Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Pope Benedict XVI tells infertile families that they are sinners for trying to get pregnant without sex   (usatoday.com ) divider line 568
    More: Dumbass, Pope Benedict XVI, pope, couples  
•       •       •

5377 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2012 at 1:58 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



568 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-25 08:25:46 PM  

TheBigJerk: Weaver95: alternative girlfriend: Not a Catholic or even a theist at all, but you don't see the problems inherent in some of this?

I can see where some organizations would have problems with a society where people could build whatever bodies they wanted, or swap bodies around on a whim. But social barriers change, people adapt. I want to live in a world where biology isn't destiny, and where technology is just one more tool in the toolbox to help people live the lives they want to live. you cannot have racism in a society where skin color is no more permanent than hair color. Gender roles cannot be predetermined when ANYONE can be male, female or even neuter whenever they'd like.

would we still have problems? sure. that's human nature. But they'd be different problems than we've got now. and if we can move minds around between bodies than health care and even death becomes less of a problem. our entire focus changes.

Transhuman problems are scary problems, and complex ones. That's why most popular scifi doesn't touch them. Example: Star Trek's prohibition on genetic enhancement. Rather than face the ethical questions involved in post-human society they simply made up a Broken Aesop of Jenners being too dangerous to live because they might become nazis.

And there is an issue with biodiversity. A species that is nothing but scandinavian lesbian supermodels with IQs of 150 sounds nice, but it makes targeted genetic weapons a lot easier to make.


Good point. It would be like monocropping. Without the wide genetic variation to provide options for adaptation, one nasty natural event like a pandemic of some strain of super bacteria or virus could wipe out the species.
 
2012-02-25 08:27:24 PM  

nigeman: Oh and by the way in the Story of Hannah she asks the temple for her womb to be opened by God, and as part of the payment back to the temple her son would be given to the temple. She had 5 kids one of them (Samuel) she had to give to the temple to say thanks.
So that's the Bible for ya. Would that seem moral today?


I think you should ask the Canaanites about the moral ambiguities of the bible.
 
2012-02-25 08:31:58 PM  

mongbiohazard: gadian: Wait, wait...I think I saw this on the X-Files or some such. If you keep using IVF to make infertile people fertile, soon all people will be infertile and the race will require IVF instead of sexual procreation. It's just one step away from our entire race being clones!! Think of the implications people. The space pope is on to something.

It is playing god though. If you're infertile you have no business trying to procreate. Adopt instead.


That pacemaker is playing god though. If you have a heart condition you have no business trying to live. Die instead.

Those antibiotics are playing god though. If you have a bacterial condition you have no business trying to cure it. Die instead.

That wheelchair is playing god though. If you lost your legs you have no business trying to regain some reasonable amount of mobility. Crawl instead.

Those clothes are playing god though. If you're cold you have no business trying to stay warm. Freeze instead.

That car is playing god though. If you can't walk there you have no business trying to go there. Stay home instead.

That home is playing god though............ etc. etc. etc....


Saving a single life already in existance is different than altering the gene pool of the species by inisiting on continuing genetic lines that evolution has tried to remove. I mean, maybe there is a problem buried these genetic codes that should not be passed on into succeeding generations.
 
2012-02-25 08:42:15 PM  

KiplingKat872: This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.


And let me make this clear: I'm not condemning anyone for it. I'm not saying it should be outlawed. I just think in terms of genetic pool of the species it is a bad idea when there are so many kids who already exist who need loving homes.
 
2012-02-25 08:43:01 PM  
KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.
 
2012-02-25 08:48:48 PM  

Karac: Reiterating Vatican teaching, he called marriage the only permissible place to conceive children.

Rebuttal:


Game over. Last one out, please blow out the candles.
 
2012-02-25 08:50:19 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.


Well, I haven't seen that in my circle, all of whom started having kids in their 30's. If the genes get turned off early, that is genetic.

I'm 40 and that door is closing for me. But I'm not so...sorry, but narcissitic to insist that a genetic variant of myself must live on. If the "bioligical clock" ever does start ticking, I am happy to adopt.

Especially after my sister's rather horrific experience giving birth to her first which in adition to the fistula, tore open the length of her vagina and dislocated her spine from her pelvis. "Wonder of bringing life into the world" my ass.
 
2012-02-25 08:52:58 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.


Sorry, I meant if the ability to have kids gets turned off early that is genetic.

Again, I am not condemning anyone for it, I'm not saying it should be outlawed. I am just saying I don't agree with it.
 
2012-02-25 08:56:30 PM  

DarwiOdrade: If by quasi-random, you mean cherry-picked to illustrate your point, then sure, you farking nailed it.

by the way, I'm not anti-religion, just anti-shoving-your-religion-down-others'-throats


Uhhh, cherry picked? You have read the thread correct?
 
2012-02-25 09:02:31 PM  
Oh yay, another move to show how completely out-of-touch and unnecessary organized religion is. Keep it up, Pope.
 
2012-02-25 09:11:21 PM  

KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Sorry, I meant if the ability to have kids gets turned off early that is genetic.

Again, I am not condemning anyone for it, I'm not saying it should be outlawed. I am just saying I don't agree with it.


But you ARE condemning them. You used the word selfish to do it, too.

But ...
Having kids is inherently a selfish act. An act to propagate your genes.

There are many reasons for ivf -- genetic disorders would be the most difficult to alter -- physical trauma to the testicals can render infertility. That is not genetics.

