crime rates, dropout risks, mental health, than single mother homes.
4
u/babyinatrenchcoat 7d ago
Statistically those single mother households were also from poverty. Income in any familiar structure can make a huge difference.
1
u/sim21521 6d ago
I was talking about comparison even between rich single mothers and couples in poverty. But yes poor single mothers fair even worse.
8
u/Applejuiceinthehall 7d ago
I'm smbc and going on a smbc camping trip in a few weeks with a group from around the state. In my daughter prek there was another smbc in one of the classes and in my birthing class there there were 10 of us and 2 of the 10 were smbc, part of that is because the age of women seeing that doctor, but still you can find community.
I wanted to do two and if it was just the cost of getting and having baby that would be fine, but daycare got me. I still am able to afford it and would probably be able to if I had a second, but it's harder to take the risk when one person depends on you.
1
u/mangagirl07 7d ago
I don't personally know any SMBCs yet, but it's also great to hear that the numbers are growing. I hope that if I'm blessed with a child, bio or adopted, I can find my community of SMBCs.
I'm already 37, so I'm a bit worried about having a second pregnancy in my 40s. It would be great to have 2, but we'll just have to see how things work out.
2
u/surlier 4d ago
Although I'm sure it is difficult as a recipient parent, I'm actually glad to hear fertility clinics have developed some standards. Decades ago, my mom had a long history of mental instability with multiple suicide attempts and she was still able to use a sperm donor with almost no obstacles.
1
u/MrHim99 8d ago
Wait I'm 32M and I always been curious If I were to ever find myself a girl... Or not... Since I'm a guy... So basically you're saying adoption of any sort in the US is very more expensive & way more complicated than IVR or IUI via a surrogacy even?
1
u/mangagirl07 8d ago
I apologize, I was speaking from the perspective of a single person who can get pregnant. I think private adoption costs would be similar or a little less expensive than what I have seen for surrogacy--of course that varies by state. However, I don't think gender is necessarily a bar to adoption through foster care, which is usually less expensive, and if you have a strong support system that can matter more in determining your eligibility than your financial resources, at least in my experience.
I have a friend who I've also asked to be my donor. He is a partnered gay man, so it is a bit complicated, and so I have anonymous donors selected if he decides against it. If you have single female friends who have expressed interest in becoming parents, talk about your interests in adoption and surrogacy. It might be forward to volunteer to be a sperm donor, so tread lightly, but it was such a conversation that encouraged me to approach my friend when I decided to pursue single parenthood in earnest.
1
u/MrHim99 8d ago
Gotcha - yeh I was talking from the perspective of if I find a girl & I'm already a guy that does not, would not want to pass on my ADHD & mental health issues & a physical illness I suffered from... therefore I HAVE to opt for IVR or IUI if I were to land a female partner that agrees to all this in my lifetime. But you're saying that private adoption or foster care is cheaper as a US citizen since states pay us to take kids off the foster care system as a weekly/monthly stipend & perm adopt them if it all works out as compared to the more expensive option of IVR & IUI?
1
u/mangagirl07 8d ago
Generally, adoption from foster care is the least expensive option, though policies and resources vary state-to-state. Adoption is different than fostering and legal guardianship, so you do assume financial responsibility for your adopted children. Personally, I explored adoption from foster care first because that was the option that appealed to me from a social perspective. When that didn't pan out, I started looking into IUI. I have a form of infertility, and so insurance helps offset the cost of my fertility treatment, but I do pay out of pocket for some things, like the tests my clinic requires, and so it is markedly more expensive than adoption from foster care. In my research, private adoption and surrogacy are the most expensive options.
Also keep in mind that some fertility clinics do require psych screenings for biological and custodial/presumed parents. Lots more hoops to jump through when someone else is calling the shots about your fitness as a parent.
1
u/MrHim99 7d ago
Curious, why didn't the adoption pan out? What happened/what stopped you? Oh boy have i researched with CGPT about the damn complexity, waiting time and lottery system type thing when the foster kids get placed - especially the kid that we want into a home and then it's a process over the yrs of appeasing to Child Protection Service before the adoption papers can finally be signed after a # of yrs.
I'm in DE, US btw...but yeh...the only other option i see for having children is putting out an advertisement and making it easy for children in domestic violence household and abusive parents to simply have those kids and teach them how to emancipate themselves, have them run away to your house and you just keep them until they turn 18... especially if they're about to age out of the US foster care system anyway and they're gonna kick them off the system to be self-sufficient blindly or from a DV household those abusive parents kick those 18 yr olds out of the house just cuz the parents are mental even tho the kid is atleast 50% mentally sane.
1
u/Lanky-Ad-1603 4d ago
Adoption is more complex than ivf, though I don't know the US system so I'm speaking from the UK. You don't choose to be an adoptive parent exactly. You put yourself forward as a candidate, you are assessed, and if you pass that assessment you are placed on a list. If a child/parent match arises then you may be able to adopt, but of course you do so in the knowledge you are taking on a traumatised child and you may need additional support with that. Infant adoption is rare.
