Re: Restrictions on fertility treatments?

In article <12ijr4d454p39i943bdnffog1rl7tqok9a@xxxxxxx>,
perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:44:50 -0700, Mark Borgerson
<mborgerson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <6nrir4ds7on1kgrrco7u7ttsf47kbs6die@xxxxxxx>,
perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:15:17 -0700 (PDT), "ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<ddnoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 12, 11:53 am, Jill <perspicaci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT), "dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"



<dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:06 am, Jill <perspicaci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:09:17 -0700 (PDT), "dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"

<dd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A friend of mine thinks fertility treatments should be limited to two
kids maximum. Should it?
   What other limitations should be placed on choice in this area to
prevent the re-play of the Octo-mom?

I think in vitro treatments should be outlawed period.  They are
unnatural and they only serve to provide a large pool of fertilized
eggs (IOW Human Beings)  for exploitation and/or destruction (stem
cell research for example) for profit by others.  Also many women
carrying a litter will opt to "reduce" the number in utero (abortion
of selected eggs AKA Human Beings).  If you can't have kids the way
Nature intended there is probably a reason for it.  Adoption is always
an option and is more humanitarian than making a baby (or 8)  in a
plastic dish in Frankenstein's laboratory.  

(Denise) Outlawing these procedures might be going a bit too far. It
also might quite simply be politically impossible.

I gave my opinion of what I think should be, not what I thought would
be.  

(Denise) OK, fine. I guess my statement was inappropriate. I'm sorry.

There appears to be
in many, perhaps most people, a strong desire for a child of their own
flesh.

People in Hell want ice water.  If you can't do it, you can't.  Get
over it, snap out of it, find some other way to have kids in your
life.  That is what infertile people did before 1978 (Louise Brown)
and they all managed to live their lives one way or another.

(Denise) The problem is that modern technologies -- developed by men!
-- are allowing involuntarily infertile women to carry and give birth..
It's no longer an "If you can't do it, you can't" sort of situation.

Wrong. If you can't do it naturally then you can't do it. God's Will
and all that jazz. When mortal souls nose thumb God via technology
they often get their come uppance. The Titanic is one excellent
example. Babies were not meant to be conceived by turkey basters or
in laboratory dishes. Deny it all you want.

LOL! What does the Titanic have to do with God's will? God certainly
doesn't seem to have any objections to the dozens of larger and faster
ocean liners that have crossed the Atlantic since the sinking of
the Titanic.

It has to do with thinking technology trumps nature, God, fate,
whatever you want to call it as in calling the Titanic "unsinkable"
because of the great and new technology used in designing and building
it.

OK. I grant that there was a bit of hubris and excessive advertising
claims in the case of the Titanic. However, the same technology that
was designed into the Titanic has worked well with other ships.

With IVF treatments once again technology is being touted as trumping
nature, God, fate, whatever you want to call it.



Like the iceberg, Nadya Suleman has proven technology doesn't trump
nature, God, fate, whatever you want to call it.
Oh, do you mean that she didn't have 8 kids at once from IVF?


There's the parallel and honestly it shouldn't have been all that
difficult to figure it out especially for a professional nitpicker
such as yourself.
The Titanic sank in spite of new design measures. Suleman had 8 kids
because of new technology. I don't see the analogy.


Mark Borgerson


.

Quantcast