Your concern about the strong surviving and procreating denies us the benefits of herd protections -- one being that stronger individuals (say those that know how to help others procreate) help others that can't procreAte because the weaker individual in this case might be smarter at something else (the person may find a cure for cancer or raise an exceptionally smart child that does such)

Steve hawking being a good example

You also suggest adoption as an alternative -- I'd suggest leave family planning to the the people that are planning to raise the child
 
2012-02-25 09:13:46 PM  

Karac: Reiterating Vatican teaching, he called marriage the only permissible place to conceive children.

Rebuttal:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x278]


Comment of the year!
 
2012-02-25 09:17:58 PM  
They whine when people get abortions because that reduces the number of pregnancies.

They whine when couples use in-vitro because that increases the number of pregnancies.

/head desk /head desk /head desk

Shut up, Vatican. Please! Just shut.the.f*ck.up!!
 
2012-02-25 09:30:48 PM  
KiplingKat872:


maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Well, I haven't seen that in my circle, all of whom started having kids in their 30's. If the genes get turned off early, that is genetic.

I'm 40 and that door is closing for me. But I'm not so...sorry, but narcissitic to insist that a genetic variant of myself must live on. If the "bioligical clock" ever does start ticking, I am happy to adopt.

Especially after my sister's rather horrific experience giving birth to her first which in adition to the fistula, tore open the length of her vagina and dislocated her spine from her pelvis. "Wonder of bringing life into the world" my ass.


Which is fine, but some disagree, and not everyone is secure in both their relationships and finances when they're 20. In fact, most 20 year olds are probably less suited to be parents than 30 year olds. So we have more later conceptions and more need for IVF.

Infertility is not a purely genetic issue. It can have a genetic component, but like cancer it's not solely a matter of your genes.

Another thing to note is that ability to have kids late in life is not a useful genetic trait. As far as Darwin is concerned, kids should be pumping out babies as soon as they hit puberty, not when they're 40.

However... An IVF child is going to be screened for genetic flaws that a natural birth might not. So maybe it's actually an improvement in the genes rather than propagating bad ones.

So I'm not sure I agree with your premise that it's damaging the gene pool. No quarrel with your opinions on other points.

IVF and adoption *both* have advantages over many natural conceptions in that they come with the implication that A) the parents REALLY want the child, and B) they have some measure of stability to offer it. Those are benefits to the child, although not genetic.
 
2012-02-25 09:33:10 PM  

keithgabryelski: KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Sorry, I meant if the ability to have kids gets turned off early that is genetic.

Again, I am not condemning anyone for it, I'm not saying it should be outlawed. I am just saying I don't agree with it.

But you ARE condemning them. You used the word selfish to do it, too.

But ...
Having kids is inherently a selfish act. An act to propagate your genes.

There are many reasons for ivf -- genetic disorders would be the most difficult to alter -- physical trauma to the testicals can render infertility. That is not genetics.

Your concern about the strong surviving and procreating denies us the benefits of herd protections -- one being that stronger individuals (say those that know how to help others procreate) help others that can't procreAte because the weaker individual in this case might be smarter at something else (the person may find a cure for cancer or raise an exceptionally smart child that does such)

Steve hawking being a good example

You also suggest adoption as an alternative -- I'd suggest leave family planning to the the people that are planning to raise the child


Which I do. Am I not allowed to express my opinion on the subject for fear of hurting people's feelings?

You do realize you are on Fark don't you?

And to my knowledge, Stephen Hawking is not an IVF baby, so throwing him in this discussion does not make any sense. Again, there is a difference between saving a life already in existance and forcing genetic code into the genepool past it's experation date. One affects the inidividual, the other affects the species.

I do acknoweldge that injury is a grey area in my argument.
 
2012-02-25 09:40:37 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:


maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Well, I haven't seen that in my circle, all of whom started having kids in their 30's. If the genes get turned off early, that is genetic.

I'm 40 and that door is closing for me. But I'm not so...sorry, but narcissitic to insist that a genetic variant of myself must live on. If the "bioligical clock" ever does start ticking, I am happy to adopt.

Especially after my sister's rather horrific experience giving birth to her first which in adition to the fistula, tore open the length of her vagina and dislocated her spine from her pelvis. "Wonder of bringing life into the world" my ass.

Which is fine, but some disagree, and not everyone is secure in both their relationships and finances when they're 20. In fact, most 20 year olds are probably less suited to be parents than 30 year olds. So we have more later conceptions and more need for IVF.

Infertility is not a purely genetic issue. It can have a genetic component, but like cancer it's not solely a matter of your genes.

Another thing to note is that ability to have kids late in life is not a useful genetic trait. As far as Darwin is concerned, kids should be pumping out babies as soon as they hit puberty, not when they're 40.

However... An IVF child is going to be screened for genetic flaws that a natural birth might not. So maybe it's actually an improvement in the genes rather than propagating bad ones.

So I'm not sure I agree with your premise that it's damaging the gene pool. No quarrel with your opinions on other points.

IVF and adoption *both* have advantages over many natural conceptions in that they come with the implication that A) the parents REALLY want the child, and B) they have some measure of stability to offer it. Those are benefits to the child, although not genetic.