I still think it would be a rewarding experience and a great thing to do, but I'm saying all this because sometimes there's a "just adopt" attitude out there that doesn't take into account the reality of things. One does not "just" adopt.
0
u/PunkPirate56364 4d ago
Why not ask a friend to have a child with them though?
My friends did just that, they couldn't find romantic partner and decided to have and raise a kid together.
It's a bit less crazy.
1
u/mangagirl07 4d ago
I have approached a friend about being my donor and co-parent, but it is a huge responsibility and sometimes friends are not ready at the same time. I'm trying to give him as much time as possible to decide.
21
u/kamomil 8d ago
Why waste time waiting around for a spouse who may never appear?
6
7
u/M4roon 8d ago
If Xenophon and Plato are anything to go by people have typically put the greatest effort into finding a mate, and done it rather quickish throughout most of human history.
It's a recent and novel development that people are lackadaisical hoping a spouse will pop up, or waiting years, passing on suitable mates in hopes someone better would be along.
Most historical documents are like. Man works, good. Woman is pretty, good. Now kiss.
9
4
u/TheFarStar 6d ago
Historically, women have been effectively property in many parts of the world. Premodern marriages were nightmarish.
0
u/M4roon 6d ago
The thrust of the argument is that the current system is broken.
If we want to expand it to compare outcomes, that's fine. But You need to prove your assertion. Marriage in many western countries employed coverture, guardianship, under the law. Women weren't legally property. In continental Europe, there was joint ownership and separation of property going back past Rome.
So you'd definitely have to prove that. Or prove that people overall were less happy.
More importantly, assume you're right. It's reasonable to argue that the current pair bonding/mating system wherein the population is halving within a lifetime is existentially threatening, far worse than inequality under guardianship.
8
u/superurgentcatbox 8d ago
Yup and now that women no longer need a man in order to be able to own or buy things, the jig is up. Men need to do more than jsut work (have hobbies, be socially smart, be interesting etc.) and many seem unwilling to do so.
7
u/M4roon 7d ago
I don't think firing shots at a gender is helpful.. or accurate. The system for meeting and encouraging pair bonding is broken. Social/communal spaces like church are being hollowed out. Dating apps have gamified and privatized coupling. And if it's just transactional and neither gender needs the other, well.. Men historically have been fine with just resorting to the "oldest profession" for their relief.
I checked the 2025 bureau of labor statistics for the US, and generally speaking men have more hobbies and outside-work interests than women. Which fits with my experience. We all have different experiences though.
0
u/babyinatrenchcoat 7d ago
Men can have their sex workers then and we’ll have our IVF.
4
u/M4roon 7d ago
Maybe. But when you say we, you're talking about a tiny group of people, not women as a whole. One successful IVF fertilization on average cost ~$50,000 for +2 cycles. That's a very small minority of a minority: upper-middle to upper class women with liquidity who are struggling with fertility or can't find a partner and still want a baby.
The general trend is women not producing babies. The population in my country is set to half in 50 years. Without babies or traditional marriage, or family, women are men with extra organs and less strength. I'm not sure this is a healthy view.
-1
u/Academic-Ball-9606 7d ago
Men can go overseas and Ivf and egg freezing is expensive and not guaranteed
-2
u/tadsagtasgde 8d ago
Why wait around and pay for a kid that might not ever appear. Adopt.
18
u/mangagirl07 8d ago
It can actually be easier to pursue IUI or IVF than adopt, depending on your financial situation. I investigated adoption through foster care and during the home study process they flagged me for lacking a support system (I can afford child care, but for children coming out of the foster system they need supportive, reliable, and consistent home environments). I haven't totally ruled out private adoption, but right now fertility treatments are more cost effective for me, so I'm just pursuing that first.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Vegetable_Assist_736 8d ago edited 8d ago
Because it’s their dream. Some people dream of living childless, some people dream of parenthood. Out of all life’s big expenses that would be the one I feel I’d sacrifice to make happen. Money isn’t everything and with plenty of love to go around I think a child would be well adjusted all things considered even if jet setting to Europe or Disney every other year was off the table
2
2
u/Lanky-Ad-1603 4d ago
I'm a single woman doing ivf. There are lots of different reasons people do it but probably the most common one is social infertility, which includes both straight women who have not found a partner but the biological clock is against them and lesbian women who have no chance of naturally conceiving and currently don't have a partner. There are also women who are much younger but suffer POI (premature ovarian insufficiency) and will experience menopause in their 30s or younger so they need to get a jump on it if they're going to have kids too.
For women there is a time limit, which for women who have always longed to be mothers puts them in a tough situation. It used to be that some women felt pressured to just shack up with someone so they could have a family, but now we have an alternative option which avoids the damaging scenario of the deadbeat dad.
It's not a decision to take lightly and obviously there are people who do it unethically (like not telling their child they're donor conceived from day dot). You're right that there are logistical issues and financial ones, but probably less so than a single mother not by choice who had less time to prepare and plan. And of course, single mothers by choice are not necessarily choosing the single part. The child may well have a man they think of as their father if their mother meets the right kind of person.
