I must admit I'm on the fence with this one. But someone started the debate at dinner that the inability to conceive for men and women is nature's way of ensuring that the weak do not continue their heritage lines, so natures way of continuing the survival of the fittest.
I brought up the question of surely we shouldn't treat cancers or other diseases in that case, but the point came across that many diseases were caused by humans whereas creating another human life was very much left to nature.
Whats you view?
2007-08-28
09:11:56
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Stripper
3
in
Pregnancy & Parenting
➔ Trying to Conceive
Although putting it in this category might be wrong as if you are in 'trying to conceive' you may not be objective.
2007-08-28
09:13:01 ·
update #1
Because I'm a stripper I can't ask questions? Hmmm. You assume that I lack intelligence.... I can assure you I don't.
2007-08-28
09:19:24 ·
update #2
Well Mrs Hull. Perhaps it is you that lacks common courtesy. I have neither been rude nor offensive, merely interested in others views. Because I strip for a living you have taken offense at my question, this my dear lady, makes you the uneducated and ignorant.
2007-08-28
11:01:29 ·
update #3
I would never do it. I have PCOS, and although I'm not trying to get pregnant (in fact I don't want kids), if I ever changed my mind and couldn't get pregnant on my own, I wouldn't do anything further. I'm a Biologist, so I definitely follow Darwin.
As for cancer... well, I got a whole lot more to say on that subject, that won't fit here. But, yes, and I'm sure everyone on here is going to yell at me, I think IVF is not a good idea. It's wasting medical time and resources on something that is not medically necessary. I also get kind of irked at people that take clomid, end up pregnant with 6 kids and call it "god's will." That wasn't god's will. That was science.
2007-08-28 09:27:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Dolyn 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
I think it is an interesting question. I've done two rounds of IVF and am currently PG with my first baby thanks to it, so I am obviously going to be a little bit biased in my answer.
First, I don't think this is a case of survival of the fittest. Have you seen some of the losers out there that can reproduce with no problem whatsoever? In fact, it can be said that many of those who have the easiest time reproducing may be those whose genes we want the least in the gene pool (like the uneducated hillbilly with 10 kids or the crack whore, etc.).
Also, the vast majority of causes for infertility are not hereditary. Normally, the children of parents who had trouble TTC can have children normally on their own. This means that is not "weak genes" that are causing the infertility. In fact, many causes of infertility are suspected tobe caused by lifestyle, not genetics. Tubal disorders may come from earlier bouts with pelvic disease, sperm problems may come from wearing tight underwear or smoking, and ovulation issues may come from being overweight or even exposure to certain chemicals we use in foods and cookware. Therefore, if your friends argue that infertility is caused by nature while diseases like cancer are "man made" they are wrong. They both have some biological components and some environmental ones, as well.
For me, it was less of an issue of if my genes were worth passing on and more of an issue of whether it was right to "play God" and create life in a lab. And after some thought, I realized that we weren't playing God. God was still in charge. You can do 10 IVF cycles and they may all be perfect, but they may not work. You can put the sperm and eggs onto a dish, or even a sperm into an egg, but you cannot force it to create life. Only God can do that. So if the IVF worked, and all life comes from God, then it was God's plan for this baby to be. If it wasn't, this baby wouldn't be here.
2007-08-28 19:26:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by MissM 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would not say IVF is morally wrong in black and white terms. I do however acknowledge there are some grey areas.
One such grey area is the creation of numerous embryos of which, when pregnancy occurs with embryos left unused life created is ended (I do realise that these embryos sometimes grow into siblings but it is not rare for some embryos to be destroyed). I sometimes see 'pro-life' type comments made by people TTC and desperate for a baby. I sometimes wonder, if all goes well for them using fertility treatments if they see this as a pro-life issue.
Any area in science that involves using embryos (or stem cells) will to some seem morally wrong, though to a large proportion on society this is not the opinion, especially when there is a personal connection to such issues.
2007-08-28 10:06:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by megane 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, infertile doesn't mean your genes are weak. There are about 1 billion reasons a couple can be infertile- like a childhood accident-or any environmental factor- which has nothing to do with weak DNA, health, or life longevity of the future child of that couple from IVF. You are assuming (your argument assumes) a false premise- that infertility is because of weak genetics. For that to be true, people who were fertile would have strong superior genetics- but obviously, and sadly, that isn't true. Children and adults alike are diagnosed with diseases everyday.
IVF is not morally wrong in my book. But I don't live by the 2000 year old "slavery & rape & incest is ok" bible. And all you thumbs downers...you are jsut admitting you have never read the bible for yourself if that offends you.
Good question! And I don't assume strippers are ignorant..
2007-08-28 09:44:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by quirky 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
1% percent of all babies born in the U.S. were born to an IVF...
just based on that alone, i think the answer is a big YES, it's not wrong ....I agree with you, if not why treat all other diseases, is it nature that u got cancer and can die?
so yeah, i don't think it's wrong.
2007-08-28 09:26:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by chiquita11 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I feel for the woman who desperately WANTS to be a mommy because that woman will make a great mom. If a woman can't get pregnant on her own, IVF would be a great option... one which I believe is morally correct. I see nothing wrong with this. It may be a road I will have to take...
2007-08-28 09:24:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by TwinMommy 5
·
6⤊
2⤋
I don't believe it is morally wrong. I think it's wonderful that we have the technology to help women who can't conceive naturally have babies!
2007-08-28 12:04:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by KS5957 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, a fertility problem can have many reasons and babies born after IVF turn out normal so it isn't wrong in any way.
2007-08-28 09:24:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by shipwreck 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
no, i don't think it is wrong. i am sure in some religions they may tell u it is wrong.
i believe God put fertility dr. here to help us get pregnant.
2007-08-28 09:25:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by sheila, TTC 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
ivf isn't wrong. why would you ask that question when your name is stripper. very classy. yes you do have a lack of intelligence. And a lack of common courtesy.
2007-08-28 09:18:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by mrshull1105 3
·
1⤊
8⤋