Mayim Rabim

I really want to go, though I am not sure if I'll be able to make it. Does anyone who is going want to provide a recap?

Ditto Avigayil - I would love to see a recap here!

only one baby to go round? better sign up in advance. ;)

and yes, fB, I *have* noticed that - so far I don't think most of them are getting it right, but it's nice that they're trying.

Persephone - I am curious what you mean by not "getting it right"...

On a less hijacky note: This event does look interesting. I hope that someone who is going can tell us about it.

Hmm. OK, I'm going to hope this is not a hijack, because maybe someone will want to compare it to the infertility session run by Nishmat. But it will definitely be long. Sorry.

I haven't been to any events about infertility designed for the general community. But I have to say, I think it's better that I don't, as I would probably just come away angry. And that's not really a fair reaction, given that the experience of dealing with infertility and its intersection with halacha is hard to truly understand unless you've gone through it yourself. Even then, those of us going through it are very diverse ourselves, so what strikes the right note for one will be off the mark for another. This is a hard task and I very, very much appreciate the fact that mainstream organizations are trying.

That said: there was a feature on infertility in Jewish Action this year, and many little things about it irked me.

The scientific article used the word "donor" confusingly for in vitro fertilization, not clarifying that the "donor" is most probably the husband. It also felt the need to explain, twice, that it's doubtful whether assisted reproduction even fulfills the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu. This was the first time I had heard such a thing, and it was extremely painful, not to mention unhelpful.

The personal story implied that those of us who are infertile and religious react by feeling we should be working to "deserve" children more. I can't fault the writer because this was her genuine experience of infertility, but it is emphatically not how I view the question of why some women can have children and others can't.

And the adoption article suggested that if you adopt a non-Jewish baby, "no one needs to know." Again I can't judge because the speaker in question is the parent of an adopted child, which I am not, at least not yet. But the idea that my child's conversion is something I should feel the need to hide is halachically impractical as well as personally repugnant to me.

There was a lot of good in these articles, and I hope the net effect was greater empathy for and acceptance of the sacrifices infertile religious couples make in order to become parents. But as someone in the midst of these choices myself, I couldn't help my blood pressure rising every now and then as I was reading.

There was also a lecture for the general public on assisted reproduction at Stern College this year. In this case I haven't been able to read transcripts of the speakers' statements directly, but from the writeup in the student newspaper, I am very glad I wasn't there.

It appeared that there were three speakers: one was a well-known infertility doctor, who talked positively about assisted reproduction.

The second was a bioethicist, who if I remember correctly spoke against assisted reproduction because it "commodifies" embryos, and suggested that infertile couples should adopt instead.

The third speaker was Rabbi Bleich, who reportedly (I really hope I'm remembering correctly) said that going to the lengths of assisted reproduction is not required by the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu; all that's required is to try naturally. And furthermore, that the drugs and procedures involved in assisted reproduction can be dangerous. So in sum, it's an optional activity that might put your life at risk; you can fill in the blank about whether it should be undertaken.

I can't begin to articulate on how many levels these last two positions upset me, but most of all I can't understand what the planners thought they were doing in selecting this panel of speakers. This is a real-life heartbreak for people like me, not a dispassionate intellectual debate where we need to hear the most extreme positions on all sides. This event certainly did not provide me support in any way.

If my second-hand impressions are wrong, I truly apologize and will be happy to withdraw my reactions. I do think the lecture at Stern was not representative. I think most events are likely to be more like the Jewish Action feature: more good than bad, but just slightly off the mark.

I think in the end I will be attending; I'll try to write something up.

Persephone,
Where misinformation and a skewed view of things are concerned I understand the frustration. I am really curious though about your position regarding public discourse on the subject of Judaism and infertility. While I can't relate to this specific topic, I can relate to another area that is a source of pain for me personally, and I know that when this is talked about in a cold and detached manner by others who have not shared the experience but wish to dissect it is definitely hurtful. Yet, I find it difficult to maintain that only those with direct experience can voice an opinion or have some say in the larger discussion. Who else will shed an objective light? I hope this does not come across as insensitive, and I do think your response will help me to further develop my sensitivity.

Not at all an insensitive question, Avigayil! I'm certainly not saying that only people who have experienced infertility themselves should talk about it in a public forum. Only that there should be a major, major effort to talk to a spectrum of infertile couples first, and get a sense of what kind of things might be hurtful for them to hear.