First of all, our knowledge of genetics is so scanty compared to the sheer amount of data and complexity we have just begun to realize, that we can't screen for everything that maybe a problem down the line. (Not to mention the entire "monkeying with things we don't fully understand" part of it.) And I was not aware that genetic screening of the fetus was required. So how many abortions do IVF mothers have to have?

As far as I knew they were fertilized, implanted and if they took, away they went.
 
2012-02-25 09:46:09 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:


maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Well, I haven't seen that in my circle, all of whom started having kids in their 30's. If the genes get turned off early, that is genetic.

I'm 40 and that door is closing for me. But I'm not so...sorry, but narcissitic to insist that a genetic variant of myself must live on. If the "bioligical clock" ever does start ticking, I am happy to adopt.

Especially after my sister's rather horrific experience giving birth to her first which in adition to the fistula, tore open the length of her vagina and dislocated her spine from her pelvis. "Wonder of bringing life into the world" my ass.

Which is fine, but some disagree, and not everyone is secure in both their relationships and finances when they're 20. In fact, most 20 year olds are probably less suited to be parents than 30 year olds. So we have more later conceptions and more need for IVF.

Infertility is not a purely genetic issue. It can have a genetic component, but like cancer it's not solely a matter of your genes.

Another thing to note is that ability to have kids late in life is not a useful genetic trait. As far as Darwin is concerned, kids should be pumping out babies as soon as they hit puberty, not when they're 40.

However... An IVF child is going to be screened for genetic flaws that a natural birth might not. So maybe it's actually an improvement in the genes rather than propagating bad ones.

So I'm not sure I agree with your premise that it's damaging the gene pool. No quarrel with your opinions on other points.

IVF and adoption *both* have advantages over many natural conceptions in that they come with the implication that A) the parents REALLY want the child, and B) they have some measure of stability to offer it. Those are benefits to the child, although not genetic.


And actually, girls getting pregnant as soon as menses hits are under serious life threatening health risks. Just because they bleed, that does not mean their body is ready to deal with extreme changes and stress put on it by pregnancy and childbirth. Getting pregnant at 13 could be considered "natural selection" at it's most cruel. So I highly doubt Darwin would be advocating that.
 
2012-02-25 09:52:33 PM  
it's so cute how they think they're relevant.
 
2012-02-25 10:05:23 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: [arch.413chan.net image 240x240]


You know, I'm not unokay with this myself.

I'm sick to death of women (and their men) pregnant with half a dozen kids via fertility drugs and IVF, telling everyone who will listen that it's "God's will" they're about to have a litter of kids, but you'll never hear them say it was "God's will" that they NOT have a baby in the first place. Octomom was of course an aberration, but there are plenty of freakish women out there having triplets and quads they shouldn't be having because it's "God's will" that after three other miscarriages and plenty of drugs and four failed implantations, they should have a batch of babies anyway. No, you dumb biatch, it's GOD'S WILL that you not have kids!

So if the Pope wants to tell some people maybe they should stop trying all these weirdo methods and just accept "God's will", that's fine by me. Now tell them to adopt a few desperate orphans instead.
 
2012-02-25 10:05:40 PM  

TV's Vinnie: They whine when people get abortions because that reduces the number of pregnancies.

They whine when couples use in-vitro because that increases the number of pregnancies.

/head desk /head desk /head desk

Shut up, Vatican. Please! Just shut.the.f*ck.up!!


I think you're missing the point as to why this is morally consistent. They're saying that married couples are allowed to have sex and that they will accept any new life that results from their union. The couple is not allowed to interfere with the new life in anyway -- either to prevent or enhance the chances of pregnancy.

Whether or not you agree with it, it's at least consistent.
 
2012-02-25 10:07:16 PM  

KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:


maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Well, I haven't seen that in my circle, all of whom started having kids in their 30's. If the genes get turned off early, that is genetic.

I'm 40 and that door is closing for me. But I'm not so...sorry, but narcissitic to insist that a genetic variant of myself must live on. If the "bioligical clock" ever does start ticking, I am happy to adopt.

Especially after my sister's rather horrific experience giving birth to her first which in adition to the fistula, tore open the length of her vagina and dislocated her spine from her pelvis. "Wonder of bringing life into the world" my ass.

Which is fine, but some disagree, and not everyone is secure in both their relationships and finances when they're 20. In fact, most 20 year olds are probably less suited to be parents than 30 year olds. So we have more later conceptions and more need for IVF.

Infertility is not a purely genetic issue. It can have a genetic component, but like cancer it's not solely a matter of your genes.

Another thing to note is that ability to have kids late in life is not a useful genetic trait. As far as Darwin is concerned, kids should be pumping out babies as soon as they hit puberty, not when they're 40.

However... An IVF child is going to be screened for genetic flaws that a natural birth might not. So maybe it's actually an improvement in the genes rather than propagating bad ones.

So I'm not sure I agree with your premise that it's damaging the gene pool. No quarrel with your opinions on other points.

IVF and adoption *both* have advantages over many natural conceptions in that they come with the implication that A) the parents REALLY want the child, and B) they have some measure of stability to offer it. Those are benefits to the child, although not genetic.

And actually, girls getting pregnant as soon as menses hits are under serious life threatening health risks. Just because they bleed, that does not mean their body is ready to deal with extreme changes and stress put on it by pregnancy and childbirth. Getting pregnant at 13 could be considered "natural selection" at it's most cruel. So I highly doubt Darwin would be advocating that.


