Posted on 01/25/2016 9:26:45 AM PST by wagglebee
I’ve always been against it.
It does help woman who can’t conceive so for that reason I am not against it. One of the reasons God made marriage between a man and woman is for woman to get pregnant and have as many children as God allows them to have. So that is why it is important for woman to have the option of using this procedure to follow God’s law of having children. My wife and I were able to have 4 children naturally but if that wasn’t the case, of course we would have looked into this.
Have a friend whose husband had a genetic kidney disease and a the kidney transplant medication left him with very low, immobile sperm. She used ART (pretty sure it was a med school student’s sperm) and now their son is handsome, brilliant, loves his father dearly, and he carries his mother’s good looks and bright IQ. They are religious Jews and it was important for their child to be undeniably Jewish by mother’s blood line. I am sorry that he doesn’t know half of his medical history, but he doesn’t carry his father’s kidney problems either. The father’s sister, with the same kidney disease, adopted and got a child of Irish descent, not Jewish except through conversion. Not worked out so well..... Always a trade-off.....
Smart approach to help infertile couples have babies via, guess what? -- sex!
I don’t agree.
Husband/wife in vitro is one thing but moral issues aside its a bad idea to produce a child who will only have a one sided medical family history.
My father was adopted so i have ZERO idea about my Dad’s birth family medical background. Hasn’t really been much of a bother but just wanted to point out that adoption does not guarantee that you have a medical history from that side. In fact, most don’t.
You don’t agree that it gives hopes to barren woman to have a child? What is the other option? Adoption which costs 50 grand. I am sorry but I think this is a great way to have a child.
You make it clear that the concept of the family is beyond your mental and ethical grasp.
Most people on this site want children who are conceived not to be slaughter like Tyson chickens, and for them to be raised in love by the two people who conceived them.
For most people, this doesn’t have to be explained step by step.
I use to live in Berlin. There was lots of anonymous sperm donation going on all over the place.....
“Anonymous Sperm Donation” is to rape as
“Undocumented American” is to illegal alien
IVF is intrinsically evil, regardless of the sugar-voted motives. Husband and wife are not united in the marital act, the sorry donation involves masturbation often thru the use of porn, and unused fertilized embryos (aka HUMAN BEINGS) are often destroyed. Think of it as an early-term abortion.
False.
Sorry for the typos. Posting from an iPhone. But you get my point - the ends do not justify the means.
As far as the $50k for adoption, what do you think IVF costs?? I work with people who have spent tens of thousands on failed rounds of IVF only to give up and adopt later on anyway. And where I work, we see children conceived thru IVF that have many more birth defects and health problems than their naturally-conceived counterparts.
So you’re ok with a process that makes children into a commodity? Very pro-life of you.
Don't be hysterical. I'm OK with a (heterosexual) couple using IVF to become parents, if that's what they opt to do. Couples usually don't exercise such an option unless they have already tried and failed using other methods.
Are you okay with the discarded embryos?
And rendering the child as having no right to know who his father is was the first step in dehumanizing children before they are born (or conceived).
This is the very heart of the abortion dilemma. Newly created person were/still are considered by default to have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER. They are not considered a separate autonomous person with rights separate and distinct from their parents.
As long as this is the case, there is no logical case to be made disallowing abortion (or experiments on a fetus, etc). As this premise was set long ago (with bastard laws etc), the pro-abortion side has logic on their side.
Note I said they have logic on their side, not morality. Because the morality was dismissed in the first place where a newly created person lost their humanity to the whims of the parents ... long before a woman and fetus landed on an abortionist’s table.
This is why I say we need a holistic approach to abortion. There can be no ground given on the rights of people who are pre-born. Their parents cannot give the right away ... not the father ... not the mother.
This whole thing started when men could instigate conception (by rape, deception, using differential social status ... or simply disappearing) without claiming any responsibility for the result. When children were declared bastards, without any right to the knowledge of who is their father ... at that point, the inevitable end game was abortion (and infanticide which preceded it).
For centuries now children have had NO RIGHTS to know who their parents are in adoption situations. This comes from the premise that a newly created person’s rights are incontrovertibly secondary to adults, both their parents and the State which declares that they have no right to the information on their origin.
Bastard Nation is a good source of information on the logical links between identity and personhood.
They leave a light on now.
I am NOT ok with IVF for the above stated reasons. If that makes me “hysterical”, then fine because I could throw a few choice words at your values system, too.
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.