Let's be honest, when someone is infertile they are almost certainly not getting their halachic advice from a public lecture. They are consulting with their personal rabbi in private, and it's really not relevant if some other rabbi approves or disapproves of their actions. That's between the rabbis, if they want to debate it.

While Rabbi Bleich has every right to share his opinion with people who want to hear it, I don't know why *I* would want to at this stage, and I especially don't like him being invited as the only representative of the halachic point of view on infertility treatment. If this account is accurate, he is certainly not.

A public event, in my opinion, is there to increase public understanding of the emotional, financial, and physical challenges involved, so that infertile couples can receive more support. Not the opposite.

I should have put these links in to begin with, but I was too tired last night.

Jewish Action (articles are in the Spring 2005 issue; they download as PDFs)

Lecture sponsored by Stern College (I was wrong about the location, though, it was held at the YU Museum)

OK, I'll shut up now. I hope Avigayil has a recap of Nishmat's event for us soon!

"It also felt the need to explain, twice, that it's doubtful whether assisted reproduction even fulfills the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu. This was the first time I had heard such a thing, and it was extremely painful, not to mention unhelpful."

I think they wrote that it is a machloket, that some see it as a fulfillment of pru u'rvu, and that it might fulfill shevet anyway. In any case, I think this is the sort of information that is very helpful to someone who is trying to decide if they want to pursue infertility treatment.

I read this too:

"And the adoption article suggested that if you adopt a non-Jewish baby, "no one needs to know." Again I can't judge because the speaker in question is the parent of an adopted child, which I am not, at least not yet. But the idea that my child's conversion is something I should feel the need to hide is halachically impractical as well as personally repugnant to me."

and i had the same reaction.

On this:

"The third speaker was Rabbi Bleich, who reportedly (I really hope I'm remembering correctly) said that going to the lengths of assisted reproduction is not required by the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu; all that's required is to try naturally. And furthermore, that the drugs and procedures involved in assisted reproduction can be dangerous. So in sum, it's an optional activity that might put your life at risk; you can fill in the blank about whether it should be undertaken."

Based on what you write, I would understand this differently. A lot of Orthodox couples *don't* seem to realize that infertility treatments are optional, and that they can choose to forgo them. There was a similar discussion here in the past, on mikva ladies just assuming that a woman without children would want a segula for conceiving, people assuming that all childless couples are unhappy, etc. There is *enormous* pressure in many orthodox circles to have children, and the assumption is that if the couple is married a relatively brief period of time and haven't conceived, they'll go for treatment. Infertile couples who don't elect to go for treatement are, essentially, blamed for not "Doing enough" and there is little sympathy or respect for that choice. I read this as emphasizing that treatment is an option, but not mandated. Remember, aside from the existing pressure to have a (large) family, the more women take advantage of infertility treatment, the fewer Orthodox couples who don't eventually succeed in having children exist, and so resisting going for infertility treatment or not adopting becomes that much harder. I welcome the rabbis emphasis that trying to have children in these circumstances is an option, not mandated.

"I especially don't like him being invited as the only representative of the halachic point of view on infertility treatment. If this account is accurate, he is certainly not."

Why do you say this? Is there anyone who says that treatment is mandatory? I do not read your summary of his position as implying that it isn't a legitimate option (your "you can fill in the blank about whether it should be undertaken" seems to imply that he'd discourage infertility treatment, but I didn't see that implication - am I missing something?)

I think increased sensitivity to infertility issues is a good thing, but I think people do need to take matters on an individual basis, and not just assume that they should go for treatment because treatment exists. Infertility treatment is so encouraged that I think it's important to remind people that going for treatment is not obligatory and that every couple needs to decide if it makes sense for them individually. I do think this needs to be stressed more than it usually is, and so I am actually glad to see that the rabbi you cite stressed this in his lecture.

I'll just add my 2 cents to ditto what shira wrote, that my impression of persephone's summary of Rabbi Bleich was also that he was offering the option to "opt out" for couples who do NOT want to pursue infertility treatment.

Similarly, in cases of experimental medicine or surgery with a lesser (I forget the percentages) chance of success, there is a point where things are permitted but not mandated - or prohibited!

There is a mitzvah to take care of your body, but if success of a given procedure is not "guaranteed", and the risks involved are considerable, there is a range in which the procedure is optional. How great are the risks? How likely is a positive outcome?

Hey, chldbirth is technically a "risk" to the mother's life, with unassisted conception and birth. No one was telling women pre-hospitals not to have babies!