In short, having children so young that they die in the first attempt and have no more is not good evolutionary practice.
 
2012-02-25 10:10:12 PM  
KiplingKat872:

First of all, our knowledge of genetics is so scanty compared to the sheer amount of data and complexity we have just begun to realize, that we can't screen for everything that maybe a problem down the line. (Not to mention the entire "monkeying with things we don't fully understand" part of it.) And I was not aware that genetic screening of the fetus was required. So how many abortions do IVF mothers have to have?

As far as I knew they were fertilized, implanted and if they took, away they went.


Zero abortions. The tests are done on a single cell from the blastocyst, and if there are defects it's never implanted. We've been doing this since the 80's. It's elective, so not everyone will do it, but I'm willing to bet anyone doing IVF will do so if they can afford it.

No, it can't detect every possible genetic defect, but certainly a lot of the more common ones, and more all the time. Cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, muscular dystrophy, BRCA1 (a breast cancer risk gene) etcetera.
 
2012-02-25 10:20:24 PM  
KiplingKat872:

In short, having children so young that they die in the first attempt and have no more is not good evolutionary practice.

Which is why Darwin would have them die if they couldn't give birth that early. That's how he rolls. It's only been the last few hundred generations or so that we prevented children from having birth right after puberty, and therefore allowed those who couldn't handle it to live.

*We* changed that, not Darwin... Just as we are changing who is able to give birth in their 40's.
 
2012-02-25 10:22:38 PM  
Ratsinger is a dirtbag
 
2012-02-25 10:23:28 PM  

Donnchadha: TV's Vinnie: They whine when people get abortions because that reduces the number of pregnancies.

They whine when couples use in-vitro because that increases the number of pregnancies.

/head desk /head desk /head desk

Shut up, Vatican. Please! Just shut.the.f*ck.up!!

I think you're missing the point as to why this is morally consistent. They're saying that married couples are allowed to have sex and that they will accept any new life that results from their union. The couple is not allowed to interfere with the new life in anyway -- either to prevent or enhance the chances of pregnancy.

Whether or not you agree with it, it's at least consistent.


In other words, you're only allowed to have sex if it results in a pregnancy. That means if you only want to have three kids, you're only allowed to dip your stick three times IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!

And remember, this is being taught by some priest who is most likely raping altar boys in the confessional booth during the off hours.
 
2012-02-25 10:25:57 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:

First of all, our knowledge of genetics is so scanty compared to the sheer amount of data and complexity we have just begun to realize, that we can't screen for everything that maybe a problem down the line. (Not to mention the entire "monkeying with things we don't fully understand" part of it.) And I was not aware that genetic screening of the fetus was required. So how many abortions do IVF mothers have to have?

As far as I knew they were fertilized, implanted and if they took, away they went.

Zero abortions. The tests are done on a single cell from the blastocyst, and if there are defects it's never implanted. We've been doing this since the 80's. It's elective, so not everyone will do it, but I'm willing to bet anyone doing IVF will do so if they can afford it.

No, it can't detect every possible genetic defect, but certainly a lot of the more common ones, and more all the time. Cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, muscular dystrophy, BRCA1 (a breast cancer risk gene) etcetera.


"If they can afford it" which considering how expensive IVF is to begin with, I doubt is more often (by percentages) than naturally concieved children are.

In anycase, if the parents genes are so spiffy why would they be infertile to begin with? Like I said, this is playing around in a sandbox we barely comprehend, and personally I feel a lot more comfortable with Nature making the call of how the species moves forward rather than desperate and emotional parents.
 
2012-02-25 10:27:50 PM  

mongbiohazard: gadian: Wait, wait...I think I saw this on the X-Files or some such. If you keep using IVF to make infertile people fertile, soon all people will be infertile and the race will require IVF instead of sexual procreation. It's just one step away from our entire race being clones!! Think of the implications people. The space pope is on to something.

It is playing god though. If you're infertile you have no business trying to procreate. Adopt instead.


That pacemaker is playing god though. If you have a heart condition you have no business trying to live. Die instead.


Nice strawman. The difference is, in theory, that if you are unable to breed naturally that is (sorry to anthropomorphise) mother nature giving you the big fat hint that you are either physically or genetically unfit for the job. I know that is hard for a lot of people to hear because it strikes at their very masculinity/femininity/humanity, but maybe you just weren't meant to have genetic offspring.

Bullheadedly deciding you will force yourself to bear a child even if it is physically difficult or dangerous for yourself is fine. But forcing your body to produce a genetically unsound child who then has to live with the consequences of your selfishness is an entirely different bag of apples.

Some studies have shown an increase in abnormal and/or unusual gene expression, double the rate of birth defects, and up to 10 times higher rates of genetic disorders that cause cancer and mental retardation (including Angelman Syndrome) in IVF kids. 90% of IVF embryos have chromosomal abnormalities, regardless of the age of the sperm and egg donors.

Whether that's because of the IVF process itself (the growth medium or the stimulating drugs) or the result of selfish people with damaged DNA forcing themselves to breed when nature told them no is not known yet.

IVF is blind narcissism epitomised. Don't give a fark just give me my baby. I want a baby. I want my own baby. It has to have my genes. Give me my baby.
 
2012-02-25 10:31:45 PM  

KiplingKat872: keithgabryelski: KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Sorry, I meant if the ability to have kids gets turned off early that is genetic.