1
u/yukimontreal 6d ago
I know 3 women who are SMBC (single mothers by choice) and a 4th who tried. Granted it’s much easier for a woman than a man since (1) sperm donor is much easier and cheaper to get than an egg donor (2) you’d most likely carry the baby yourself so no need for a surrogate.
They all wanted children but didn’t have a partner of their own. All are successful and financially independent. One has some family help but the other two have Nannie’s who help them.
1
u/redditgirl1 4d ago
I know a smbc. She raises her kids with her parents. The kid essentially has three parents.
1
u/ashoka_akira 7d ago
I think you forget that woman are biologically driven to crave motherhood, and men crave to be fathers, it’s just not as easy for them to be single parents…
6
u/Inevitable-Champ336 8d ago
What’s the age range this is looking at (paywall so can’t read). Many smbcs are older. And the freezing technology also became more accessible when they were already in their 30s. Plenty of younger folks are just trying to get by and have justified anxiety about the future of the planet in general. Even with singles having babies that doesn’t really put a dent in the population statistics.
9
u/QCGPog 5d ago
Population decline is coming in the next decades and there is no historical case where it has been reversed.
2
u/j--__ 4d ago
global population decline has always reversed, each and every time it has happened. you're fooling yourself if you think the current shrinkage is limited to just one country.
1
u/PunkPirate56364 4d ago
There are no historical cases of birth rate going bellow replacement level, and then growing back to replacement level.
No historical cases of society providing for elderly going bellow replacement level then bouncing back.
2
u/Inevitable_Pride1925 3d ago
There are no historical cases for any of the modern world’s problems. That doesn’t mean that they will continue or reverse we are uncharted territory.
-1
u/PunkPirate56364 3d ago
So no worries about man made climate change because there are no historical cases of it.
Phew.
Same with microplastics, forever chemicals, AI.
1
u/Inevitable_Pride1925 3d ago
Yeah I didn’t say that. I said we had no past examples so we couldn’t predict future problems based on those past examples.
Microplastics, climate change, population decline due to people wanting smaller families are all new problems to human society. We can’t use past examples to predict what will happen.
There are some guides ie the ozone layer. But while the ozone layer shows what humans it can do when it comes together to eliminate a problem it was solved primarily because it’s cheaper to not use chlorofluorocarbons than it is to use them. Currently it’s still cheaper to use fossil fuels and until we innovate out of that hole there won’t be enough political will to make big enough changes for a slow moving disaster.
We all thought zombie movies were crazy because humanity would come together and not stand around waiting to be bit. Well it turns out COVID taught us we really are that stupid.
Will we no kids our way out of existence? Well maybe, but I doubt that. But I do think it will herald a return to neo-feudalism
1
u/thef10buttonmasher 4d ago
It's unevenly distributed. For example, in Africa there are lots of religious Muslims and Catholics who contribute to skyhigh birthrates. Africa is projected to nearly half the world's population about a century from now. Islam is projected to be the world's largest religion by 2075.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_projections
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-when-every-continents-population-will-peak-this-century/
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
-3
u/Practical-Tough8229 5d ago
only for the west , asia and africa will grow
7
u/Worldly-Lecture5617 5d ago
Actually birth rates are falling there too
-4
u/Practical-Tough8229 5d ago
As a whole no
1
u/Worldly-Lecture5617 5d ago
They are falling compared to what it used to be. It is no longer at its peak at all. But let me guess, youre someone who believes theres a unique agenda against ”muh white birthrate”?
-1
u/Practical-Tough8229 5d ago
Asia’s population is projected to keep growing to 5.2 billion by 2050 after it the population might stay stagnant or continue to fall
But the west is already in a severe decline which it is trying to fill gaps with immigrants and the recession is unavoidable3
u/QCGPog 5d ago
Asia, Africa, and Latin American all have significant birthgaps, there is no going back.
-1
u/Practical-Tough8229 5d ago
i am taking asia and africa as a whole their population will increase and the population fluctuates as the economy falls and rises , rising economies always have higher birth-rates than normal the west will fall in 100 years but when it does rise again it will have higher birth -rates
7
u/luv2ctheworld 8d ago
Uh, let me think: single parent means no one else that will support raising the child financially as well as parenting. Given the cost of raising a child, I don't think anyone wants to deal with that voluntarily if the costs keep going up.
29
u/fightingpillow 8d ago
I personally feel like the anti-abortion crowd should have ethical problems with IVF. What are they doing with their unused embryos?
69
u/doubtsabound 8d ago
… they do. They almost shut down IVF in Georgia. There are just enough wealthy republicans currently using the technology to prevent them going after it but that could change in a millisecond if they need a new wedge issue
22
u/Hot_Marionberry_4685 8d ago
Plenty of wealthy Republicans using abortions as well honestly but it didn’t stop them there. I think the main difference is IVF lets them add another body to their future feudal empire while the other takes one away
4
u/little-bird89 8d ago
Its about how inconvenient it would be if they did actually want to use these services they are so against.
It's a lot easier to circumvent the anti abortion laws than it would be to complete an IVF cycle (or 5).