And at a guess, Stern probably used Rabbi Bleich because he IS a well known posek on topics of medical halacha.

Persephone - especially when a lecture is being presented to the general public, keep in mind that the speaker is most likely intending to offer a big picture *for the clarification of the general public* and NOT pasken for any individual. . . take a DEEP breath, and try not to take it personally.

Here's the quote from Jewish Action:

"By the same token, it is by no means certain that fathering a child by a method other than direct physical impregnation fulfills the mitzvah of peru urevu, even if perhaps the lesser mitzvah of lashevet yatzra is fulfilled."

I suppose it's possible to read this the way you're reading it, Shira; maybe we differ over semantics. But to me this is not presenting it as a machloket, because it doesn't say that anyone holds it does fulfill the mitzvah. Maybe there are opinions that say yes, and opinions that say no. But for all you know, reading this sentence, every major authority agrees that it's questionable.

Regardless, I certainly hear your point that it might be helpful for someone deciding whether to pursue treatment. My point was that it is very hurtful to someone who has already decided to do so. I have consulted more than one rabbi about my infertility, and none of them have felt the need to tell me that it's fine if I want to pursue treatment, but I should just know that we won't necessarily fulfill any mitzvot anyway. I am not the only one whose heart broke a little reading that statement; there was a heated discussion at one of the online infertility support boards about it.

I think, given that this is such a painful topic, writers and speakers should be careful to spare people who are already suffering from being hurt further. If that means sometimes less ends up being said, because it might be benign for one person but hurtful to another, I'm okay with that.

If there is something that *needs* to be said -- and my guess is that you're right, Orthodox couples who embrace their childfree status, rather than fight it, do not receive nearly enough support -- I would strongly suggest that it be said separately. In the same way that there was one article about treatment and another about adoption, with the recognition that they are often two separate emotional stages or pathways, there could have been a separate article about how difficult it is not to pursue treatment. I would have applauded it. And I would have been able to avoid reading it, if I felt too fragile to do so,

About the Rabbi Bleich lecture: the usual implication of an activity which is optional and life-threatening is that it is forbidden. We generally have an obligation not to risk our lives except for the three cardinal sins (idolatry, adultery and murder). Some rabbis who permit infertility treatment say that they do so because the mental anguish of infertility can already be compared to death, as Rivka said to Yitzchak.

It's a bit silly that I didn't spell it out, but I was a little wary of doing so when I didn't have the article in front of me. But my memory is that he concluded treatment should not be undertaken. I will be able to look it up later today, and I'll report back.

On the issue of taking it personally: LC, I think your comment was based on the impression that Rabbi Bleich was presenting a range of permissibility, and we'll have to see whether my memory is correct that he was not. But if I'm right about what he said, I think it's a bit much to ask me not to take it personally when the only point of view the public heard about treatment that night was to suggest that it was wrong.

A large part of infertility is struggling with the sense that others are judging you. I think Shira, despite our apparently different reactions, feels the same way. Most of the time I can tell myself that it's in my head; the last thing I need is a public confirmation of it.

And I don't think the burden should only be on me to thicken my skin. The burden should also be on society to protect those who are already vulnerable.

Persephone, the Jewish Action article bothered me too, although I wasn't able to put my finger on why until I read your comment here.

And no one would dare call me infertile... People stop me on the street to offer to babysit my gaggle of kids so I can go ask a Rav for a heter for birth control, and don't seem to believe me that I don't want to ask! (Okay, it's not quite that bad. They were actually people I knew. Good friends, even, but I still wasn't impressed with the offer.)

The problem is this is a very sensitive issue, on all sides, and I'm not sure how explaining that conceiving through alternative venues might not fulfill the mitzvah of peru u'revu actually helps anyone. And you've proven that saying it can in fact be hurtful.

Mentioning that simply "trying and failing" was enough for the mitzvah is more useful, at least, as otherwise even those infertile couples who manage to have kids but are told they haven't fulfilled the mitzvah are left saying, "I didn't do enough? What more do you want from me?" And there isn't any more they can do! Piling on more guilt isn't nice, it isn't useful, and it certainly isn't derech eretz.

I'm certainly not judging you, Persephone. You do what you need to do. I know you're seeking to do so within halacha, under the guidance of your Rav. That's enough for me.

