thanks, scope, but i think i'll leave the reccomendations to their doctor. They're friends, but not really close friends...I don't think they want any advice from me about it.

It just got me thinking, I guess




PS> Jinx is watching "Babe" on TV right now.

Re: fertility issues
 

Re: Re: fertility issues
 

Re: Re: Re: fertility issues
 

Read the articles.. From what I've hear from Dr. Mirkin, there are nuances in the contributing factors that antibiotics can treat. PCS ...can be caused by a hidden infection...can be caused by diatary factors.... Usually a fert specialist will prescribe an antibiotic sweep (with settling time) before attempted pregnancy ( according to Mirkin's Radio show - he's retired it)

Great Guy

Well, I judge things based on reasons (or at least, I try to). To me, saying that because the baby was helped along by chemistry, which was created in an evil, corrupted human lab, is just silly.

But there are good reasons for your line of thinking, I think. Like, you could bring up potential medical dangers. Or the increased risk of having sextuplets (though I don't know the percentage risk that is).

I mean, I'm not saying one way or the other. As long as the medical procedure produces a healthy child, then I think it's completely moral and okay. But if there are potential problems with it, or there are always sextuplets, then obviously that's not okay.

BTW, I kind of touched on my thinking on the "natural" subject here:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3883

I didn't say anything about evil or unnatural. And as it relates, I am a minimalist when it comes to medicine. I'm no Jehova's witless, but I think we are a little big for our britches.

I think it has more to do with my belief that nature works like it does for reasons we can't understand sometimes. We had a big long discussion about gay marriage, for example. That issue reminds me of ancient Greece and the prevalant homosexuality that existed. jinx and I pondered over this and decided that our best guess on the reasons why had to do with limited space and population control. There are frogs that can change sex if the population is too lopsided for the species to continue.

So, I think Nature (or GOD if you prefer) has it's own set of controls within the chaos. We have survived as a species this long without the benefit of modern medicine. and yet, People recognize that there are problems, big problems in the world. And these problems have largely manifested themselves since the time that we began overriding nature with science and medicine.

If two people have to resort to heroic measures in order to reproduce, who can say we SHOULD override nature?

It sounds a little harsh even to me, and if it was me in that situation, I can't say I wouldn't be on the other side of the fence on this. Who can say unless it REALLY happens to you?

At the same time, if the problem that causes this is bacterial or physical, and a simple treatment can restore the normal physiology of the patient,.....I'd do that if it were me.

I said in my first post that i was pretty sure that i disapproved. In thinking about it a little deeper, I think it comes down to the specific situation and reasons. Yet, I still think In vitro is pushing it.

Most importantly, my opinion on the matter is irrellevant and I wouldn't presume to condemn or even discourage anyone else from their freedom to do what they choose with their body unless it effects someone else's rights.

No. My first thought was to not post but then I realized I do have an opinion, which is *they* are the only ones that have all the factual and emotional data needed to make this decision. :cool:

It's not possible to override nature with science and medicine, because science and medicine are a <i>part</i> of nature.

In fact, I'd say that it's not possible to override nature at all.

But yeah, I agree that it depends on the situation and how dangerous it is. Your opinion is relevant, though. That's what this board is all about. :)

when I say nature, juju, i mean what would happen naturally if a human did not intercede using science or medicine. And dont say that humans ARE natural and therefore can't interfere with themself. we'll never get out of that spiral argument.

We have acheived a level of knowledge that allows us to alter almost everything we can touch. we genetically modify vegetables, for christs sake. there is a line where something is natural and something that would not ordinarilly occur meet.

I see. So knowledge is bad, dangerous, and not to be used?

What do you mean when you say "natural"? In your attempted definition, you used the word "natural" in the definition. You can't do that! Not if it's to be official, anyway.

i'd prefer if you didn't attempt to put words in my mouth. knowledge is good. playing god is bad.

is this the kind of shit that dave used to call you a retard over?

i think you understand from my explanation how i intended the use of the word natural in my post......

I wasn't <i>saying</i> that you said that. I was just asking if that's what you meant. I'm just trying to understand.

Really, though, I don't understand what you mean by "natural". I figured a definition would prevent further misunderstanding.

Whats wrong with playing god given that there is no god?

You know thats a whole nother ball game.

Just leave that out of here.

That causes to many arguements.