toldailytopic: In vitro fertilisation: is it wrong?

[Sum1sGruj]

and that is relevant to our discussion, how?

It shows that you don't have any idea about the social paradigm in this respect. Being that you are not a Christian and are a left winger, it's virtually certain that you support it.

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.

What's illogical to me is how you liberals try to fix problems with things that just make them worse, then expect conservatives to save you all with their hard earned money.

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.

Because without that option, people who want kids would adopt. It's a travesty all it's own that people even desire that over an orphan, willing to pay over 10 grand per attempt.
As I said before, it is virtually certain that any person who does so has some underlying psychological issues. They probably shouldn't even be raising a child if 'same flesh' means that much to them. After all, the cost of the procedure and the fact that they baby wasn't even produced in a passionate, intimate way just shows that such people are utterly fixed on that. That is biblical-grade vanity and is obsessive.

 

[rexlunae]

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.

Did you notice that that reasoning applies to having babies the old fashioned way just as well as in vitro?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Did you notice that that reasoning applies to having babies the old fashioned way just as well as in vitro?

Only if one is so argumentative and intellectually empty that they want to see it that way.

 

[rexlunae]

Only if one is so argumentative and intellectually empty that they want to see it that way.

Well no, not really. If the argument is 'why go through the expense and effort to have a baby yourself in vitro when there are so many babies that need parents?', you could just as well ask the same why about natural births. It's certainly cheaper, but it's not cheap.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

It shows that you don't have any idea about the social paradigm in this respect. Being that you are not a Christian and are a left winger, it's virtually certain that you support it.

support what?

What's illogical to me is how you liberals try to fix problems with things that just make them worse, then expect conservatives to save you all with their hard earned money.

if you want to block out abortion or contraception, pay for the whole thing bud.

Because without that option, people who want kids would adopt. It's a travesty all it's own that people even desire that over an orphan, willing to pay over 10 grand per attempt.
As I said before, it is virtually certain that any person who does so has some underlying psychological issues. They probably shouldn't even be raising a child if 'same flesh' means that much to them. After all, the cost of the procedure and the fact that they baby wasn't even produced in a passionate, intimate way just shows that such people are utterly fixed on that. That is biblical-grade vanity and is obsessive.

I doubt it matters much to the abandoned kid that "hey, at least I was produced in a passionate, intimate way."

square up to it mr. hard-earned-money-pure-logic. You don't want to put a dam on the flood.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Well no, not really. If the argument is 'why go through the expense and effort to have a baby yourself in vitro when there are so many babies that need parents?', you could just as well ask the same why about natural births. It's certainly cheaper, but it's not cheap.

excellent point! The medical costs of giving birth, carrying a baby out of work and all that. How efficient is that anyway Sum?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

excellent point! The medical costs of giving birth, carrying a baby out of work and all that. How efficient is that anyway Sum?

People have to have children to continue on the human race. If everyone adopted, the human race would die out. So having children is necessary.
But if a person cannot conceive or is not potent, why not adopt? Most pregnancies are technically unplanned anyway. It is inherently absurd to jump through all those hoops practically and financially when they have the opportunity to do something righteous. Nothing says 'selfish, materialistic waste of space' quite like that. It is anti-integral and therefore immoral.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

People have to have children to continue on the human race. If everyone adopted, the human race would die out. So having children is necessary.

whoa, nice flip-flop, first it's such a grave and terrible thing with all the mistakes in Catholic nurseries, and now suddenly, like flipping a light-switch, your telling me it would be some kind of sci-fi demographic doomsday. Nice. Anyway, are you saying that you would rather have former scenario in your moral word view?

But if a person cannot conceive or is not potent, why not adopt? Most pregnancies are technically unplanned anyway.

like, where are you getting that information?

It is inherently absurd to jump through all those hoops practically and financially when they have the opportunity to do something righteous. Nothing says 'selfish, materialistic waste of space' quite like that. It is anti-integral and therefore immoral.]

Anti-integral? what kind of state are you running over here. Being pregnant naturally is probably also a huge 'hoop.' Again, notice how you - as someone against abortion - with all your dire ranting about endless orphans are not in the tiniest most minuscule way concerned with solving any part of the problem by encouraging couples who could have kids to instead simply adopt even if in the very least of frequencies.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Average costs to adopt

The cost of U.S. infant adoption varies widely, from $5,000 to $40,000. Average cost is $20,000 to $35,000.
Most international adoptions cost between $25,000 to $45,000.
http://www.theadoptionguide.com/tools/planner/matrix

In vitro fertilization cost:

The average cost for one cycle of in vitro fertilization is around $12,400. Typically, this includes lab screenings for both parents, your ultrasound and other lab work, egg recovery, and embryo transfer.