Persephone:

Even couples in treatment need to decide how aggressively to pursue treatment, and I think understanding the p'ru u'rvu connection is important *for everyone*. Perhaps if this is something you knew all along, it would have been less painful? My sense (pls correct me if I'm wrong) is that your decisions about treatment were really made independent of the mitzva obligation - but for other people, it is an important consideration. ("By no means certain" is a codeword for machloket - as i recall, the minchat chinuch holds that pru u'rvu is fulfilled by having children, but others disagree.)

I will wait for your clarification of Rabbi Bleich's position to write more, but generally speaking, there is a *range* of risky behavior. Many people take medication that carries some risk for all sorts of reasons - the risk is part of a cost/benefit ratio, something that is supposed to be taken into account, but needn't be decisive. Unless there is something missing from your summary, that is what I'd understand.

What bothers me about your approach is that you're essentially suggesting that people not be given objective information on the halachic approach, out of consideration for people who are undergoing treatment. Is there any other context in which you would advocate concealing eg that some activity may not be fulfillment of a d'oreita but only a d'rabbanon? It basically sounds as though you're advocating concealing reality, allowing infertile couples to believe things that aren't true, in order to spare their feelings. I can't see that as appropriate.

OK, first of all, I want to thank Miriam so much; your comment made me feel a lot better. I also want to thank Shira, as I said above, for bringing to attention the fact that some people who are unable to have childen without assistance need to hear very different things than I do. As I hopefully made it clear above, my aim is to protect everyone's feelings, not only those of people who feel like me. As an extension of that, I should also go back to Avigayil's point that the concern for sensitivity certainly applies to any painful intersection of life with halacha, not just infertility.

Second of all, Shira, I certainly hear what you're saying about hiding objective truth from people. My feelings about it have to do with context. I think it's important that halachic articles be published which examine all the hard facts; I even think public lectures like that can be appropriate. But I think everyone who might be hurt should be clued in as to what they might expect: emotional support or harsh facts. I certainly wasn't, in Jewish Action. I suppose I should have been more prepared for it at the Stern event, which was billed as more of an intellectual debate.

I think it's revealing that none of the rabbis I talked to personally felt it was important that I know that objective truth. I think it's important to get a sense of what an individual is struggling with psychologically, before deciding what they need or don't need to hear. I think that, as Miriam said, emotional support for those choosing not to pursue treatment (or not to pursue it too aggressively) could have been provided amply by saying that the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu does not require it. And I still think that the best solution to all concerns would have been to publish a separate article in the same feature about choosing not to pursue treatment.

Third: The idea of a range of halachically acceptable risk-taking, that both Shira and LC mentioned, is not quite as simply applied to infertility treatment as you might think. All the cases you've cited are ones where there's a potential medical benefit as well as a risk. But all that is a straw man, because I found the article about the event at Stern, and that's not what Rabbi Bleich said. I truly apologize for misrepresenting him, but frankly I think what he is actually reported to have said was far worse.

"... Bleich explicitly stated that assisted reproduction is not divinely required. Halachic problems with assisted reproduction arise from the fact that harm and genetic abnormalities can be a likely result, and there isn't consent from the fetus. He stressed, "Man should not knowingly create life that carries with it a burden." (Observer, Vol. XLVXV, No. 3, November 2004)

I can't even begin to address this. I'm spluttering too angrily. So I'll stop here.

Yeah, Persephone, there's a reason I stayed out of this thread.

So, uh, how about that Nishmat event? :)

I must comment because I can't believe some of these comments. I don't know any woman struggling with infertility who would say "well I am just going to stop now, thanks for letting me know I am not over on the mitzvah of pru urvu" Most women would do anything to have a child. I cannot hear otherwise.

Shira: Just curious, now that Persephone has clarified what the Rav said, and its much worse than I could ever imagine, are you still "glad" it was said? I live in Israel, I don't know any Rav who would say something like that in a public forum unless secifically asked a shyla. The fertility clinics here are brimming with ultra-Orthodox women who would stop at nothing to look into their own child's eyes some day. Women who are seeking a way out, if any, are in the minority. That comment maybe should have been said as a footnote, if at all.

Cindy

Now I'm sputtering angrily.

"Man should not knowingly create life that carries with it a burden."

All life "carries with it a burden." That's what life is all about. I don't feel right judging someone else's "quality of life."