Again, I am not condemning anyone for it, I'm not saying it should be outlawed. I am just saying I don't agree with it.

But you ARE condemning them. You used the word selfish to do it, too.

But ...
Having kids is inherently a selfish act. An act to propagate your genes.

There are many reasons for ivf -- genetic disorders would be the most difficult to alter -- physical trauma to the testicals can render infertility. That is not genetics.

Your concern about the strong surviving and procreating denies us the benefits of herd protections -- one being that stronger individuals (say those that know how to help others procreate) help others that can't procreAte because the weaker individual in this case might be smarter at something else (the person may find a cure for cancer or raise an exceptionally smart child that does such)

Steve hawking being a good example

You also suggest adoption as an alternative -- I'd suggest leave family planning to the the people that are planning to raise the child

Which I do. Am I not allowed to express my opinion on the subject for fear of hurting people's feelings?

You do realize you are on Fark don't you?

And to my knowledge, Stephen Hawking is not an IVF baby, so throwing him in this discussion does not make any sense. Again, there is a difference between saving a life already in existance and forcing genetic code into the genepool past it's experation date. One affects the inidividual, the other affects the species.

I do acknoweldge that injury is a grey area in my argument.


Stephen hawking was brought up as a person that has used artifical means of insemination even though he has a disease that would otherwise prevent procreation.
 
2012-02-25 10:35:23 PM  

KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:

First of all, our knowledge of genetics is so scanty compared to the sheer amount of data and complexity we have just begun to realize, that we can't screen for everything that maybe a problem down the line. (Not to mention the entire "monkeying with things we don't fully understand" part of it.) And I was not aware that genetic screening of the fetus was required. So how many abortions do IVF mothers have to have?

As far as I knew they were fertilized, implanted and if they took, away they went.

Zero abortions. The tests are done on a single cell from the blastocyst, and if there are defects it's never implanted. We've been doing this since the 80's. It's elective, so not everyone will do it, but I'm willing to bet anyone doing IVF will do so if they can afford it.

No, it can't detect every possible genetic defect, but certainly a lot of the more common ones, and more all the time. Cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, muscular dystrophy, BRCA1 (a breast cancer risk gene) etcetera.

"If they can afford it" which considering how expensive IVF is to begin with, I doubt is more often (by percentages) than naturally concieved children are.

In anycase, if the parents genes are so spiffy why would they be infertile to begin with? Like I said, this is playing around in a sandbox we barely comprehend, and personally I feel a lot more comfortable with Nature making the call of how the species moves forward rather than desperate and emotional parents.


We understand it . You don't understand it. Geneticists do. Evolution is random, this has nothing to do with evolution. To say one person is genetically better than another is a matter of opinion and as far as nature is concerned if you survive that is good enough. If a mole is blind, and it can find food, then great. If a couple are infertile and can have children due to technology then great, it is no different to using a spear to hunt for food, Evolution granted you slow legs but the ability to make a spear, use that. If an egg is fertilised in a dish and implanted in a uterus afterwards the body is none the wiser. Genetic screening is not genetic manipulation. It's a tool. An infertile couple can have fertile children, fertile couples have infertile children. End of story. This isn't going to produce a race of weaklings, would you be able to tell an IVF child from a non IVF child? No;.No test could ever be developed for it either, they are identical.
 
2012-02-25 10:37:47 PM  
It's almost like they're trying to engineer a dead cat bounce of relevancy before society throws off these child molesters for good.
 
2012-02-25 10:41:15 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:

In short, having children so young that they die in the first attempt and have no more is not good evolutionary practice.

Which is why Darwin would have them die if they couldn't give birth that early. That's how he rolls. It's only been the last few hundred generations or so that we prevented children from having birth right after puberty, and therefore allowed those who couldn't handle it to live.

*We* changed that, not Darwin... Just as we are changing who is able to give birth in their 40's.


Actually, having children later is not a new trend. Even in the middle ages as the merchant middle class started to grow, women started getting married later.

I am sorry, but I do not find IVF in one's forties the same as impreganting children. Again, this is trying to equate saving a life that already exists vs. forcing a life into being and thereby artificially altering the gene pool.

I also can't equate the evolutionary assessment of the risk a girl has getting pregnant at 13, not because her genes are bad but because her body is not developed enough (two years and she would be fine) with an infertile adult woman.

I understand what you are trying to get at, which is a more sophsticated anthropological version of the, "but medical science already interferes" argument, but I think there is a small but distinct difference.
 
2012-02-25 10:44:07 PM  

keithgabryelski: KiplingKat872: keithgabryelski: KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:

This is going to get me flamed all to hell, but while I don't think IVF is a sin, I do think it is a bad idea to insist on carrying through into the next generation genes that evolution has vetoed while there are tens of thousands of kids in this country in need of stable loving homes. I think its pretty selfish.

It's not always genetic. People are waiting longer to have kids, and the chance of infertility just about doubles between the ages of 20 and 30, triples by age 35, and then it *really* takes off.

Sorry, I meant if the ability to have kids gets turned off early that is genetic.

Again, I am not condemning anyone for it, I'm not saying it should be outlawed. I am just saying I don't agree with it.

But you ARE condemning them. You used the word selfish to do it, too.

But ...
Having kids is inherently a selfish act. An act to propagate your genes.

There are many reasons for ivf -- genetic disorders would be the most difficult to alter -- physical trauma to the testicals can render infertility. That is not genetics.