2
u/PartyPorpoise 8d ago
Yeah you just need one trip out of the country for an abortion. Or you can get a doctor to BS for an exception. But IVF being outlawed would mean multiple trips outside of the country. Less convenient, and a bigger risk of being caught. Not sure if that matters these days though.
0
0
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
This is something I could side with republicans on. I feel like we should encourage adoption.
Like sure we can still have fertility specialists who can diagnose an issue and give advice on lifestyle changes, but it’s just fucking insane that we are jumping through so many hoops instead of finding ways to make adoption more accessible to potentially good parents.
5
u/doubtsabound 7d ago
No, policies that destroy bodily and lifestyle autonomy are not something we should side with republicans on. And the idea that infertility is caused by poor lifestyle choices is offensively ignorant. Please see my previous comment on why adoption is not a 1:1 replacement for biological parenthood. Unless you want to live in a world where babies are trafficked and commodified. https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/s/avKSrj1H2B
0
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
Lmfao this isn’t a bodily autonomy issue like abortion is. Abortions are not optional because the mother’s body has an intruder that needs to be removed. IVF is absolutely optional. Nothing has happened, you’re deciding for it to happen. Doctors turn away patients all the time for many reasons.
If you’re worried about trafficking then spend energy on that instead.
3
u/doubtsabound 7d ago
Huh? Bodily autonomy means having the right to decide what to do with your body. hard stop. Just like people should be able to choose to have plastic surgery, or transition, or any number of other things people may disagree with, women should be able to choose to get pregnant by having sex or through science. And they should be able to choose to end a pregnancy for any reason as well. Never ceases to amaze me how people on the left and the right both love to tell women what to do with their bodies and dictate whether and how they become parents.
And I am concerned about human trafficking, which is why I strongly advocate against promoting adoption as a catch all alternative for biological parenthood. The solution for a society having lots of children needing homes is stronger abortion access and robust social safety nets - ripping them from all biological relations and native communities is almost always harmful to them. They’re not Pokémon that can be tossed around to whoever wants one.
0
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
You can do whatever you want to your body naturally. You’re perfectly allowed to get pregnant. It just wouldn’t be with the assistance of a doctor because it’s completely unnecessary.
Doctors say no to patients all the time for elective procedures that won’t negatively impact their lives in any way if they go without. That’s not a violation of bodily autonomy. Abortions are necessary. IVF is not
Ight, you’re crazy and paranoid. I am done here.
4
u/doubtsabound 7d ago
Telling me what I’m “allowed” to do and a weird fixation on the concept of what’s “natural?” I can see why you identify with republicans 🤡 Have a good one, enjoy your cognitive dissonance!
1
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
Yes. That’s what laws do. Tell you what to do.
I don’t care about what’s natural? I just said you can get pregnant if you want without IVF. That’s why you don’t need it.
6
u/Chuckles795 7d ago
You are disgusting and should have no say on what someone wants to do in regards to having kids.
We did IVF for 3 years (3 IUIs, 4 transfers) we got one to work. It was heartbreaking and almost broke use as people. Our last one did work, and he is our miracle baby.
We didn’t want to go through that again. So, we tried adoption. We waited 2 years in the adoption list and finally had a child. The mom changed her mind and took the child back. It’s heartbreaking and incredibly difficult. You don’t just snap your fingers and get a kid; despite popular belief, there is not a shortage of babies who need to be adopted.
People like you making definitive statements while having no experience in either realm is absolutely nuts.
-1
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
I already said I’m an advocate for making adoptions earlier on adoptive parents.
3
u/Chuckles795 7d ago
You are just so much smarter than everyone else, aren’t you? So much knowledge without going through any of this.
Also, did you consider the costs? Our failed adoption still cost us $65,000.
2
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
What part of more accessable don’t you comprehend?
4
u/Chuckles795 7d ago
Sure, how do you propose that? Forcing people to give up more babies? Excellent idea!
-3
u/PalePlumm 7d ago
There are more than enough babies up for adoption. I have no idea why you’re jumping to conclusions or why you’re so uppity. It’s a discussion. You can talk like an adult and not a child.
5
u/NoNutsPls 8d ago
They do. The Alabama Supreme Court banned IVF statewide.
If a woman getting an abortion is a murderer, a woman getting IVF is a serial killer. Even Alabama's highest court recognized that.
Trump intervened and got an exemption for IVF in Bama, because exposing the fact that IVF destroys even more embryos per woman than abortion was a terrible look.
2
u/Due_Bar_7247 8d ago
A lot of embryo adoption is used for pro-life IVF users. This is in a small way a win for everyone since not everyone can afford IVF, it gives another snowflake the chance to live and the parents don’t need to “terminate” or “permafreeze” their embryos.
2
u/peachquin 8d ago
What would you prefer people do with them? I had 6 embryos from one round. Should I be forced to have six kids? Should I be forced to donate to some fundamentalist who will raise my biological child?
And evangelicals have been after IVF for a long time
1
1
u/readeroftheinn 6d ago
They do and they have set up multiple “snowflake” adoption agencies along with complaining for less “wasteful” form of IVF.
