Posted on 08/04/2014 2:12:23 AM PDT by markomalley
Don’t bother arguing with the righteous fruitcakes on this site. Waste of time. I too have friends and family who’ve had success with IVF. But yes, I’m sure god is setting aside a place for them in the lake of fire...(s)
My nephew wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for rape.
Jus’ sayin’ ...
Have MERCY on us God!
And nobody is consigning anybody to the lake of fire . . . that's God's job. I believe that in the current climate, where doctors and the press and even most ministers seem to think that it's perfectly o.k. to use IVF and selectively abort the multiple implanted babies, there may not be deliberate sin involved in many instances (just as many young women are reassured, pressured or threatened into abortions by their boyfriends and even their parents).
But nevertheless, treating children as commodities up for sale (and of course available to destroy - like the little ones that are "sacrificed" in the process) is evil, and it leads to evil. Aside from the horror of this Australian couple tossing aside a baby because they didn't get "the benefit of their bargain", you also have the very real problem of children not knowing who their parents are - aside from the medical issues, we are already seeing incest problems with sperm banks that relied on a few prolific donors - half-siblings inadvertently marrying and/or having babies.
It's not something that should be encouraged, even if God blesses the innocent little children who are its results.
I unreservedly wish the best for you and your children.God bless you, and may they thrive in your love and care.
It's not a question of whether the children are good. The children are good, period --- whether or not they are smart, cute, funny, or future conservatives. A child is good per se, no matter what the circumstances of his begetting and birthing.
But the separate and distinct thing we want to consider, is whether the way in which he was conceived is good.
Because --- as you and I know, as everybody knows --- there are regrettable ways that a child can be conceived, and we can find some of those ways morally objectionable, even if we would find the child a sheer delight.
Children are conceived by silly drunk foolin' around by college students, by prostitution, by reproductive concubinage (surrogacy), by rape, by artificial insemination of single women and lesbians, in acts of anger, in acts of greed, in acts of sexual jihad, in acts of marital deception, in laboratory procedures linked to commercial transactions.
About that last one: is it not true that the IVF lab/clinic would consider it their "ethical" responsibility to discard any human zygote they found to be affectd by some sort of defect, before implantation?
And is it not true that IVF produces offspring which are regarded by law as property rather than as persons? (If you have any doubts, take a good hard look at "Davis vs Davis" Maryville TN embryo case LINK)
Is it not true that, as a result, human embryos can legally be bought, sold, bequeathed to somebody as part of an estate, manipulated with intentionally lethal results, given away, regarded as a tortuous offense in a wrongful birth case, stored like a dubious package at the back of the freezer, or discarded?
We can affirm the God-Blessed existence of the child, without approving of the way he was conceived. "Reproductive circumstances" and "valuing the child" are two separate issues.
Everyone can sincerely wish IVF parents and their children well, without thinking the laboratory concoction and/or commercial reproduction of children is a good thing .
Well stated Mrs. Don-o. I have to wonder, where is the option of adoption? So many children in need, so many left to fall into the hands of so few to care for them.
There's a less-noble template for adoption out there, though: an adoption centered on the wants of the adult(s), (single or couple), who want a particular type of child, typically a perfect newborn blue-eyed blonde from a healthy mother.
That's the "gold standard" of the adoption market: there's no shortage of couples who want to adopt a perfect newborn blue-eyed blonde from a healthy mother.
There's a huge shortage of adults who want to adopt kids who have disabilities or defects, who are older than infant, who are the "wrong" color or mix of colors, who had a sick (or drunk or addicted) mother, and/or who come with siblings that the agencies don't want to break up.
This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but one reason IVF may be strongly preferred by some people, rather than adoption, is because IVF is less of a toss of the dice in terms of genetic uniformity, product quality-control and parental satisfaction.
You know your perfect, blue-eyed blonde from a healthy mother? She’s still an absolute pill once she turns 12, if not sooner, and the data is not yet in on whether she ever recovers.
Excuse you? Was anyone condemning someone to hell above? If not, you owe many people above an apology.
The premise, “A child’s existence is a good. Therefore, all means of conceiving a child are good,” fails as soon as you say, “Rape.”
A person who wants to argue that IVF, specifically, is a good means of conception needs to address the arguments that it is an immoral means of conception. I don’t see anyone doing so; however, the work day makes it hard to FReep if your work isn’t watching little boys play Lego.
Of course, one can simply assert that IVF is good and then call people names if they disagree, no matter how polite and reasonable their disagreement is.
(Wincing.)
The two who were not blonde have recovered from absolute-pillness, but this is not an exact match ...
Pray. That, or alcohol.
Both.
Except that they will never know their real biological father.
* * *
Incorrect assumption. We used my husband’s sperm and my eggs.
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.