Your concern about the strong surviving and procreating denies us the benefits of herd protections -- one being that stronger individuals (say those that know how to help others procreate) help others that can't procreAte because the weaker individual in this case might be smarter at something else (the person may find a cure for cancer or raise an exceptionally smart child that does such)

Steve hawking being a good example

You also suggest adoption as an alternative -- I'd suggest leave family planning to the the people that are planning to raise the child

Which I do. Am I not allowed to express my opinion on the subject for fear of hurting people's feelings?

You do realize you are on Fark don't you?

And to my knowledge, Stephen Hawking is not an IVF baby, so throwing him in this discussion does not make any sense. Again, there is a difference between saving a life already in existance and forcing genetic code into the genepool past it's experation date. One affects the inidividual, the other affects the species.

I do acknoweldge that injury is a grey area in my argument.

Stephen hawking was brought up as a person that has used artifical means of insemination even though he has a disease that would otherwise prevent procreation.


And that was selfish of him, but not unsurprising given what I have heard if the man.
 
2012-02-25 10:53:55 PM  

FloydA: RandomExcess: What is the purpose of infertile couples using sex to have children?
It's fun.


People do get pregnant occasionally who thought they were infertile, or who had been sterilized. So keep trying.

Nuclear Monk: Earpj: Maybe he should've followed up with talking about how many kids out there need families.
/I am not a Catholic, nor have I had the heartbreak of infertility.
That was something I observed with some acquaintances who were struggling to conceive a second child and opted for IVF. Everything else was always chalked up to God's Will, but deny them a second offspring and suddenly they were happy to throw tens of thousands of dollars towards spiting it.


A friend of mine who used to be all churchy (ie: abused) explained to me that to Christians and born-again Christians, the Family is the most important thing in the world, their reason for being. If their family disintegrates, they've failed God. (Notice how well this works out for abusers.) "Focus on the Family" and all that. So they can probably rationalize that anything they can do to make more Family, God would approve of it.

And besides, when have religious people ever had any problem with hypocritical thinking?

/My brother started freaking out about Family suddenly, and how our family wasn't close enough, and how it was the only thing a person had in the world, and what was our problem? I thought, what is this about? We all live 2000 miles away from each other. Our family has always sucked. Well, he's a born-again.
//Just because I know he believes this stuff, I still can't believe that he really believes it.
 
2012-02-25 10:54:59 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:

In short, having children so young that they die in the first attempt and have no more is not good evolutionary practice.

Which is why Darwin would have them die if they couldn't give birth that early. That's how he rolls. It's only been the last few hundred generations or so that we prevented children from having birth right after puberty, and therefore allowed those who couldn't handle it to live.

*We* changed that, not Darwin... Just as we are changing who is able to give birth in their 40's.


Slightly off topic, but maybe not so much...has anyone noticed that as there has been a rise of women giving birth in their late 30's and 40's, there has also been a rise in autistic and learning-disabled children? And given that women are born with their entire complement of ova already in place, and that it's been known for a couple of centuries that older women are more prone to genetic birth defects, is it surprising that subtler genetic damage is being seen in the offspring of women who "wait" a few more years to have children?

It might be that just because a woman CAN have a child when she is 40 doesn't mean she SHOULD, you know? Even if she and her partner are otherwise 100% healthy and able to have kids.
 
2012-02-25 10:56:29 PM  
Oh, and I know somebody is going to run in here and say, "But I/somebody I know had an autistic child and they were only 20 so obviously you're completely wrong about your observation," so here's your dissent and STFU. I'm talking in general here, and in very large numbers; not about your specific case.
 
2012-02-25 10:58:25 PM  
KiplingKat872:

I am sorry, but I do not find IVF in one's forties the same as impreganting children. Again, this is trying to equate saving a life that already exists vs. forcing a life into being and thereby artificially altering the gene pool.

Ummm... Neither do I. I am pointing out that until recently in the human species, we bred as soon as we were physically able. Og the caveboy and Ogette the cave girl didn't wait for a particular age or save themselves for marriage. When we developed society we stopped weeding out the ones that couldn't survive that.

I also can't equate the evolutionary assessment of the risk a girl has getting pregnant at 13, not because her genes are bad but because her body is not developed enough (two years and she would be fine) with an infertile adult woman.

Again, until recently if she had started her cycle, her body had *better* be ready. We stopped weeding the ones who failed that test when we started preventing girls from getting pregnant as soon as they reach menarche, and now most girls can't handle it.

I understand what you are trying to get at, which is a more sophsticated anthropological version of the, "but medical science already interferes" argument, but I think there is a small but distinct difference.

I'd say we got sidetracked from your point about IVF being bad for the species, but also say that a fair amount of "I believe" and "I feel" is creeping into the discussion as well.
 
2012-02-25 10:58:26 PM  
Gotta change this thread into an IVF child picture thread:

a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-02-25 10:59:22 PM  

nigeman: KiplingKat872: maxheck: KiplingKat872:

First of all, our knowledge of genetics is so scanty compared to the sheer amount of data and complexity we have just begun to realize, that we can't screen for everything that maybe a problem down the line. (Not to mention the entire "monkeying with things we don't fully understand" part of it.) And I was not aware that genetic screening of the fetus was required. So how many abortions do IVF mothers have to have?

As far as I knew they were fertilized, implanted and if they took, away they went.

