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?

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.

I didn't say the world wasn't overpopulated. I told you about a program that was put in place here by our previous government. I don't necessarily agree with it on the surface, but the reason was because of a declining birthrate in this country. Down to way less than two kids per couple.

It comes down to long term productivity. If we have industries which require a certain number of staff, and then 10 or 20 years down the track there simply aren't any people to work the jobs, then where does that leave us?

If there aren't many people to run the factory, there probably aren't many people to buy whatever the factory produces. It should balance out.

Well that would seem ok on the surface, but to compete on the world stage, our economy must grow, so we must produce more and more, not less or just the same.

Doesn't work for things like, say, nursing or food preparation. There aren't enough young people to do the labor, but plenty left who need to eat and be taken care of.

That's a temporary situation.

Soylent Green.

Fixed.

The Japanese answer is robotics.

But then, they'll all rise up and kill us all anyway.



(The robots, not the Japanese.)

I was responding to both you and Dana. Dana said the world wasn't overpopulated. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, I was just saying I believe we have flawed thinking when it comes to growth. That's all. It's just my opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. I just think I am. ;)

There are two methods to solve this problem. Lower the population or raised the population limit. While in my opinion both methods should be used to a point, I strongly believe the emphasis should be put on raising the population limit through more efficient methods or producing food, energy, water, etc. This will not only positively effect the population problem, but in multiple other sectors as well.

I agree with this completely but you are talking about changing the entire culture of Western society.

Yes, well, I think western society is severely flawed. Or maybe I should say, western mentality.

I don't understand what you mean by 'raise the population limit.' Would you elaborate please? Thanks bunches. :)

The things that limit population (or rather limit a population's ability to comfortably exist) are environmental: food, space, etc. Space is flexible, look at high rise cities. Food is also a flexible variable, we can produce food at varying levels of intensity.

Thanks Dana for that explanation. But I would argue, just because we can build upwards to accomodate more people doesn't mean we should. I believe people have gotten more rude, less attentive to their surroundings, more hostile, less tolerant, and those characterisitics, when living in close quarters with millions of people, are not good combinations. You know, if our humanity wasn't slipping away, and people were concerned with one another, and greed wasn't so rampant, and we actually DID create a world that was able to accomodate everyone comfortably, then I wouldn't be so opposed to having such a high population. But things aren't like that. There is so much poverty and misery in the world, and the world is becoming so toxic, it is getting unbearable.

Sugar you could rework that post and change a couple of words and you'd have something that could have been written in the late 19th century. The same anxieties, the same cultural pessimism.

Our humanity isn't slipping away. We are our humanity, our humanity is us. There has not been some golden age when all was fair and people cared. People care and people do not care. The world is fair and it is unfair. This is how it has always been. We play politics to try and change things and we have changed things. We continue to change things. BUt at the same time things stay very much the same. The actors change, the technology alters. But there will always be Romes andthere will always be Carthages

And in the 18th century and the 17th century and the 16th century... ad infinitum.

Less people or more people, you either look after eachother or you don't. Some American Dwellars have previously decried our society as fascist or socialist because of the amount of money people have to contribute when they are working. But through tax and National Insurance, we do look after our own. My Grandad (80s, with Parkinsons) gets a lot of help. But Mum is there checking on him, making sure he gets everything he needs, shopping, cleaning, doing his washing etc. Even in this society I worry that he would be in a bad position if it wasn't for Mum (except that my Dad, my sister and I would step up to to the mark).

I doubt many Western societies have it exactly right. The Indian sub-continent seem to, as does traditional China and Japan - less so as they ape Western "ideals".

Look after your old people. Look after your family. Don't fuck about without contraception unless you can afford to support children.

It'll swing around again.

Whatever. It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create a BETTER existance for everyone. Especially because we have the capability to do that.

I am just expressing my opinions. Obviously they differ from yours. I suppose it is my nature to think on a global scale. If you saw my astrological chart, you might understand.

Understand what? That you believe in totally unbelievable things?
Yeah - give me a croissant instead.

*chuckles* I'm sorry, do you think that I don't see things on a global scale?

I also didn't suggest that we cease striving for a better society. Nor indeed should we cease striving for change if we believe change is necessary or desirable. I am merely pointing out that what might seem like a descent from a better state into a worse one, may not in fact be anythng of the kind. The world we live in is better and worse than the world our great grandparents lived in.

