Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
What about people who used fertility treatments and ended up with triplets? Or people who used fertility treatments to become pregnant with their third, or fourth consecutive child? The only relevant point is whether the parent can care for the children, not how they got them. You've made it very clear in other posts that you think having even one child is grotesquely irresponsible from a societal standpoint, so when you focus on the fact that she "can't conceive," rather than the fact that she has no money and is obviously not acting in her children's best interests, you come very close to implying that she was infertile 'for a reason' and should take the hint.
|
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.