Zero abortions. The tests are done on a single cell from the blastocyst, and if there are defects it's never implanted. We've been doing this since the 80's. It's elective, so not everyone will do it, but I'm willing to bet anyone doing IVF will do so if they can afford it.

No, it can't detect every possible genetic defect, but certainly a lot of the more common ones, and more all the time. Cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, muscular dystrophy, BRCA1 (a breast cancer risk gene) etcetera.

"If they can afford it" which considering how expensive IVF is to begin with, I doubt is more often (by percentages) than naturally concieved children are.

In anycase, if the parents genes are so spiffy why would they be infertile to begin with? Like I said, this is playing around in a sandbox we barely comprehend, and personally I feel a lot more comfortable with Nature making the call of how the species moves forward rather than desperate and emotional parents.

We understand it . You don't understand it. Geneticists do. Evolution is random, this has nothing to do with evolution. To say one person is genetically better than another is a matter of opinion and as far as nature is concerned if you survive that is good enough. If a mole is blind, and it can find food, then great. If a couple are infertile and can have children due to technology then great, it is no different to using a spear to hunt for food, Evolution granted you slow legs but the ability to make a spear, use that. If an egg is fertilised in a dish and implanted in a uterus afterwards the body is none the wiser. Genetic screening is not genetic manipulation. It's a tool. An infertile couple can have fertile children, fertile couples have infertile children. End of story. This isn't going to produce a race of weaklings, would you be able to tell an IVF child from a non IVF child? No;.No test could ever be developed for it either, they are identical.


Geneticists can't even nail down for sure the genes that controll eye colour and you are going to stand there and claim you guys have it completely wired so you are entitled to play god?

I'd say some of the statistics listed by if_i_really_have_to would indicate that you are wrong.

Random mutuations are random, but they are not the entirety of evolutionary theory. Natural selection is not "random," sexual selection is not "random." Certain traits are selected for. That is not random. The random part comes into play when the environment changes and what was once a trait not selected for, and therefore resided in a small number of the population, become adventageous and selected for and therefore becomes a dominant species trait.

IVF steps completely outside that process. These are not marginal traits, these are entire genetic lines that are not supposed to exist.

This is like inbreeding bulldogs until their hips are so small they can't give birth without a c-section. IVF has nothing to do with evolution.
 
2012-02-25 11:03:45 PM  
Gyrfalcon:

Slightly off topic, but maybe not so much...has anyone noticed that as there has been a rise of women giving birth in their late 30's and 40's, there has also been a rise in autistic and learning-disabled children? And given that women are born with their entire complement of ova already in place, and that it's been known for a couple of centuries that older women are more prone to genetic birth defects, is it surprising that subtler genetic damage is being seen in the offspring of women who "wait" a few more years to have children?

It might be that just because a woman CAN have a child when she is 40 doesn't mean she SHOULD, you know? Even if she and her partner are otherwise 100% healthy and able to have kids.


That's pretty well known and charted... And it's not just the eggs, male sperm is more prone to damage as the father gets older.
 
2012-02-25 11:03:48 PM  

maxheck: KiplingKat872:

I am sorry, but I do not find IVF in one's forties the same as impreganting children. Again, this is trying to equate saving a life that already exists vs. forcing a life into being and thereby artificially altering the gene pool.

Ummm... Neither do I. I am pointing out that until recently in the human species, we bred as soon as we were physically able. Og the caveboy and Ogette the cave girl didn't wait for a particular age or save themselves for marriage. When we developed society we stopped weeding out the ones that couldn't survive that.

I also can't equate the evolutionary assessment of the risk a girl has getting pregnant at 13, not because her genes are bad but because her body is not developed enough (two years and she would be fine) with an infertile adult woman.

Again, until recently if she had started her cycle, her body had *better* be ready. We stopped weeding the ones who failed that test when we started preventing girls from getting pregnant as soon as they reach menarche, and now most girls can't handle it.

I understand what you are trying to get at, which is a more sophsticated anthropological version of the, "but medical science already interferes" argument, but I think there is a small but distinct difference.

I'd say we got sidetracked from your point about IVF being bad for the species, but also say that a fair amount of "I believe" and "I feel" is creeping into the discussion as well.


I said this was my opinion from the beginning.

Now you are just reiterrating your point rather than refuting mine, so unless you have something new...
 
2012-02-25 11:06:16 PM  
Look, if God wrote it into the system it's allowable. If he didn't want us to hack our gonads he wouldn't have made it so easy.
 
2012-02-25 11:17:31 PM  

halfof33: DarwiOdrade: If by quasi-random, you mean cherry-picked to illustrate your point, then sure, you farking nailed it.

by the way, I'm not anti-religion, just anti-shoving-your-religion-down-others'-throats

Uhhh, cherry picked? You have read the thread correct?


Yep - starting at the beginning I see a lot of hate for the church (not Catholics themselves) and the pope, then you selected the Boobies that had anything to say about Catholics in general.

Obviously you haven't read the thread.
 
2012-02-25 11:27:49 PM  

TV's Vinnie: In other words, you're only allowed to have sex if it results in a pregnancy. That means if you only want to have three kids, you're only allowed to dip your stick three times IN YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!

And remember, this is being taught by some priest who is most likely raping altar boys in the confessional booth during the off hours.