I find your pessimism hard to get to grips with. You seem a very kind and understanding person, yet you appear to have a very dim view of human beings.

The population limit is dependent on many factors. Back when humans lived in hunter gatherer societies the population limit was very low, a few square miles could only support a small population but now, with better organization, food production, etc we can support a higher population. We make many changes to raise the population limit with more efficient food, energy, and water extraction and other methods in those senses.

I think the population really started growing at a very fast rate once we learned how to extract energy from the earth. That was the real turning point.

Nothing personal, but you didn't repond to the points raised by the clip I posted.

Dawkins claims astrology is "fascile discrimination, dividing humanity up into exclusive groups based on no evidence." And I believe him.

And after all, NO newspaper in Britain (can't say for the States) devotes the same column inches to any established religion as it does to astrology. Shocking! Esp when astrology has been proved/ disproved/ proved by the appearance and disappearance of planets. And the shifting science of the universe as we know it. What a load of old tosh.

Like Phrenology. Except we should know better by now.

You mean when we became industrialized?

yea, I find my pessimism hard to deal with myself sometimes. If you debated some of the people I have been debating for the past 7 years on forums, you might understand why I have such a dim view of humans. :D Seriously though, I just react to what I see and hear. And the world economy is crashing right now because of the greed of men. How can you not be pessimistic when something like that happens? I am not that way about everything, but there are certain topics where I cannot contain my pessimism with regard to the human race and what we do - overpopultion, pollution, greed and excess, cruelty, and a few others.

You said what I had written could have been from the late 19th century. The difference is, in the late 19th century, we weren't creating all the waste and pollution we create now. It is simply not sustainable. And, not only that, it also has to do with quality of life. Check out this site. There is a short video there. It's very interesting. http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Thomas Friedman has a great take on it.
"...Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...

We can’t do this anymore...
Read the full editorial here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/op...iedman.html?em
http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/books...at-and-crowded

"In the 20th century, world population grew from about 1.5 billion to 6 billion at the end of the century. Over the last 50 years the rate of growth in population has not been matched before in human history...
...At some point the increasing population of the planet will be utilizing so many resources that the degradation of these resources will decrease the planets ability to sustain life. It can be seen by the studies on bio-diversity that this point is approaching. If the solutions are not peaceful then the wars that will be fought over the remaining resources will only deplete those remaining resources even further." http://www.visionofhumanity.org/sust...population.php

Oh, and what I meant by thinking on a global scale, it isn't what most people when they talk about that. I don't really feel like going into it right now, but I didn't mean to be insulting to you. sorry if it felt that way to you. (Do you know anything about astrology? Not like what you read in the paper, but the deeper levels to it.)

I didn't listen to it yet because I was thinking about my response to Dana. And I am very well aware that most people don't believe in astrology. Pop astrology is different though than astrology. If you go deeper into it, it can give you a lot of insight. It is a very deep subject. It has nothing to do with what your sun sign is. It is tool, that's all.

I don't know what you mean the appearance/disappearance of planets. What planets have disappeared?

yes.

To be fair to Dana, you'll find she's very much a realist and quite a deep thinker. I'm pretty sure you'll find she's had to deal with her fair share of internet loopies too.

I think the difference you'll find is that Dana holds out hope where you don't sugar.

My thinking is a lot like Dana's in this regard. I also don't think this crash is the end of the world. In fact, I'm positive it's not. I think it's a good thing really. We all just have to tough it out for the next few years. I believe the reason so may people find that concept so frightening is because they've never had to do it tough before.

Time to harden up people. Knuckle under and make the most of what you've got. Your life, like mine, wont end even if you do lose everything. It'll just be different.

Oh I don't think the crash is the end of the world. In fact, I'm hoping that real change comes out of it. (see, I can hope too. :D)

Well there you go. Good job. ;)

BS is BS, no matter how deep it is piled.

No astrologer, pop or not, has passed a double-blind study. Such an experiment would have a group of people give [through an anonymous method] the times and dates of their births to the astologer, have the astrologer write the horoscopes, and then have each person pick the one that is most applicable to their life. If the matchups are better than that which would be expected by chance, that would be a strong data point in favor of astrology.

It's never happened, though.

Astrology is like the bible. You either believe it or you don't...or you cherry pick the bits you like. lol