[Tax-chick]

They’re already sterile - that’s why they’re having IVF procedures. An interesting outcome, now that I think about it, for those who suggest that sterilizing poor people will save the taxpayers money. IVF and the resulting premature, large-multiple births are much more expensive than births that result from natural processes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, not everybody who gets IVF is sterile, i.e. incapable of becoming pregnant via sexual intercourse. Some of them chose IVF because they want to sort through multiple embryonic children, choosing some and discarding the rest; some choose it because they are lesbians, or female-separatists, or otherwise committed to cutting men out of social relationship with, and moral obligation to, the children they sire.

In every case, I think IVF should be banned. It often exposes both child and mother to enhanced risk; it often deliberately excludes the natural father, thus depriving the child's right to identity and provision based on the paternal relation; and it always, inherently, demeans the child by begetting him/her as an experiment, a product, or a possession.

The additional issue of deliberately bringing children into existence to be dependents on Holy Mother the State is just another facet of an already-pervasive derangement.

[rintense]

No, they are not sterile as a whole. Many women who have IVF have gone on to have natural pregnancies. Sterile means no eggs and no sperm, in which case, pregnancy is impossible without the use of donor eggs or sperm, or embryo adoption.