I'm glad this Rabbi wasn't standing right there when my father was born, in 1940 after only 26 weeks gestation, not breathing, to interfere in the doctors' heroic efforts to save his life! (I can hear it now... "He's a preemie, he most likely won't live very long anyway... If he does, his quality of life couldn't possibly be any good... He'll have so many medical problems... Halacha doesn't require these heroic measures....") Well, no it doesn't, but Baruch Hash-m they saved him anyway! And his only "medical problem" was the loss of the use of his eyes.

Yes, a blind man is compared to a dead man (as is a poor man) in halacha, but when I think of all the people he's helped and whose lives he's touched for the better (to say nothing of my own life, my sister's, and that of my children!)... My father is receiving a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the State of New York next week. And he deserves it.

We don't only do things that are "devinely required" and if this Rav wanted to give people an "out" who don't want to pursue treatment, then he surely could have phrased it better!

Okay, done sputtering for the moment. But Persephone, you have my permission to be angry with him.

OK, previous post retracted on the grounds that it was based on a misconception. . .

To the actual quote, I can only stare in shock, dumb-founded.

1)"I think it's revealing that none of the rabbis I talked to personally felt it was important that I know that objective truth"

Well, you had presumably already decided to undergo treatment, regardless, right? It doesn't sound to me as though the mitzva aspect mattered to you very much, in making your decision. Did you ask rabbis if you *should* pursue treatment, or did you ask questionas about *how* to pursue treatment. When people ask questions about how to proceed on optional behavior, it is very rare for a rabbi to point out that the behavior is optional, unless they want to actively discourage it.

When Cindy writes this:

"well I am just going to stop now, thanks for letting me know I am not over on the mitzvah of pru urvu" Most women would do anything to have a child. I cannot hear otherwise."

she is also saying that many women don't CARE about the mitzva aspect, which would explain why rabbis don't bring it up *with those who don't care*. That doesn't mean that the mitzva aspect shouldn't be brought up in a general forum. It obviously needs to be part of public education, as Cindy also writes:

"The fertility clinics here are brimming with ultra-Orthodox women who would stop at nothing to look into their own child's eyes some day. Women who are seeking a way out, if any, are in the minority."

Seeking a way out of WHAT? If there is no mitzva obligation, it is seeking a way out of NOTHING, just not happening to share the view of many ultraorthodox that motherhood is the only route to fulfillment in judaism, which *contrary to popular perception* it doesn't have to be. Part of the reason that ultraorthodox fertility clinics are brimming with such women is that they don't check their premises. At the point that they've made up their minds that they want children and will undergo any treatment to have them, regardless, it is a bit late, and they tend not to want children because of any particular mitzva, or even for any reason they can pinpoint - the society has just allowed them to take for granted that their role is defined by family and motherhood. Starting off with the knowledge that p'ru u'rvu is defined differently by most might allow more of these women to question their premises long before fertility problems are an issue.

2) "Shira: Just curious, now that Persephone has clarified what the Rav said, and its much worse than I could ever imagine, are you still "glad" it was said?"

Yes. This is one line out of what I'm sure was a longer lecture. What surprised me about it is that AFAIK, generally speaking such children are healthy; I presume he is talking about older women etc. As far as it goes, maybe the point could have been phrased more sensitively, but I think the women here are in denial. Don't you take for granted that couples weigh the risks when they decide to go for treatment?! I think anyone who does not is not making a considered decision.

Miriam:

There is no comparison between doing something UNNatural that results in severely handicapped child and what you describe. I think this comparison is a sure sign that you are just being reactive:

"I'm glad this Rabbi wasn't standing right there when my father was born, in 1940 after only 26 weeks gestation, not breathing, to interfere in the doctors' heroic efforts to save his life!"

How can you even compare saving existant life with a choice to create life?

Your accusations notwithstanding, Rabbi Bleich goes to extreme lengths halachically on the requirement to *save* existing life.

When you write this:

"We don't only do things that are "devinely required" and if this Rav wanted to give people an "out" who don't want to pursue treatment, then he surely could have phrased it better!"

An "OUT"?

People going for fertility treatments are going for an IN.

I am sorry - IMO most treatment involves tradeoffs, and not speaking about tradeoffs and encouraging the perception that treatment is halachically required and not going for treatment is a "way out" etc -- The line the commenters here are taking is NOT the mainstream halachic opinion, and I think the idea of shading that, and concealing from the general public that treatment is an option, and not necessarily a halachically preferred option, in order to spare the feelings of people going for treatment (in other words to make people think that what they did was either required or very much encouraged) is totally inappropriate. If other rabbis do this to make people less aware of their own responsibility for their decisions, I think they are wrong both on the individual level, as couples should distinguish between dong what is halachically required and what they feel is personaly meaningful, and on the social level, by encouraging this kind of talk about women who are looking for "OUTs."

