Nah, she's saying it's silly to co-rank embryos and 6-year-olds. One is a person; the other is a clump of cells that may (someday) become a person.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the prolife movement when it comes to stuff like this. So many of them are against science, and talk about God's will, well, if you can't conceive, using IVF isn't God's will, it's science. And when they use science to have kids, it's a "miracle" when they have multiple births. No, it's science. Not a miracle.

Personally, I think people should adopt if they can't have children. But, since some people are so attached to the idea of having their own kids, even when there is probably a reason why they shouldn't (or they would be able to conceive), I'm not really opposed to IVF, but I believe there needs to be stricter laws about it. If you already have kids, just accept that you can't more. And there are too many instances of people having multiple births of 4 or more. Isn't there a way to control that better, so they only have 1 or 2? I'm concerned about it.

My husband and I had started considering IVF after two years of trying to get pregnant.

I already have two children.

Would it have been wrong for us to do so?

It isn't a question of right or wrong. It isn't that black and white. I don't want to judge people who would use the procedure responsibly.

Let me counter by asking you a question. Have you considered adoption? Why do feel you need to have more than 2 kids?

Because my children are from a former relationship, and my husband has no children of his own other than the bond he's formed with my two sons.

We would have considered adoption if we'd failed at IVF. Adoption is no simple thing here though. We could wait many many years for a child, and as we're both in our mid 30's we'd prefer not to wait that long.

ftr, one of my neices has two boys. She was hoping for a girl the 2nd time, but she said was going to stop after 2 no matter what it was. Now they want to try again. I asked her why they don't adopt. She said because her husband only wants to have his own children. (They are very religious.) I asked her, what if she has another boy? Would she try again? She said NO WAY. I pointed out that she said that before. She said this time she means it. So believe me, I am doing everything in my power to talk her out of it.

Maybe I am too judgemental about this issue (or, in general), but I really believe this is one of the most important issues facing us in the future. People are living longer, and having more kids. I honestly believe we are endangering the human race with population.

Yes, I think we get that bit about over population. lol

Interestingly, the birth rate in Australia has been steadily dropping for many years now, although it's on the incline over the last 3 or 4. I suspect that will plateau shortly though.

Large families are not that common over here recently. Having even 3 kids is slightly out of the ordinary.

Well, you don't seem like the type of person (from what I can tell) that would abuse the process. And I understand his longing, well sort of. I'm not maternal, I never really wanted kids, but still, I understand why someone would want to have one of their own. And, the adoption process can be a nightmare. But, what if you end up with triplets, or quads?

I just think there are a lot of ethical and moral questions that haven't been answered. As a species, we seem to jump on the bandwagon without thinking things through sometimes, like what kind of consequences will we create by doing something?

Well, are Australians really religious? It seems to me that, in most cases, people who have a lot of kids are pretty religious, in a fundamentalist sort of way. Also, doesn't Australia have stricter laws about IVF? America seems to be lagging behind other countries in SO many ways...

It's a natural human desire to procreate. To create something in our own image. Most of us can't escape it.

Because we're older, even concieving naturally our chances of a multiple birth were much higher due to the fact that women start spitting out more and more eggs during each ovulation, so we'd discussed this possibility prior to even getting started on trying to concieve. If we did happen to have a multiple birth, we'd have just had more than one baby. There wouldn't have been any thought of aborting one or more, not that I'm against abortion. It's just that since we planned to have a baby, it would be an impossible choice to just get rid of one or more.

So many pregnancies are unplanned and the new parents are unprepared. These are the people we really need to look at in my opinion. In fact, both of my existing kids were unplanned but fortunately I was in (what was at the time) a stable relationship, and we did plan on having kids, just not exactly when it happened. Birth control is never 100% though, and so things happened...and I couldn't be happier with my two boys.

I just don't think you can make blanket statements about over population in connection with financially capable, emotionally stable people included in the statement.

Yes society has a problem with single parents living on welfare. There are many many orphaned children in thirdworld countries. AIDS is rampant in many countries where the birthrate continues to balloon. These are the issues we need to address IMO. Not average mr and mrs loving parents who can provide for their kids in all ways.

Nope, most of us these days are christmas and easter christians. IVF is available to pretty much anyone who can afford it. There are clinics all over the place. From what I can tell, there's not a lot of difference between Australia and the US in that regard. From the research I've done, most clinics will only implant up to a few eggs at a time though.

Now cut that out! I need that kid to pay for my Social Security. ;)

In my country we have a demographic timebomb. An aging population and fewer children being born is going to lead to massive problems with state pensions. People like me, who are getting older and not producing the young who would theoretically look after us, are laying the foundations for much unhappiness and economic strife.

The world doesn't have an 'overpopulation' problem; it has a 'population concentration' problem. It also has an inequity problem. In agrarian societies it is necessary and desirable to have large families. If the base falls out of that agrarian society (as it has in much of the developing world), whether through drought, climate change or civil war, it takes a generation (actually a generation and a half) for a resulting change in family numbers and economic structures. Add the tumult of societal breakdown (such as in the Congo), epidemics and the largescale loss of men associated with constant warfare and the usual response mechanisms can be slowed down or disrupted massively. The size of family that up until a few decades ago was entirely appropriate for the setting, becomes inappropriate, but the response mechanism which would normally set in and change that has been subverted by social, economic and environmental breakdown.

The change in family structure will happen (is happening) but at a different rate than we might have predicted.

It's also worth considering, that as some areas become heavily populated, others depopulate.

It's much the same here Dana, which is why our previous government got onto the whole three child household idea. One for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the country. That was what has become a pretty famous quote from Peter Costello, our former deputy leader and treasurer.

I think these issues are exaserbated in countries like Australia and UK because of the age pensions which are government funded even though these days a lot of people are now self funded. There's still a huge demographic who will never have enough self funding to live on though. Ironically, these people are often the ones with larger families, so maybe it evens out anyway.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree that the world is not overpopulated. And I would say your example proves my point.

Looking at it from the other side, it is unsustainable to just keep growing the population in order to take care of the older population, because then all of those kids will need 3 people each to take care of them, and on and on. If we lived in a more equitable society/world, then there would be money enough for all the elders. Also, I firmly believe in the village mentality. (You know, Hillary Clinton's remark when she was First Lady that it takes a village to raise a child. I think it also takes a village to care for an elder.) If people weren't so self-centered and selfish and they looked out for one another, like they do in villages, we wouldn't have that problem. So rather than seeing it as a numbers thing, I see it as a human defect thing. It shouldn't only be family looking out for family, it should be the human race looking out for each other.