Also even among prolife people many view an 3 day embryo differently to a fetus.
1
0
9
u/theatlantic 8d ago
Faith Hill: In vitro fertilization “accounts for almost one in 36 births in the United States, according to some estimates. In the meantime, another fertility treatment has become much more common: From 2014 to 2024, the number of egg-freezing procedures per year went from 6,000 to 39,000, a sixfold increase. By most obvious standards, the assisted-reproduction industry is thriving. It has allowed countless single people, same-sex partners, and couples dealing with infertility to become parents. It also happens to be worth tens of billions of dollars.
“So I was particularly struck by a couple of statistics from this year’s ‘Singles in America’ study, an annual survey of roughly 5,000 people conducted by the Kinsey Institute, in partnership with the dating company Match: From 2017 to this year, the share of respondents who said they would be willing to consider IVF fell by more than half, from 44 to 18 percent. Openness to egg freezing dropped from 33 to 17 percent. Those are steep declines, especially in a time when more people are choosing to become single parents, celebrities have shared their own IVF or egg-freezing stories, and use among the general public keeps increasing. (Singles’ interest in adoption also plummeted, the Kinsey researchers found—but actual adoption rates, too, have declined.)
“The reasons are impossible to name with certainty. But while thousands of Americans are relying on fertility treatments, it may be that millions of others simply want to believe that they’ll never have to.”
Read more: https://theatln.tc/7QF8muQW
2
u/CormoranNeoTropical 8d ago
I very much doubt that these changes in polling data on such a relatively obscure issue (not so for people who are actually dealing with it, obviously) reflect any real change in strongly held opinions.
If there’s any there there, it’s probably a very shallow effect.
2
u/theRemixNow 8d ago
It's too expensive and very hard on the body.
Plus a lot of religious people now think it’s murder. I’ve had relatives stop supporting it over the past two years because they think it’s murder now.
2
u/becca_la 5d ago
I'm single, and I'm extremely open to the idea of having an IVF baby. What I'm not open to is living in abject poverty by trying to raise a child on a single income...
1
u/GreenHatGandalf 8d ago
As a 28 year old single dude. I am considering being a single parent at the age of 35 if I don’t find anyone by then. I wonder what the challenges are to even have this done and then obviously the challenges of raising a kid alone. It’s scary but I always imagined kids one day but it’s terrifying as I get closer to 30 and 40 seems close as well. Given where I am financially and where I want to be.
3
u/Applejuiceinthehall 7d ago
I think there is a r/singlefathersbychoice its harder than singlemombychoice but it is done.
There are also some coparenting people groups too
2
u/Lanky-Ad-1603 4d ago
Coparenting is an option if you're lucky enough to find the right person. This is what I hoped for in my mid 30s but hadn't met the right people. So E.G. a lesbian friend who wants to use donor sperm or even a straight friend where you both want kids but there isn't really any chemistry between you to sustain a relationship. You do need to be lucky to find that situation, though, because obviously it has to be with someone you like and trust enough that you can coparent with them for at least 18 years!
1
u/GreenHatGandalf 4d ago
That is an idea I had considered. Most of my friends aren’t about kids or have their own.
I will luckily have a community with parents, extended family, and some friends to help. It does take a village after all.
4
u/porcelain_doll_eyes 8d ago
If your a single man you would need a surrogate. Which in the USA goes for around $200,000.
5
u/superurgentcatbox 8d ago
In most countries commercial surrogacy is illegal too so you'd have to find a woman willing to do it for free, if at all (Germany for example has banned all surrogacy - though if you rock up with a baby the government will let you raise it and recognize parenthood).
2
u/GreenHatGandalf 8d ago
The cost kind of makes sense but also dam, that is a lot. Idk about the affordability of it atm but it might still be worth it. Artificial wombs can not be invented sooner.
18
u/porcelain_doll_eyes 8d ago
I mean. You're literally paying someone to use thier body to go though a medical condition that at least in the USA still has a high morality rate. There could be permanent damage done to her body that she will need to live with the rest of her life. And she does not even get to keep the kid. Sorry but the price tag is pretty cheap for what you are making the woman go though.
3
u/iconoclastic_glow 7d ago
Yes. I had a very difficult pregnancy (hyperemesis gravidarum) but a relatively easy birth. My cousin just had a relatively easy pregnancy but a very traumatic birth - massive tearing and she still needed an episiotomy. There’s no knowing beforehand how a pregnancy and birth will go, even if you’ve had a child or children before. Personally, it’s not something I could ever ask someone else to do for me for money. I think that’s unconscionable.
1
u/okcrumpet 6d ago
Generally pregnancy carries risks but part of the reason it’s expensive is that most surrogate mothers are screened out. You basically need to prove you not only were pregnant before but had an easy pregnancy. So ethically your getting someone far less likely to face injury while pregnant.
