Posted on 01/21/2014 5:22:06 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Frustrated by their inability to have a baby, Roger and Jasmine Hill of Canastota are going public in their effort to conceive a child.
The young couple is asking for donations from the public to help pay for the costly IVF, or In-vitro fertilization, procedure they are hoping to try.
There are incentives for those who help: $100 gets you a copy of the sonogram and a photo of the newborn, $500 gets you in the baby book and $1,000 gets you a T-shirt plus all the other rewards.
Roger, who works at Walmart in Oneida and Jasmine, an accountant in Manlius, have set up a Go Fund Me site "Hope for a Baby Hill" where people can donate money to their cause. In the past two weeks since they started the site, they have raised nearly $900. Their goal is $10,000 by June, and they plan to save and contribute some cash of their own.
"We wanted a baby right away when we got married in June 2010, and nothing has worked,'' said Jasmine Hill. "My goal was to be a mom by 27, and that didn't happen."
Hill, 27, said they've tried fertility drugs and four cycle of (IUI) intrauterine insemination, which was covered by insurance. (IVF) in vitro fertilization -- isn't covered by their insurance and costs more than $8,000, plus follow-up visits. They hope to raise the cash and start IVF in June.
IVF combines an egg and sperm in a laboratory dish, and when successful it is combined with an embryo transfer, which involves physically placing the embryo in the uterus.
To chronicle their journey, the Hills also have started a blog.
The couple also has responded to critics who question their decision to go public.
"We both come from big families, and we really want a child,'' Jasmine said. "Roger has three siblings and I have four. So I got worried pretty quickly when I didn't get pregnant right away. I thought it would be easy."
After tests showed no clear obstacles, they were told they had "unexplained infertility," Jasmine said. She began taking medication to boost her fertility, with no luck and some unpleasant side effects.
"Roger and I have a lot to offer a child,'' Jasmine says. "We go to church, and we are both very active people. We feel like we could really give something to a child."
Roger, 29, agrees. "I love to hunt and fish, and we'd love to have two children to share that with,'' he said. "I'd really like to have a mini-me."
At Christmas, their families always asked about grandchildren. The Hills didn't share their struggle with their parents until they decided to go public.
"It's not just the financial support that matters to us, but it's all the emotional support we're getting by going public,'' Jasmine said. "My friends were against it, and it is a very private thing. But we wanted to do it.
"Infertility is viewed as a disease,'' she said. "But it doesn't mean we are broken. We need to make people more aware of that."
IUI, which they tried, was covered by insurance an has about a 10 to 20 percent success rate based on Jasmine's age. It also was invasive. "We counted and I had to give myself 69 shots for the cycles. Our bathroom was filled with medication and needles."
IVF's success rate is higher, more like 30 to 35 percent, the Hills said.
Although they consider adoption down the road, the Hills want to explore every alternative they can to have a child naturally. Still, they debated the public campaign.
"We had some qualms about doing this, but we both paid for college ourselves and we paid for our wedding and house on our own,'' Jasmine said. "To have to ask for help is hard, but we are so happy we are doing it."
After they give birth, then they’ll want the public to pay and pay and pay. I note that they haven’t tried prayer.
I know what you mean by the daunting difficulties of adoption. We went through a very frustrating process with it, and finally adopted from Russia. The cost? I always tell people "As much as the new siding and windows on our house," which gives them a ballpark figure.
It's very understandable why people are tempted to do IVF, but it's really morally unjustifiable. It demeans the beginnings of life into a commercial transaction and a lab project. The law has already ruled (in the Maryville case) that the embryos are property: the first time human beings have been considered "property" since the Civil War.
We have two older, high school aged children as well. Both are from my first marriage, but my current wife has adopted both of them as well.
I understand that. I don't get the objection to multiple fertilization as long as the parents is planing on having them implanted until they are all born.
Most of the time when you are dealing with female fertility issues you are not going to get that many eggs to fertilize.
In the case of male fertility issues I understand they fertilize only some they don't want to have more then can be reasonably carried to term and the rest are frozen. I will admit I don't know that many people in the industry but the ones I do know are quite careful about making sure that the embryos are not discarded but have every chance to grow and live.
There are other clinics that have no problem killing the babies for whatever reason. They are an entirely different kettle of fish.
It demeans the beginnings of life into a commercial transaction and a lab project.
I understand your feeling but have to disagree. It does not demean any more then having a hospital delivery, which is also a commercial transaction, demeans the birth.
The law has already ruled (in the Maryville case) that the embryos are property: the first time human beings have been considered "property" since the Civil War.
Sadly no. People have been considered property for one reason or another many times since the civil war. We move away from the idea and then backslide rather often.
However, with the other issues, you seem to be saying, "OK, it is demeaning, and it does treat the human embryo as product, a commodity, a form of property, but (shrug) that happens a lot, so...?"
(I'm trying not to exaggerate or misstate your comments, but you do indeed say that sometimes childbirth is accomplished in demeaning circumstances --- and human lives are often reduced to property... and... well?
"It [IVF] does not demean any more then having a hospital delivery, which is also a commercial transaction, demeans the birth"
Paying a midwife or OB/GYN for obstetrical services is not in itself demeaning at all. What would be demeaning, is treating either the birthgiving woman or the baby as an object. An embryo not in vivo is treated as if it were a tissue sample, to be evaluated and, if it fails to satisfy certain quality control criteria, discarded. It can't be denied that zygotes are evaluated and, if suboptimal in any way, disposed of. If this were not so, nobody would do IVF.
"People have been considered property for one reason or another many times since the civil war. We move away from the idea and then backslide rather often."
We can move away from it by moving away from IVF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.