toldailytopic: In vitro fertilisation: is it wrong?

[Granite]

But the OP only asked if it was wrong, not if it should be illegal. You're jumping the gun, here, a bit. Lots of things are wrong, but are not illegal.

I don't think in vitro is wrong and I certainly don't think it should be prohibited. Sum turned adoption versus in vitro into a moral judgment call on parents who have the audacity to (gasp) want to bear their own children. If anyone jumped the gun and presumed to judge, it was him.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I don't think in vitro is wrong and I certainly don't think it should be prohibited. Sum turned adoption versus in vitro into a moral judgment call on parents who have the audacity to (gasp) want to bear their own children. If anyone jumped the gun and presumed to judge, it was him.

Because having a baby of one's own blood is much more important then helping an infant sitting in a nursery without a family?
It's a disgrace, and that's all there is to it.

All your claims of me 'jumping the gun' or 'judging' fall short of any reasonable premise.

 

[PureX]

I don't think in vitro is wrong and I certainly don't think it should be prohibited. Sum turned adoption versus in vitro into a moral judgment call on parents who have the audacity to (gasp) want to bear their own children. If anyone jumped the gun and presumed to judge, it was him.

I have no issue with medically aiding pregnancy, itself, but I don't think it's a good idea for people to be creating potential human beings and then deliberately destroying them. I wouldn't say it needs to be made illegal, but I think it's unfortunate that scientists and medical professionals are not be more seriously troubled by this practice.

As to adoption, I do think people should consider it just as reasonable and viable and natural as physical birth. But I understand that they don't, and many never will. However, if adoption were encouraged more than it is, maybe some couples wouldn't become so obsessed with having their own children that they're willing to risk so much to have one. And maybe more unwanted babies would find homes.

 

[Granite]

I have no issue with medically aiding pregnancy, itself, but I don't think it's a good idea for people to be creating potential human beings and then deliberately destroying them. I wouldn't say it needs to be made illegal, but I think it's unfortunate that scientists and medical professionals are not be more seriously troubled by this practice.

As to adoption, I do think people should consider it just as reasonable and viable and natural as physical birth. But I understand that they don't, and many never will. However, if adoption were encouraged more than it is, maybe some couples wouldn't become so obsessed with having their own children that they're willing to risk so much to have one. And maybe more unwanted babies would find homes.

Adoption is a fine and noble option but many won't and don't consider it. That some parents choose not to isn't, that I can see, a moral line-crossing that we're in any position to judge.

 

[PureX]

Adoption is a fine and noble option but many won't and don't consider it. That some parents choose not to isn't, that I can see, a moral line-crossing that we're in any position to judge.

No. But I think everyone would be better off if we were to actively promote the value of adoption, and discourage the idea that having natural offspring is a necessity for one to achieve personal fulfillment.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Adoption is a fine and noble option but many won't and don't consider it. That some parents choose not to isn't, that I can see, a moral line-crossing that we're in any position to judge.

It's exactly that kind of thinking which has the world the way it is today.
When people choose not to, they are making an immoral decision. Such people need a wake up call, not told a notion that it's actually okay.

People like that suffer from blissful ignorance. I wager that a couple in which one used to be an orphan wouldn't do it.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Because having a baby of one's own blood is much more important then helping an infant sitting in a nursery without a family?
It's a disgrace, and that's all there is to it.

However, if adoption were encouraged more than it is, maybe some couples wouldn't become so obsessed with having their own children that they're willing to risk so much to have one. And maybe more unwanted babies would find homes.

people that are obsessed with having their own children generally are very interested in raising them. Your actually are encouraging a society that produces more babies that need to be adopted because they are unwanted. Think I gotchya there.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

people that are obsessed with having their own children generally are very interested in raising them. Your actually are encouraging a society that produces more babies that need to be adopted because they are unwanted. Think I gotchya there.

Nobody cares about orphans anyway, so you don't have anything. All you have is some retarded excuse to keep something so visibly immoral going.

Secularists, when discussing these things, really just show just how full of crap they really are. All that nonsense talking about bigotries and such, and as soon as something convenient comes along they morph their standing in an instant.
It's kind of pathetic.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Nobody cares about orphans anyway, so you don't have anything. All you have is some retarded excuse to keep something so visibly immoral going.