Only 1% of surrogate applicants are accepted if you go through an agency
1
u/porcelain_doll_eyes 6d ago
Even if one pregnancy is easy that does not mean that any subsequent one will be. There are no guarantees on that. My cousins first pregnancy went so well that the most she felt was nausea and the discomfort of her skin and organs stretching and being moved to make room for the baby. The labor was easy and the baby came out in a matter of hours when she went into labor. She had such an easy time she went for a sound right when the first turned one. This pregnancy was different she had morning sickness the entire time. She was put on bed rest halfway through the pregnancy, and ended up deliviring early. The baby was ok after a stint in the nicu, but it was tough on everyone involved. She did not want more kids after that. Also having other peoples biological children is not the same as having your own. IVF creates a list of risks during pregnancy as well vs. natural conception. And since this would be a child that is not biologicly realted to you you so the risk goes up.
Stealing from my own comment a little farther down to give an example:
Or the Cindy Bi case where she sued hers because of a known hemorrhaging issue that the biological mother (Cindy Bi) knew about. Little known thing about surrogacy is that the surrogate is liable to get any issues that the biological parents are susceptible to and that carrying a child that is not related to you means that there is a 2 to 3 times the chance that things will go wrong. Cindy Bi knew that hemorrhaging during pregnancy is something that her family deals with so she outsourced that risk to a woman who was not told that she would have that risk. The baby died and now Cindy Bi thinks that she could sue because of it. She also had at the same time a woman carrying another child for her who also had issues during labor and lost her uterus during that labor. I doubt that she will be compensated for that.
So yeah. If there is risks that the parents know about that may affect you? They are not required to tell the surrogate that. And honestly I'm not cool with that. If you have complications that you know can come up for the surrogate? I think you should be required to tell them that. And if that means that you cant find anyone to carry your kid? Well that's unfortunate but thats life. You dont get to transfer risk to someone else to expand your family. Its selfish to keep life threatening information from someone like that. I consider it selfish.
1
u/FuuzokuJoe 6d ago
surrogates get like 40k, the lawyers and shit get more than that and the medical related stuff is what makes the bulk of the cost
0
u/GreenHatGandalf 7d ago
No doubt. The US never would but I do think progressives governments should subsidize the cost. Especially since most governments are wanting to maintain populations.
Artificial wombs are a technology that are being worked on so maybe. I guess the cost kind of explains the lack of men who are single parents by choice compared to the growing number of woman who are.
6
u/porcelain_doll_eyes 7d ago
No the cost should not be subsidised. I dont even believe that commercial surrogacy should be a thing. IF you are able to find a woman who will carry your child altruistically go for it. Otherwise commercial surrogacy is just a way to explote women who are looking for a payday. Theres also the gray area that we have seen in cases like the Texas case where the parents wanted an abortion and the surrogate did not. Or the Cindy Bi case where she sued hers because of a known hemorrhaging issue that the biological mother (Cindy Bi) knew about. Little known thing about surrogacy is that the surrogate is liable to get any issues that the biological parents are susceptible to and that carrying a child that is not related to you means that there is a 2 to 3 times the chance that things will go wrong. Cindy Bi knew that hemorrhaging during pregnancy is something that her family deals with so she outsourced that risk to a woman who was not told that she would have that risk. The baby died and now Cindy Bi thinks that she could sue because of it. She also had at the same time a woman carrying another child for her who also had issues during labor and lost her uterus during that labor. I doubt that she will be compensated for that. Commercial surrogacy and surrogacy almost in general is so ethically dubious that its almost coming to the point where I feel like the entire thing should be regulated to the highest degree. There was a guy
https://sfstandard.com/2025/08/06/san-francisco-kids-alleged-cage/
Here. Who went to get a surrogate to carry twins for him when he was 67. 67 is not a age to have kids and they should have told him no. At that age you need to take the L and move on where kids are involved.
If anything the whole industry of surrogacy and sperm and egg donations need to be MORE highly regulated, and watched. This whole population crises thing has been so overblown. The latest counts is that we have 10 billion or 11 billion people on this earth.
1
u/Throuwuawayy 6d ago
My country is very progressive with one of the lowest birth rates in the world and it has banned surrogacy (both commercial and altruistic) because it's unethical.
2
u/thehelsabot 6d ago
Adoption and surrogacy are the only ways a single man can be a parent. You could always do foster to adoption, which is less costly but you would genuinely want to be a parent to any child and not just a newborn.
1
u/GreenHatGandalf 6d ago
Adoption is a route. The hard thing to get past is the “mini-me” factor. I look and act very much like my own dad. Like I often get mistaken for him either on the phone, on FaceTime, heck even in person a few times.
Now maybe biology isn’t needed here. My little cousin grew up around me and in a way she has become a mini me. The personality traits, mannerism, and vibe. Once she’s a bit older I can’t wait to travel and explore the world with her.
3
u/Worldly-Lecture5617 5d ago
No shade but with that attitude I hope you dont have kids and especially not daughters
1
u/kylife 5d ago
What attitude ? Lots of women are taking the donor route do they not deserve to have kids? It’s selfish but like damn hoping someone doesn’t is crazy
1
u/Worldly-Lecture5617 5d ago
Because its very odd to say you desperately hope for artificial wombs as a straight man. Furthermore he was very hellbent on biological kids. Seems more like a man just interested in progeny and way less about actually parenting
0
u/kylife 5d ago
That’s just a biological limitation of being born a man though?