Also some states mandate that health insurance coverage must cover some of that cost.
http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Cost_of_In_Vitro_Fertilization

Its much cheaper to get in vitro than it is to adopt. Many people can afford in vitro but not adoption costs.

Getting an infant is rare and comes with high cost and risk and the person might still not end up with a child.

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/risk-in-domestic-infant-adoption.html

In vitro is much cheap with much lower risk, more likely to get an infant and will have ones own infant.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Average costs to adopt



In vitro fertilization cost:



Its much cheaper to get in vitro than it is to adopt. Many people can afford in vitro but not adoption costs.

Getting an infant is rare and comes with high cost and risk and the person might still not end up with a child.

http://www.adopting.org/adoptions/risk-in-domestic-infant-adoption.html

A person who is willing to throw out 10-15 grand on a procedure which has a 35% success rate per try AT BEST is not worried about money, obviously.

Nice try, but you still don't have an argument.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

A person who is willing to throw out 10-15 grand on a procedure which has a 35% success rate per try AT BEST is not worried about money, obviously.

Nice try, but you still don't have an argument.

and I'm looking at answers to the question of the cost of a natural birth - all over yahoo answers they are saying the average cost is about $10,000 or far more across these united states that's if it goes smoothly. calculate in all the prenatal doctor visits, time lost on the job, special foods/medicines for the woman, then cost of the birth, the cost of immunizing the baby, nursery costs, and doctor visits for woman and baby afterword, and walla you totally lost this debate, I don't even expect you to respond.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

and I'm looking at answers to the question of the cost of a natural birth - all over yahoo answers they are saying the average cost is about $10,000 or far more across these united states that's if it goes smoothly. calculate in all the prenatal doctor visits, time lost on the job, special foods/medicines for the woman, then cost of the birth, the cost of immunizing the baby, nursery costs, and doctor visits for woman and baby afterword, and walla you totally lost this debate, I don't even expect you to respond.

Is this some kind of joke? I'll give you a chance to review your argument. :chuckle:

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Is this some kind of joke? I'll give you a chance to review your argument. :chuckle:

put 2 and 2 together already. If your going to spend 10,000 anyway your already rich and obviously not worried about money.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

put 2 and 2 together already. I'm comparing that cost to adoption, and also showing how relative that cost is to how rich you must be to have any kind child. Didn't you read my post #48?

You're not making any point. If anything, you are proving my point. If money is an issue either way, then money is not a factor in what to choose. It's about the morality of it.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

You're not making any point. If anything, you are proving my point. If money is an issue either way, then money is not a factor in what to choose. It's about the morality of it.

In that case you should encourage some couples to adopt instead of even trying to have natural kids.

 

[Angel4Truth]

A person who is willing to throw out 10-15 grand on a procedure which has a 35% success rate per try AT BEST is not worried about money, obviously.

Nice try, but you still don't have an argument.

Insurance also pays on it, so it isnt even 10 grand for them.

Many people also do not qualify for adoption and they arent even guaranteed they will get a child when they are and sometimes it can take years.

Fact, you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Ktoyou]

Yes, intrinsically so.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

what is your reasoning, as to why?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Insurance also pays on it, so it isnt even 10 grand for them.

Many people also do not qualify for adoption and they arent even guaranteed they will get a child when they are and sometimes it can take years.

Fact, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Has nothing to do with vitro fertilization, so you fail.

:mock: A4T

Why don't you go blame males for something.

 

[Cruciform]

what is your reasoning, as to why?

It's expressed in the linked article in Post #6, as well as here and here.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ktoyou]

Oh, I nay read it sometime. You have a gift for being part of something better. Use what you have to benefit all who will receive it, and do it wisely. To be wise is to know how to be heard, not simply to be right. If we cannot persuade, we are all caught inside our own little prison, such is folly!

I have no issue with the Catholic Church on what is important and nether should most Protestants, and will not, if you wisely persuade. Being dogmatic for feeling right is a primitive instinct; let yourself go beyond it. Let's find common ground first, then examine the difference, with an open mind, by all means be persuasive, but to do so, you must gain respect. To have respect is to have others take note, you listen to them, think through their point of view, then ask questions. No one respects one who is dogmatic; they may fear you, if you are one to be feared, yet no one likes those they fear, and no one really respects those they fear. Remember this always.
goodnight.