Secularists, when discussing these things, really just show just how full of crap they really are.

guess what, I don't care about producing more and more orphans. I don't have such a cynical view of reality as most people you see. Orphans need not be.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

guess what, I don't care about producing more and more orphans. I don't have such a cynical view of reality as most people you see. Orphans need not be.

Orphans need not be what? Not be granted a family because people are more concerned about nonsense that only exists in the selfish mind?

Put some kind of good moral tag to that. You can't.
It is inherently immoral. These people should be given a wake up call, not brainwashed with self-righteous, secular bologna.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Orphans need not be what? Not be granted a family because people are more concerned about nonsense that only exists in the selfish mind?

Put some kind of good moral tag to that. You can't.
It is inherently immoral. These people should be given a wake up call, not brainwashed with self-righteous, secular bologna.

We need not have a society or world that encourages the production of unwanted children. Hence the contraception. Hence the not putting every single embryo created in vitro into the womb.

You talk about selfishness, well what kind of social values do you have? Cut taxes on every social program in the universe? Allow corporations and the rich a totally unrestrained setting to get ever wealthier? Little bit of selfishness there, much?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Because having a baby of one's own blood is much more important then helping an infant sitting in a nursery without a family?
It's a disgrace, and that's all there is to it.

All your claims of me 'jumping the gun' or 'judging' fall short of any reasonable premise.

Have you ever known anyone trying to adopt a child? Your posts show you are quite ignorant of the process, time, and money.

Getting an infant also is nearly impossible usually.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Have you ever known anyone trying to adopt a child? Your posts show you are quite ignorant of the process, time, and money.

Getting an infant also is nearly impossible usually.

The only ignorant ones are you all. I guess orphans are much better off in the 'system' because some people care more about something as vain as sharing blood.
People like that need a wake up call, not you all encouraging them.

Adopting a child takes time, yes, but preparing for a child takes time anyway. It's financially better as well. These procedures cost $10000+ per attempt on average.

You all will argue through your teeth on something such as this, because it has a liberating vibe to it. But it's a selfish vibe and lowers the rate of adoption even more.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

You all will argue through your teeth on something such as this, because it has a liberating vibe to it. But it's a selfish vibe and lowers the rate of adoption even more.

just think if there was actually legislation that gave infertile couples, woman, whatever the circumstance may be only the option of adoption.

the adoption rate might rapidly ascend upwards. hmm, then people could just have unwanted babies left and right, knowing they can get rid of them easily.

Do you not see at least the slightest scintilla of truth in this logic?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

just think if there was actually legislation that gave infertile couples, woman, whatever the circumstance may be only the option of adoption.

the adoption rate might rapidly ascend upwards. hmm, then people could just have unwanted babies left and right, knowing they can get rid of them easily.

Do you not see at least the slightest scintilla of truth in this logic?

It's simply a void logic. There are not that many infertile people out there who jump right for what is essentially an unborn on a platter.
A lot of them in fact adopt. The one's that choose the operations have apparent issues if they are willing to dig out that much money and ignore the adoption scene., probably shouldn't be raising a child anyways.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

It's simply a void logic. There are not that many infertile people out there who jump right for what is essentially an unborn on a platter.
A lot of them in fact adopt. The one's that choose the operations have apparent issues if they are willing to dig out that much money and ignore the adoption scene., probably shouldn't be raising a child anyways.

if the statistics aren't such a big deal, why are you even bothering to try and tell them what to do, and making such a big moral fuss about it. what in the world is it to you.

You seem to say there is no shortage in babies that need adoption and then in your conversation with me imply that there never will be a shortage. What is the point of making statements in regard to a problem you don't have a solution for?

Last time I checked it was a mainstream right-wing Christian ideal to pump as many people into the planet as possible no holds barred. That's what you really want right? Mostly so more souls might get saved in the end or some such.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

if the statistics aren't such a big deal, why are you even bothering to try and tell them what to do, and making such a big moral fuss about it. what in the world is it to you.

Saving a man is like saving all mankind; killing a man is like killing all mankind.