I have no personal fertility issues, btw.

I'm stunned.

"But I think everyone who might be hurt should be clued in as to what they might expect: emotional support or harsh facts. I certainly wasn't, in
Jewish Action. I suppose I should have been more prepared for it at the Stern event, which was billed as more of an intellectual debate."

Huh? The article in question was entitled "Assisted Reproduction through the Prism of Jewish Law"

Why did you expect the article to be primarily about "support"?

"I think that, as Miriam said, emotional support for those choosing not to pursue treatment (or not to pursue it too aggressively) could have been
provided amply by saying that the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu does not require it."

Saying the mitzva doesn't *require* it implies that treatment is a fulfillment of the mitzva, which acc. to most opinions, it isn't. Your formulation intentionally leaves people with the idea that treatment is optional, but still a fulfillment of the mitzva of pru u'rvu. I don't see why you think it is even permissible to mislead people in their decision making to think a mitzva is involved. This is not about "Emotional support"; it's about providing accurate information. Providing inaccurate information, and leading people to make decisions based on inaccurate understanding of halacha, is lifnei iver.

Why do you need having a child through IVF treatments to be considered p'ru u'rvu? If treatment is not pru u'rvu, that is because the mitzva is fulfilled by earlier attempts to have children naturally. Implying that actually going for IVF treatment or having children through IVF treatment, fulfills more than the mitzva of shevet encourages people to go for fertility treatments unthinkingly, in any situation. From the standpoint of *avodat hashem*, the risk to mother, to future child, and judgement of whether the couple's mental, emotional, and physical resources are really best devoted to pursuing treatment at any cost or are better devoted to other avenues, all need to be evaluated. It follows that for many people, IVF will be a good choice, and for others, it won't be.

The fact that having an IVF child may not be a kiyum of pru u'rvu doesn't make the children less valuable, it doesn't make gemilas chesed with children less valuable (or less of a mitzva!) and it doesn't lead anyone to have less nachas from their children and grandchildren. Something is wrong with the picture if those going for IVF need to be protected from the knowledge that undergoing treatment or having children via treatment is likely not itself a kiyum of pru u'rvu.

Similarly, I think something is wrong with the picture if discussion of risk to the mother's health and potential genetic defects are not "supposed" to be part of the discussion of whether to undergo IVF.

"All the cases you've cited are ones where there's a potential medical benefit as well as a risk"

Infertility treatment is halachically considered "medical benefit" (infertility is halachically considered illness).

Shira - no need to have written the last line

"I have no personal fertility issues btw"

we obviously know that from reading your comments. You are totally misinterpreting what everyone is saying in order to fit them into your uninformed arguments.

You are just writing fluff with no informative or serious content, and no knowledge of this type of situation. So please don't write novels about something which you know absolutely nothing about.

I think Shira made a good point about why it is dangerous to extend pru urvu to include seeking fertility treatment. She also makes a good point that a couple should know that the choice to go into fertility is their own choice and not a choice imposed by halacha - I don't understand why Cindy is asking Shira to censor herself.

That said, perhaps any couple that attempts natural conception should be considered as fulfilling pru urvu, regardless of whether or not they are successful and whether or not they seek fertility treatment?

I wrote that in response to a comment that implied that I did.

If my comments were not substantive, then why is it that I've checked, and Persephone's assumption about Rabbi Bleich's position on IVF and track record is incorrect? Could it just possibly be that I read what she wrote and evaluated it properly?

Just why do you think I have no knowledge of this type of situation? As it happens, I have quite a bit of experience, but I do meet a range of people, not all of whom are candidates for treatment for one reason or another, and some have been very directly harmed by the assumptions that underly your and others' posts. Infertility issues does not equate with "issues of people currently undergoing IVF treatment" and it is wrongheaded to think that every public forum discussing infertility or IVF must focus exclusively on a subset of couples. It is also shortsighted for people currently in treatment to guess how they might feel down the road. I wonder if anyone currently pained at the discovery that pru u'rvu is most often considered to be fulfilled by "natural" effort to conceive, rather than by the result of producing a child, would feel differently if they were not candidates for IVF or if they had exhausted treatment unsuccessfully.