This is a logical fallacy. The church does not state that a pregnancy must result, nor is likely to result, from sex. If one of the partners is infertile, they are not forbidden from having sex. Similarly, if the woman is already pregnant, sex is not forbidden. The church does allow for the use of Natural Family Planning, which is slightly more scientific than calling it "the rhythm method", to try to avoid pregnancy without altering natural fertility. However, should this "fail", the couple is expected to welcome the resulting child.

Perhaps I misspoke when I said they weren't allowed to interfere with chances of pregnancy, but rather interfering with their fertility is not allowed.

The comment about the priest is an ad hominem and has no bearing on the topic at hand.
 
2012-02-25 11:34:48 PM  
KiplingKat872:

Geneticists can't even nail down for sure the genes that controll eye colour and you are going to stand there and claim you guys have it completely wired so you are entitled to play god?

Well, at least your "argument against hubris" finally emerged from the closet.

An IVF conception gets looked at a lot more carefully than a natural one by definition. (difficult to get a microscope up one's hoo-ha)

There are a lot of ways it can be further inspected, and they are becoming more comprehensive all the time.

I'd say some of the statistics listed by if_i_really_have_to would indicate that you are wrong.

Random mutuations are random, but they are not the entirety of evolutionary theory. Natural selection is not "random," sexual selection is not "random." Certain traits are selected for. That is not random. The random part comes into play when the environment changes and what was once a trait not selected for, and therefore resided in a small number of the population, become adventageous and selected for and therefore becomes a dominant species trait.


Ok, so far so good.

IVF steps completely outside that process. These are not marginal traits, these are entire genetic lines that are not supposed to exist.

This is like inbreeding bulldogs until their hips are so small they can't give birth without a c-section. IVF has nothing to do with evolution


And then you lost it.

Your original premise was that older couples should not use IVF because since they cannot concieve naturally, and therefore must be passing on a genetic problem.

That is patently false. While older couples are more prone to genetic problems, that has little to nothing to do with *why they can't conceive*. Their genome has not somehow changed since they were 20 years old. Their bodies have suffered physiological damage and aged. The womans eggs and the man's nuts are old.

You're not breeding for anything, their child is not going to have any more or less chance of breeding at age 20 than they did.
 
2012-02-26 12:26:52 AM  
fark you, Bennie.
 
2012-02-26 12:29:09 AM  

KiplingKat872: Saving a single life already in existance is different than altering the gene pool of the species by inisiting on continuing genetic lines that evolution has tried to remove. I mean, maybe there is a problem buried these genetic codes that should not be passed on into succeeding generations.



Many types of heart disease have genetic roots. Certain cases of diabetes can be genetic. Arthritis can be genetic. Cancer, etc. etc.... the list goes on and on. People from all walks of life have health issues which are based in their genes, and many would have simply died - or lived pain-filled, very short, crippled lives - without modern medicine. So it's OK for us to treat those people so they can live to breed, but not give other people IVF. How does that make any consistent logical sense?


if_i_really_have_to: Nice strawman. The difference is, in theory, that if you are unable to breed naturally that is (sorry to anthropomorphise) mother nature giving you the big fat hint that you are either physically or genetically unfit for the job. I know that is hard for a lot of people to hear because it strikes at their very masculinity/femininity/humanity, but maybe you just weren't meant to have genetic offspring.



See above. My answer that you were replying to was in no way a strawman at all. You're simply arbitrarily cherry-picking where it's OK for modern science to intervene in natural genetic issues and where not.

And to have to point this out, but every minute of your day we all spend in open defiance to "mother nature" with the help of man's ingenuity. Dentistry is not natural. A house is not natural. Your car is not natural. The internet is not natural. Antibiotics, surgery, farming, cellphones, wheelchairs, pacemakers, refrigerators - that kitchen with the vintage farmhouse sink and commercial grade stovetop - are all not natural.

Unless your position is that we should all revert to being nomadic clans, foraging to survive across the plains of Africa with nothing but our wits and our hands and dying by our mid thirties... then something simply not being "natural" is not a good enough justification to not engage in it. You'll simply have to come up with a better reason than that, because that one's meaningless bullshiat.
 
2012-02-26 01:04:03 AM  

Donnchadha: The comment about the priest is an ad hominem and has no bearing on the topic at hand.


You wanna bet?? Listening to some dirty old man in a pointy hat telling grown adults what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms stinks of totalitarianism and hypocrisy.
 
2012-02-26 01:06:51 AM  
Irony tag sleeping in?
 
2012-02-26 01:14:48 AM  

DarwiOdrade: Yep - starting at the beginning I see a lot of hate for the church (not Catholics themselves) and the pope, then you selected the Boobies that had anything to say about Catholics in general.

Obviously you haven't read the thread.


He has seen a lot of hate for the church. Yeah, we see that too.

Hate for the Catholics.
 
2012-02-26 01:45:20 AM  

CanisNoir: Runs_With_Scissors_: You're lying, and you know it. Farking troll.

No, I'm not lying, as I'm sure you've discovered by reading the rest of the thread. Google and Wiki-Leaks are not exactly good resources for this type of citation, I was thinking specifically of a large thesis paper I've been reading by a theologist that's siting down on the kitchen table which mentions more than the two sects (Quakers and some other) mentioned in this thread.

And yes, because Virgin Births exist in nature, you can avoid being hypocritical by affirming that artificial fertility is playing "God" while the Virgin Birth is a-okay.

/who's the troll again?


You?
 
Displayed 50 of 568 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report