That is probably the only Koranic notion I agree with, and the Bible implies the same though it is not explicitly told.

You seem to say there is no shortage in babies that need adoption and then in your conversation with me imply that there never will be a shortage. What is the point of making statements in regard to a problem you don't have a solution for?

I do have a solution- wake people up to the world around them. Paying that amount of money for an unnatural pregnancy is detestable vanity when there are already children in need.

Last time I checked it was a mainstream right-wing Christian ideal to pump as many people into the planet as possible no holds barred. That's what you really want right? Mostly so more souls might get saved in the end or some such.

I encourage Christians who want to have mega-sized families to consider adopting one or two along with their natural children.
The last time you checked, you were told by some right-wingers what you just said. Don't confuse the facts, anyone can be a 'bible thumper' and still be an idiot about it. There is much more to the subject of children and society outlined in the Bible.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Saving a man is like saving all mankind; killing a man is like killing all mankind.

That is probably the only Koranic notion I agree with, and the Bible implies the same though it is not explicitly told.

so by not saving a man you are killing him? I don't totally get that statement. If you really believe that you might as well let every frozen wino into your very own house this instant. A cold snap is starting up out there you better start looking for em.

No, I disagree. If someone is en-route to destroying themselves, that is their problem. As a liberal, when I am for socializing healthcare I am talking about helping people who are already not killing themselves with tobacco, alcohol, doritos etc. There are plenty of things that can happen to a person that is beyond their control - that we should all probably be Christian to pitch in for.

I do have a solution- wake people up to the world around them. Paying that amount of money for an unnatural pregnancy is detestable vanity when there are already children in need.

Since when in all my career as a human have I seen any republican wish to limit someone from getting too rich and spending it the way they wish. But if that cost ever went down, you would still be morally against it, yeah? I don't know, I can't exactly blame someone for wanting to have their very own flesh and blood child.

I encourage Christians who want to have mega-sized families to consider adopting one or two along with their natural children.
The last time you checked, you were told by some right-wingers what you just said. Don't confuse the facts, anyone can be a 'bible thumper' and still be an idiot about it. There is much more to the subject of children and society outlined in the Bible.

and yet, you, unlike me, do not discourage people from having mega-sized families, yeah? At least in doing that I actually am realistically trying to find a solution to unwanted babies needing adoption, by lessening their possible occurrence into the world.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

so by not saving a man you are killing him? I don't totally get that statement. If you really believe that you might as well let every frozen wino into your very own house this instant. A cold snap is starting up out there you better start looking for em.

Of course you don't 'get it', it's evident that you didn't even read it right. :chuckle:

Since when in all my career as a human have I seen any republican wish to limit someone from getting too rich.

It's the in between that counts. Democrats are no more innocent then Republicans, because they go to opposite but equally absurd extremes.

and yet, you, unlike me, do not discourage people from having mega-sized families, yeah? At least in doing that I actually am realistically trying to find a solution to unwanted babies needing adoption, by lessening their possible occurrence into the world.

Abortions accelerate the sex instinct. People are more careless because of these 'backups'. So much for that 'solution'. It's just an illusion that actually does worse, and for the sake of vanity at that. The least society could do is at least try and fix all those 'mistakes' sitting in Catholic nurseries and group homes instead of being worried about something as vain as 'wanting the same blood'. Let's see how smitten the child feels by that if they ever find out that they once grew in a lab.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Abortions accelerate the sex instinct.

and that is relevant to our discussion, how?

People are more careless because of these 'backups'. So much for that 'solution'. It's just an illusion that actually does worse, and for the sake of vanity at that. The least society could do is at least try and fix all those 'mistakes' sitting in Catholic nurseries and group homes instead of being worried about something as vain as 'wanting the same blood'.

again, it comes back to my point. You are so cynical as to believe all that is just a never-changing fact of life. You will not consider abortion an option and I'm guessing you probably frown on contraception. You just won't do it. It is is totally illogical to me.

Let's see how smitten the child feels by that if they ever find out that they once grew in a lab.

no. they go into a womb. they just had an extra stage to get there, what's the big deal with that? It's almost something to brag about.