Tough topic, but I think it isn't good. I got into a discussion recently with a couple other people about it.
Personally, if I found out for some reason or another me and my wife couldn't have kids, we wouldn't have any artificial way since that is wrong and not natural.
What do you guys think?
2007-10-04 12:51:21 · 9 answers · asked by asdf 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No need to get heated about it. I just want your opinions.
2007-10-04 12:54:32 · update #1
I have a strong indication we are becoming the "Brave New World" that Huxley described. That is why I'm concerned.
2007-10-04 13:10:39 · update #2
I guess after thinking I personally don't mind if you use your own stuff to the point where it is still biologically yours and your mates. Where I personally draw the line is if you start using other people's or whatever to the point where it isn't biologically yours or your mate's.
2007-10-04 16:24:38 · update #3
I have no moral objections to it. I just find it sad that people are so obsessed with having to have their own baby that they will ignore all the children here who so desperately need parents.
2007-10-04 12:55:27 · answer #1 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't really know where I stand on the issue; I'm probably for it...but here's a couple more reasons people may not like it (not criticising, just answering your question. 1) The stability of a 2 parent household means that if something were to happen to one parent, there'd still be another; what if something happened to you? 2) In general the financial situation of a 2 parent household will be better, in that it allows for the income needed to support a child, whilst still making sure there's usually a parent available when the child needs it. Would it be rude of me to ask how you were planning to support the child, and how much time this would allow you to give up? I don't mean to sound like I'm criticising single mothers, just putting a counter argument to being one out of choice. 3) Some people are against artificial insemination in general, percieving it to be 'playing God.' (I'm not one of these people however.) Best of luck.
2016-05-21 01:52:57 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what makes it "wrong and not natural" or who said that.
If it's a religious take - here's my 2 cents. God made man - god made man very smart - man was smart enough to develop the technology to help childless couples have children.
But keep in mind - I'm a catholic - who uses birth control - has sex outside the bonds of marriage and for purposes other than procreation of the species (namely cause its fun and I enjoy it) - for the non-catholics- all of the above are no-no's.
As far as I'm concerned - I have no problem with surrogacy, artificial insemination etc.
Also - their are people who say that inter-racial dating is "wrong and not natural". Like beauty - "wrong and not natural" is in the eye of the beholder. If artificial insemination is not for you - then that's your choice. But I'm not going to judge you for it nor am I going to judge those who choose to use it to have the child they always wanted. Everyone has to search their own heart, have a conversation with their god and the financial ability to pay for it (cause rumor is it's very expensive).
2007-10-04 13:18:07 · answer #3 · answered by Boots 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is NOTHING wrong with trying every means possible to bring a child into this world.
You would go through all means necessary to HEAL yourself if you were sick wouldn't you?
Abortion is wrong. Trying alternate measures to HAVE child is a good thing.
My brother-in-law felt the same way you did when he was younger. They had one child and did not TRY enough to have another one. They could have. They felt it was wrong. NOW they can't even argue one good reason AGAINST in vitro but it is too late for them and they're sad.
2007-10-04 13:02:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not "wrong"
It just "is".
You don't have to do it if you don't want to :)
I had a landlord couple once, and it turned out they had surrogate twins, and the wife died 3 days later. That was their first set of kids, and they were in their mid-late 40s at the time. Interesting set of circumstances for the father tosay the least.
2007-10-04 12:58:49 · answer #5 · answered by Barry C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that you are way off base there. I know a woman who has been a surrogant mother 3 times. God bless her for helping couple who could not have their own.
I guess I just do not get what your problem is with it.
2007-10-04 12:55:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think adoption is better. Either the kids waiting to be adopted get a good home or they become part of the system.
2007-10-04 12:54:41 · answer #7 · answered by Your #1 fan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its hard to walk 10 ft in someone else's shoes, much less a mile.
2007-10-04 13:00:39 · answer #8 · answered by Bobby K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think its great to give someone a chance to have a child who wouldnt otherwise had the chance, just gota b careful tho.
2007-10-04 13:10:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