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.

(ABC)   35 years ago today, Louise Brown, the first "test tube baby" was born. Since then in-vitro fertilization has become very common. So common that Congress is considering using your taxes to fund IVF for poor, infertile couples   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 276
    More: Followup, Louise Brown, IVF, reproductive medicine, TRICARE, fertility treatments, CEO Barbara Collura, out-of-pocket costs  
•       •       •

3278 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-25 12:29:21 PM  
The cost of adoption needs to be reduced or perhaps even subsidized.  I have no idea how adoption costs as much as it does.  My neighbors spent a fortune adopting their child.  Unless you physically can't, there's no incentive for adoption vs popping out your own.
 
2013-07-25 12:31:04 PM  
And as an aside to my previous-kid was flunking out of school, getting into fights, getting suspended, etc, etc until I came along.  Now he's starting a college preparatory school which will give him the equivalent of an Associate's Degree when he graduates-I am unbelievably proud of him.  It certainly was a joint effort, but having someone stable in his life to kinda try to help him out really did work and between his Dad and I, we got things going.  Why can't we concentrate on that with adoption/foster parenting?  I'd pay more in my taxes if I knew that a greater portion was going towards fixing what I think is a bad and broken system, not to mention, opportunistic, based on some other posts (high cost of adoption)

I paid a much higher price than simple dollars and cents when I signed up for this gig, and as much as it exhausts me at times, I would be a foster parent in a heartbeat if the system weren't so darned moribund.  Any adoptive or foster parent would probably say the same-it's not a cash up front deal, but a life long investment that you pay for over and over again, very willingly.
 
2013-07-25 12:33:19 PM  
www.centerforhumanreprod.com

i11.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-25 12:34:50 PM  
LZeitgeist:

If you can't afford IVF, how can you afford to raise a kid?

IVF costs about $10k+ per cycle, and often takes multiple cycles. It can cost more to conceive a kid than the first few years of raising them. to

Your argument would be equally valid if you were asking why we should cover pre-natal care or obstetrics.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:02 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


It's an illness that many women could avoid by not waiting until they're 46 to start having a family. (If you haven't had kids by then, you're probably not mother material anyway. )
 
2013-07-25 12:36:25 PM  

Giltric: Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.

good luck supporting the kid if you are poor?


That's the taxpayer's job!

Seriously, we should NOT be using public funds to pay for people's fertility treatments. IVF costs, from what I've seen and heard, are in the neighborhood of $10-$15k. Raising a child to adulthood costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $100k. If you can't afford to save up $10k over 2 or 3 years to pay for your own treatment, what are the odds that you can afford to raise that child on your own without assistance? So now the taxpayers should be on the hook for making the baby AND feeding it? I don't think so. If you DO have the means to support the child, then you have the means to save up enough money for the treatment. I realize you may spend a few years saving money only to have the treatment not work, but I don't see how that should be MY problem. If you don't want it badly enough to make the sacrafice and take the risk, why the hell should the taxpayers? If you are not willing to invest in yourself, I'm not willing to do it for you. Maybe a better focus would be fixing our broken adoption system and providing more government assistance in that area. If we're going to throw money at something, let's put it towards finding good homes for unwanted children.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:26 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: Infertility is becoming more frequent because of the chemicals in the foods we eat, and the things in our surroundings. Men are having lower and lower sperm counts because of estrogen mimics in plastics, and from the increase in soy in all of our food.
we should be fixing those problems because they effect everyone.


Also woman are more and more suffering from Polycystic Ovarian syndrome caused by similar processed foods. It usually makes them unable to carry a child to term by age 25.

On other matters I'd mention that it's hard to adopt a newborn as there aren't many around. I suspect, however, that the rolling back of abortion laws should see more children becoming available in time.
 
2013-07-25 12:38:01 PM  
If you can't afford to bring a child into this world by whatever means, how will you afford to raise said child to not be a burden on society?


Not trolling, absolutely dead serious!
 
2013-07-25 12:40:56 PM  

Cyno01: teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.

So its a myth that there are all these children sitting around as wards of the state waiting to be adopted?


Actually no, it's not a myth.  There are hundreds and thousands of children in the foster care system waiting to be adopted.  That's why there are so many older children and teenagers.  Some kids given up as babies are never placed and stay in the system until they age out and then they're on their own with no help, no guidance...boom...live your life to the fullest.

I'm not saying we should just allow anyone who shows up to take home a handful of kids...there have to be costs and systems and background checks in place in order to make sure the kids are safe, but I was simply flabbergasted, particularly with CATHOLIC Charities, who scream and yell about Pro-life shiat all the time "NO ABORTION, ADOPTION IS WONDERFUL!" and they really could not make it any harder to get one of those adoptive children.  Calling the non-refundable fees "donations" is also disgusting and disingenuous.  I wonder how much of these fees go to caring for the children in their care.
 
2013-07-25 12:42:10 PM  
Don't know if it's already been said but...

Done in one.

Can't conceive naturally? Adopt.


/begin generalization-fueled mini-rant
Those who go for IVF don't want kids to continue the species and raise a healthy, functioning member of society. They want kids to make themselves feel better and adopting just doesn't provide that same level of self-satisfaction, does it? I understand that most of that mindset is socially driven but put on your big person pants and ignore the stupid social stigmas by being your own person.
/end generalization-fueled mini-rant
 
2013-07-25 12:47:27 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


it's not an illness...it's a biological defect....like ugliness or baldness.   What's next free plastic surgery and hair implants for EBT holders?
 