I very much doubt that I misinterpeted this:

"I don't know any woman struggling with infertility who would say "well I am just going to stop now, thanks for letting me know I am not over on the mitzvah of pru urvu" Most women would do anything to have a child. I cannot hear otherwise."

or

"The fertility clinics here are brimming with ultra-Orthodox women who would stop at nothing to look into their own child's eyes some day. Women who are seeking a way out"

What you or others "cannot hear" doesn't determine reality, though it can pressure people enormously, and the dichotomy between "women who stop at nothing" and "women who seek a way out" is simplistic and judgemental. Those of you who want sympathy and respect and support for your own struggles might want to consider whether one-dimensional, unnuanced advocacy of a particular option creates almost intolerable pressure for people whose personal circumstances might differ from your own.

I hear that Persephone would like more forums supportive of people currently undergoing IVF treatment. That's well and good. Those discussions are not going to equate with lectures on "The Jewish perspective on IVF" because the Jewish perspective makes room for more experiences and circumstances than some here apparently are willing to.

Shira, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as to where you got your ideas about my motivations for seeking infertility treatment. Maybe I said something, here or on my blog, that gave you a mistaken impression. It didn't seem important to argue, since this was not meant to be a personal therapy session for me. But your last post reveals where you got those ideas: from the same pre-judged assumptions you make about an entire group of people whom you could not possibly have talked to personally.

Your entire premise is flawed. If I did not care about the mitzvah aspect, why would it be so devastating to me to learn that I could not fulfill it?

Although you addressed this a bit in your second comment, your first one glossed over a distinction several commenters have made, so I'm going to make it again. The idea that something is not REQUIRED, and the idea that something is not a FULFILLMENT, are not synonymous.

I had the same idea about fertility treatment that I do about many mitzvot in which I am not the least bit obligated: sitting in the sukkah, taking the lulav and etrog, and so on. I have no chiyuv (obligation) to do these things, but if I do them, it is a kiyum (fulfillment) of a mitzvah. That means a great deal to me. I am very, very unhappy to hear that this might not apply to p'ru ur'vu.

As for your suggestion that we should be equally satisfied knowing that we have fulfilled the mitzvah just by trying: there are no other instances in Judaism I can think of offhand where a mitzvah is fulfilled by trying rather than by attaining the goal. Even if we can wrap our minds around this concept, it is a difficult thing to do, and yet another instance where we feel isolated and different from everyone else. In moments when we are feeling most vulnerable, it can smack of apologetics. "Well, you tried your best; don't fret about it."

Furthermore, I shouldn't have to point this out, but it is not only WOMEN who seek fertility treatment! And it is not only because society teaches them that they can only be fulfilled by becoming mothers. Men undergo difficult, painful treatments in the pursuit of fatherhood too, and not only because their wives pushed them to do so. I can be sad on my husband's behalf that none of this efforts might result in the fulfillment of a mitzvah, in which he is most certainly obligated. And he is capable of his own feelings on the subject too.

Finally on this point, women are not obligated to have children at all. Not through space age treatment or through old fashioned sex. Any aspersions you are casting on women's motivations for seeking treatment, any assumptions that they are all in denial, any beliefs that they need to be educated because they're all foolishly pursuing motherhood under the mistaken premise that it's a religiously valuable thing to do, ought to apply to anyone who wants to become a mother.

As a more general point, your comments in many places reflected the idea that women who seek infertility treatment have not thought about it much, or enough. I think nothing betrays your ignorance about infertility more than that. The time and toll that treatment takes makes you second-guess your motivations, your goals, and your priorities over and over and over. And yes, we and our doctors and rabbis are very educated about the risks to mother and child, and we spend a great deal of energy in safeguarding each one. The idea that anyone could embark on a course of treatment which is physically grueling, financially draining, emotionally exhausting, and not remotely guaranteed of success, without serious consideration of all aspects of the issue first, is simply ludicrous. Most fertile people never have time or reason to think the decision to become parents through as much as we do.

I think it was crystal clear from my posts that my aim was to show compassion for all kinds of suffering imposed by infertility. I think it's clear from your posts that you have been denigrating one part of the infertile population in the process of protecting another. I think it's pointless to argue with you further. This will probably be my last post on this thread, but don't take that to mean I think your conclusions stand.

Ah, I did forget to say something. I am of course aware that the rabbis who DO permit infertility treatment consider it an illness justifying medical risk, but given that Rabbi Bleich comes to different conclusions I have no reason to assume he accepts that premise either, unless he says so.

