The only question of merit in going the fertility treatment route is this: Can I adequately support this child or children, financially, emotionally and physically, from conception through maturity?

The same question ought to apply to all children, regardless of method of conception. Since more than half of all children were not planned (here in the States, at least), this is impossible.

FTR, I flunk the 'emotionally support' clause; therefore I am not planning on having kids.

This kid is starting to sound familiar...

Gaming boards tend to bring a very specific population and with that comes rampant racism, sexism, and homopobia and where those viewpoints become dominant. I don't like throwing around stereotypes but for the most part, this group consists of very privileged teenage boys that only have observed interactions in a high school settings.

Also don't forget the fact that smart chicks tend to avoid the misogynistic jerks, leaving only the stupid chicks to hang around them... which reinforces their notion that all women are stupid.

Except Dana of course. She's not a stupid chick...

Sure, but she wasn't letting them get to know her on a personal basis, she was mostly just witnessing their horrific behavior. No one really believes anyone they meet on the internet is real. :)

I believe most of the people I meet on the internet are real. :) Even the arseholes...in fact, probably more of the arseholes. lol Some of the people who're nice all the time make me suspicious!

I came off wrong there, I meant to add a second part and forgot.

They observe a high school setting in a very biased manner where they will ignore anything that goes against their beliefs and heavily emphasis what goes with them. For example, the girl that makes really stupid comments will somehow represent all women, the annoying "men should all die" extremists somehow represent all feminists, etc.

Your point works too.

Okay I have a tacky octo mom joke.

There's a new Denny's breakfast called the octo slam- eight eggs, no sausage, and the guy at the next table pays for it :p

If you already have 3 or 4 kids, and can't have more, then adopt for chissakes. Why should someone with 3 or 4 kids be taking fertility treatments to have more?

I do not think people should quit having kids, I think they should quit having so many. 2 or 3 should be enough. Again, if it's not, adopt. I don't believe the only relevant point is whether they can afford them. There is a much bigger issue, IMHO.

I'm very sorry I offended so many people with my use of the word "litter," but that is what it reminds me of. Certain animals have litters of 5 or more babies, human beings do not, or rarely do, under natural circumstances. The problem I have with all of this, is it is happening under unnatural circumstances, and it is happening more and more. Maybe some people can't have children for a reason. Natural selection and all of that. I am all for science, but there needs to be a line somewhere, and IMHO, we crossed it quite a long time ago with regard to this particular practice.

Some people are offended by the thought of contraception.

That doesn't make their stance right...or even just.

It's a moral issue, and those sorts of things are always going to cause friction.

The problem with morals is that we've all got a different idea of what is moral, and we know that's due to many different things.

From what I've read and heard, this woman felt it was morally wrong not to give those embryo's a chance for life. While I disagree with her stance, I can understand how a person could feel that way if that was part of her moral code.

What? You aren't real? :eek:

On a related topic, in TIME magazine last month there was an article on stem cell research. One of the main researchers in this field is Dr. Douglas Melton.

"When (Melton's) class discussed the morality of embryonic-stem-cell research, Melton invited Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to present arguments against the field. Melton asked Doerflinger if he considered a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old to be moral equivalents; when Doerflinger responded yes, Melton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds."

I thought that was BRILLIANT! You can read the article here: http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...874717,00.html

And about the morality of the freezing of embryos...
"...2. Is there ever a good reason to freeze an embryo? Some who are pro-life blindly accept every aspect of in vitro fertilization (IVF). In truth, some practices in the process of IVF end the lives of babies. The IVF process involves fertilizing eggs and then implanting a specific number of those eggs. However, (1) much of the time there are a number of fertilized eggs (embryos) that are unused and are consequently discarded, and/or (2) the eggs not used are frozen. The problem with the first issue is obvious. Discarding embryos is immoral. However, the problem with the second issue is more complicated. It is true that embryos can survive freezing, but not indefinitely. So parents who have decided to go down the IVF road must have those frozen embryos implanted before they die. But even then, the survival rate when unfreezing embryos is only 50% percent. I don’t like those odds, even when faced with the prospect of not having my own children. What you are saying by freezing embryos is that your need for a child trumps the good possibility that you will inadvertently end the lives of some babies..."

http://theologyamplified.blogspot.co...-anything.html

Life can't be sustained after a 6 year old has been frozen. That's why it's immoral to freeze 6 year olds, as opposed to embryos where the ultimate goal is to create a sustainable life.

As to the lifespan of embryos, well, I guess everything has a shelf life. Even fully mature adults have shelf lives.

I'm trying to understand your point here sugar. Are you against IVF entirely or are you cherry picking the parts of it you don't like?