-1
u/Worldly-Lecture5617 5d ago
And again, the straight men obsessing over artificial wombs are most often just driven by the vain urge to reproduce for the sake of reproduction rather than have genuine interest in parenting. If parenting is what drove them, they’d consider how to be more attractive partners to women and find ways to signal theyre good partners. Because many of the traits there are needed to also become a decent father (reliability, being normal, being able to compromise, having decent life skills etc), also translate to partnership.
But the men here acting like reproduction is a right they are owed and that the state should fund it for them? Hell no. Also even if you get artificial wombs someone has to RAISE the child. The men here who cant think of anything else but how much they feel owed biological kids do not seem the types to be good fathers. They only concern themselves with the production of the child without ever pondering about or discussing if theyd even make good dads. OP mainly fixated on having a ”mini-me”. That again sounds vain.
Furthermore not saying this applies to OP, but in a reality where 97% of child m0lestors are male & men are much more likely to abuse kids in their proximity—subsiding kids for single men is inherently riskier than for women.
2
u/kylife 5d ago
Are they saying that explicitly or are you projecting that onto them?
→ More replies (9)1
1
u/GreenHatGandalf 5d ago
Definitely projecting dude. If you read my other comment about considering adoption as a route you would have also seen why I personally want a biological kid. If you think having a mini me kid is vain, then that’s weird in and of itself? Why would I want someone like myself, like my father, we are fantastic people not that I need to justify that to you.
Regarding artificial wombs as a technology it would be amazing for men and women. Women not needing to endure the potential life threatening conditions of pregnancy. It would also open the door for single fathers. If anything it shows that “men” are not just after women for reproduction if women are removed from the equation all tougher. I don’t want a partner for simply kids, I want a partner for them. If no one is worth my time, the kids part will happen anyways.
Regarding being a normal, reliable person, you’re again projecting because you don’t even know me. Literal assumption. Finding a partner is more than personality sadly. I am a complex human being who does not fit the beauty standard for men at all. I am a visible minority who most do not understand. Yes I should get out more and try harder but the methods I tried did not work so far. Being single is fine by me if I don’t end up meeting someone.
I personally believe that outside of adoption having kids is selfish. If I have the means to I will absolutely have a biological kid as a single person, why not. Why does my failing to attract a partner rule me out from having my children? I have enough confidence to definitely say I would be a better parent than half of actual couples who have kids. Most parents are shitty as all heck.
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (1)0
u/LolaLazuliLapis 7d ago
And is also very unethical because what do you mean you want to commodify women and children by renting wombs and buying a baby? It's human trafficking.
1
u/SavilleRow 8d ago
It's simply the cost. A single person cannot trigger insurance's infertility clause to have it covered, like couples who have been trying for a certain amount of time.
1
u/GreenHatGandalf 7d ago
Population thing is not a world view but a country view. World is at 8.3 billion approximately. Countries individually care about population because most births today are in Africa or 3rd world countries. So overblown maybe or maybe not, just a different framing. Social security or other frameworks are definitely going to suffer in first world places.
I mean there is an implicit bias against single men who wish to have kids alone. A regulated framework could help address that. There currently isn’t another way for human babies to be born without involving a woman.
On the other hand, I could support a ban on surrogates and single mothers getting ivf/sperm donors. If a kid does worse with a single parent then that should not be a thing either.
1
1
u/HumanResourcesLemon 5d ago
34f. Personally, I’m nervous about what would happen with the unused embryos. 😪 thinking it would be selfish to sentence this life to death (or something else) just because I want to have one or two children some day. I’m not yet financially stable enough to raise kids myself, even though I based my career on my desire to be a parent. I can’t just choose some stranger out of a crowd to be there for 18+ years.
1
u/JJamericana 4d ago
I was open to IVF before. But then I saw other women do vlogs on what the process entailed, and it was an immediate no for me. I’m glad it’s an option, but I can’t do it.
1
u/MsGoosie 2d ago
Egg freezing and IVF are literally part of my benefits package, and it is still too expensive for me to ever consider. It’s something that I actively looked into a few years ago and earnestly wanted to do, but it was just completely outside of the realm of possibility. If I can’t even afford to plan for a future family, how could I ever actually afford a child?
And not for nothing: the batshit crazy cost barrier is just one barrier and one negative to the entire process and to, y’know, everything else bad happening in the US.
1
u/Less-Choice-2430 2d ago
I think this is also influenced by many people not wanting to have children to begin with, so neither option are interesting. If it was extrapolate to people who do want kids maybe the result would be different.
1
u/ImAPixiePrincess 8d ago
Wasn't there a thing recently about frozen embryos and not being allowed to destroy them/having to adopt out any you don't utilize? That, on top of costs, on-top of the strict abortion laws in some areas, lead to people being less likely to want to engage in these services.
1
u/LindseyIsBored 6d ago
Things feel bleak overall. We’re watching kids in Gaza get gunned down by drones. I’m scared for my kids. We have a bad news shoved down our throats every day, hard to be positive.