A quote from the Observer article suggests otherwise: "When Dubler [the bioethicist] responded to one question by saying that infertility might be considered an occurrence and not a disease, Rosenwaks [the infertility doctor] adamantly interceded by saying that if not as bad, it is worse than cancer." Rabbi Bleich is not reported to have spoken up on this point at all.

He may have said things which were not reported, but we cannot know what those are. Likewise, if you have personal knowledge of Rabbi Bleich's stance, you ought to provide it if you want me or others to reevaluate our impression. I'd be happy to learn that he is more flexible than he sounded. But he made a statement in public to the effect that he is against IVF, and thus far that is what we have to work with.

BE"H, that is the last I will say here.

Yes, Shira, I was "reacting." I admit it.

But given that I don't agree "that harm and genetic abnormalities can be a likely result" of assisted reproduction as he is quoted as stating, I don't think it's such a far jump from 1) not going to great lengths to produce a child who may have genetic abnormalities to 2) not saving a child who will almost definitely have medical issues and/or handicaps of some sort. Yes, it is different. But not a far road to travel.

It's a known fact that a 26 week preemie (especially 65 years ago) has a very small chance for survival, much less a healthy life. The Kitzur Shulchan Oruch calls a baby born early (I believe it refers to before the eighth month of pregnancy, ie 32 weeks or earlier, IIRC as belonging in this category) muktzeh, and prevents doing for them on Shabbos because they can't possibly survive. Obviously, medical technology has evolved to the point where these babies have almost the same chances as a full-term infant, and are no longer considered muktzeh, but even today a 26 weeker has more of a chance of life-long problems than of a full healthy life. That my father survived at all is a miracle, that he did so with no medical problems (aside from his blindness, a minor inconvenience) is even more astounding.

I believe the halacha is that you are not required to go to extraordinary lengths to save the life of such a preemie. The halacha is also apparently that you don't have to go to extraordinary lengths (assisted reproduction) to bear a child. Not a far jump in either case to say that you in fact shouldn't go to those lengths, and that's the part we're objecting to.

But I think Persephone is right... this comment thread has gotten pretty long and a bit fiery. See you on a different thread where we perhaps won't be as inflamed by the topic.

Okay, I said I was done, but just to inject a bit of rational thought instead of reaction, (see, I am capable) and a hearty dose of "dan l'kaf schus" (giving the benefit of the doubt) which is a mitzvah that is incumbant on all of us...

Shira, you had some valid points, but please realize that asking an infertile woman to discuss infertility in a rational manner is sort of impossible. Emotions run way too deep. That's why we're so concerned that emotions were not taken into account in presenting these articles/symposiums to the "general public," an audience that will generally contain some infertile people. (Who would probably be well-advised to avoid such articles and symposiums for that exact reason!)

Keeping that in mind, the fact that the Jewish Action article had to mention more than once that the mitzvah of p'ru ur'vu was quite possibly not fulfilled through assisted reproduction was over the top. I'm still not sure it was helpful, but I accept your point that people should have all the facts. Mentioning it once would have been enough. Mentioning it a second time is nothing but hurtful.

As for assisted reproduction (not just IVF), and its associated risks, anyone undergoing or thinking about undergoing fertility treatments will look into all the risks and costs and weigh them carefully before making a decision. To emphasize such risks to the general public, without pointing out that all reproduction carries risk, (hence the custom to "bensch gomel" after childbirth, just as you would after traveling unharmed across a dessert, recovering from a protracted illness, making a cross-ocean journey, etc...) could lead to friends and relatives trying to dissuade an infertile couple from undergoing treatment, adding to the emotional burden.

I'm also going to assume this particular Rav was quoted way out of context, and that maybe he was specifically referring to older women way past "prime" childbearing age, using their own aged eggs, when the risk of birth defects does indeed increase. I still refuse to make the judgement call on whether taking the risk of having a child with (for example) Down's syndrome is "worth it," or whether the child would find the "burden" too hard to bear and prefer to not have been born.

At any rate, whatever he actually said, Rabbi Bleich was stating his opinion, and if you choose to go to him with your shaylahs (questions in Jewish Law) then you are bound by his opinion.

Otherwise, as I've heard elsewhere, CYLOR (Consult Your (own) Local Orthodox Rabbi). Even within halacha, there are areas open to interpretation, and even from the same Rav, what he might say as a general comment might not be the answer you'd get upon providing him with the specifics of your actual situation.