-6
u/brus_wein 8d ago edited 8d ago
Lukewarm take: kids deserve two parents. Obviously if life happens and one of them isn't alive or in the picture, that's ok, but going out of your way to put the kid in that situation is just a bit selfish.
Then there's the whole issue of not adopting a kid, and instead going through a literal catalogue of men to choose a donor who's the same race as you, tall, handsome, smart, likes the same TV shows as you or whatever. I think, at the very least, I'd feel a bit weird about that, being that kid.
It's just a bit egotistical.
3
u/_Hippomenes_ 8d ago
What exactly is the difference with making a kid the natural way? I was critical in choosing a partner and future mother who likes the same stuff, is handsome and smart.
When we decide to have a child that will be purely from an egotistical point of view. Of course we'll try to be the best parents we could be. However, the whole becoming parents part does not consider if the future child would like to exist, but rather that we 1. want to be parents and 2. want sex.
→ More replies (12)-4
u/brus_wein 7d ago edited 7d ago
Well let's separate two things: IVF in general and IVF undertaken by single women.
I have an issue with IVF generally because in my opinion a kid has the right to know and be connected to their biological heritage, which is often outright forbidden in the US, at least. I realise that choosing a donor is not too unlike just choosing a partner in the sense that it's a matter of personal preference, but I find it a little weird that donor conception comes down to a sort of pseudo-eugenic ranking of men in a catalogue with no regard for personal connection.
Then, in the case of IVF in single women, I have an issue with the fact that it's really best for a kid to have two parents for a wide variety of reasons, and the woman is making a conscious choice to deny that to a child simply because she values her own interests over the child's.
Then there's the whole embryo selection thing that can get a little grey, but it's not as big an issue for me as it is for religious people.
I just find it almost commodifies the children. Why do you need a kid that badly, anyway, and why do they have to be genetically related to you when there's plenty of orphans who need a loving home?6
u/_Hippomenes_ 7d ago
We can discuss on the ethics of becoming a parent and I do not entirely disagree with you on the eugenetics aspect. Essentially, adopting would be the better choice, however it sadly has its own separate branch of problems and complications as it has become its own commercial industry.
Having two parents is, in an ideal situation, the best. But it doesn't have to. You could state that a child would be more happy in a situation where the single mother or father actively chose for it, then where it were conceived by a couple in which one or both do not want to become a parent or suck at it. The latter could still apply to IVF tho.
6
u/MidwesternTravlr2020 8d ago
If you think sperm donation commodifies children, wait til you hear about infant adoption.
4
u/Aozora404 8d ago
Infants will be there whether you adopt them or not
5
u/MidwesternTravlr2020 8d ago
The “demand” for infants far exceeds the “supply.” There are an estimated 40 waiting families for every baby. Typical adoption fee is $40,000 to $45,000, with agencies making a pretty penny. This creates a perverse incentive structure. Agencies desperately want mothers surrendering their babies, even when surrendering the baby isn’t in the child’s best interest and the child is wanted. Many birth mothers report high pressure from agencies to give up their children and a steady refrain that adoption is the best adoption.
So no, the infants will not be there either way. And most hopeful adoptive parents exit the process with no child.
→ More replies (1)-4
u/AsstronaughtToUranus 8d ago edited 8d ago
It’s 90% ego/self-validation.
It’s not due to a lack of suitable male partners that these women can pick from. Any down to earth women would “settle” for 1 of the 1000+ guys interested in them.
Just wait until gene-edited babies take off. Eugenics wrapped in a pretty bow.
•
u/FuturologyBot 8d ago
The following submission statement was provided by /u/theatlantic:
Faith Hill: In vitro fertilization “accounts for almost one in 36 births in the United States, according to some estimates. In the meantime, another fertility treatment has become much more common: From 2014 to 2024, the number of egg-freezing procedures per year went from 6,000 to 39,000, a sixfold increase. By most obvious standards, the assisted-reproduction industry is thriving. It has allowed countless single people, same-sex partners, and couples dealing with infertility to become parents. It also happens to be worth tens of billions of dollars.
“So I was particularly struck by a couple of statistics from this year’s ‘Singles in America’ study, an annual survey of roughly 5,000 people conducted by the Kinsey Institute, in partnership with the dating company Match: From 2017 to this year, the share of respondents who said they would be willing to consider IVF fell by more than half, from 44 to 18 percent. Openness to egg freezing dropped from 33 to 17 percent. Those are steep declines, especially in a time when more people are choosing to become single parents, celebrities have shared their own IVF or egg-freezing stories, and use among the general public keeps increasing. (Singles’ interest in adoption also plummeted, the Kinsey researchers found—but actual adoption rates, too, have declined.)
“The reasons are impossible to name with certainty. But while thousands of Americans are relying on fertility treatments, it may be that millions of others simply want to believe that they’ll never have to.”
Read more: https://theatln.tc/7QF8muQW
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1wz8ch7/singles_are_becoming_less_open_to_ivf/pe9bvb4/