2013-07-25 12:50:13 PM  

Stoker: Over populated planet and idiot still want to bring as many new people into this world.

It' got to be for the Soylent Green.


Relax, almost all IVF parents are educated middle class whites. They normally will produce new generations of future taxpayers. That's why Congress wants to fund it.
 
2013-07-25 12:51:24 PM  

KimNorth: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Ever see a third world, poor as dirt farmer struggling to conceive children? Maybe evolution is telling you something, middle class white people.

Yes and they send the wife back to their mothers house and take another wife then if that wife does not get pregnant she might get smart and start doing the brother giving the husband children so it all works out.....You need to get out more! Your point is invalid. They have infertility but for different reasons.


Don't get caught at it.

cfs6.tistory.com
 
2013-07-25 12:52:37 PM  

Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.


I went through the process of becoming a foster parent. Myself and my wife had to go through 8 weeks of "training" in a classroom setting.

The class was full of welfare recipients wanting to become fostar parents so they could draw a govt check.

Myself and my wife, who getup and work for a living make too much money to draw a check.. btw, it's 600 bucks in foodstamps, and 800 bucks cash per child in case anyone's curious. Some of the people that attended the class with us used this as their full time job.

Foster and adoption are 2 different things, yes, adoption is a bit more difficult to get approval for. But oddly enough, there is still a govt check you can recieve after adopting.


Rambling and have forgotten my point of posting... so, bye!
 
2013-07-25 12:54:33 PM  
Look on the bright side:

* Humans have a natural urge to reproduce their useless selves. It's biology. It's evolution. Some people can love adopted children, but most don't love them as much as blood relations which is why people are more likely to murder a non-blood relation than a similarly close blood relation. All your exes are buried in Texas. WE'RE ON TO YOUR EVIL WAYS.

* When people go to that kind of trouble, a baby is a wanted baby.

* The population growth rate in some countries is close to or below zero. This has many repercussions in the political, economic, cultural and social spheres. It is probably good to have the population growth rate close to zero, but not too low or too high.

* Births mean fewer immigrants are needed, which should satisfy the anti-immigrant and xenophobic portion of the population. If you don't like Mexicans and don't want them working for $2.00 an hour under slave conditions (WTF? why wouldn't you want them working at $2.00 under slave conditions if you don't like them?) then you should be happy that reproductive technology makes it possible for fat, lazy (mostly) white bastards like yourself to reproduce. Take care of your diabetes or it will kill you and your children.

* There is a shortage of healthy white babies to adopt. You have to "settle" for a child who is non-white, seriously handicapped or ill, and possibly no longer young enough to be cute, let alone to adapt to your family life. In short, you might have to adopt a sassy black dwarf teenager, like Gary Coleman. NTTAWWT.
Who the Hell do you think you are? Michael Jackson? If you could raise a sassy black dwarf properly, you'd have your own ferris wheel and a complete fun park in the back yard.

* Hey, what can I say? It's your damn Constitution that guarantees people the right to the pursuit of happiness. That means the natural state of being happy, not the chase, by the way. The word had a slightly different meaning in those days. It was broader. The Founders believed that the natural state of man was happiness (not contentment, but something more active). They believed God meant for us to be happy (and good). They therefore guaranteed it by law. You should be able to lead an active and reasonably safe and pleasant life. That's what America the Beautiful is all about. Her Evil Twin, America the Evil Harpy is just the opposite. She ain't promising anybody the right to plant a rose garden, and she'll tear it up if you try.

I like to think that Canada guarantees its people the right to the pursuit of happiness as well, in its own way. But being more conservative at the time of our Constitution-mongering in 1867, and more liberal at the second phase in 1982, we guaranteed a whole lot more and a whole lot less.

For example, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contained language that explicitly said that it was not an exhaustive list of rights and freedoms, and that the categories of people guaranteed these rights and freedoms were only for example. Thus it was easy to give gays the right to marry: they were implicitly grandfathered in before anybody dared to propose the legislation.

Sneaky bastards! Most MPs, even in the Conservative Party, couldn't see any really good reasons for gays and lesbians and many others not to have exactly the same rights and duties as other citizens, but they didn't want to PO their constituents back home in their ridings. So they left the job to "activist" judges in the Supreme Court and to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canadians have a whole bunch of unspoken rights and freedoms. We have no idea what they are until somebody complains about them being violated.

Cool.

I think that's cool.

The USA is separate but equal. You have a different way of doing things. It is at once more actively bootstrapy and more insane. It is called Congress.

In fact, this is one reason why I am on the American Fark.com instead of the Canadian Fark.com. You are fascinating little moonbats. Oh, don't demure. You know it.

The other reason is that there isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a Canadian Fark.com.

We have to piggy back on your resources, which are 9-12 times greater than our own because you have a bigger population (9x) with a lot more rich people (at least 12x) in it. You have half the world's billionaires, which means that you are trodden under the feet of the 1% more than us, but your 1% can also be more productive and generous than our 1%, who aren't nearly as numerous or rich.

Personally I suspect that Canada could use some major population growth and that we can't do it all by ourselves. Breeding is just too much work for kids nowaday. My Father spoke of this indirectly when I was home for a week of vacation and photograph scanning.

The family name is not being carried on by my immediate extended family. Of course, the other few million family members may be having greater success than us. Any hoo, that's not as serious as it sounds. My ancestors have had a lot more daughters than sons, and apparently, as Lisa is told by one of her female relations, the defective Simpson gene is carried on the Y chromosome. We don't produce as many great men as some more numerous family names, but those we do are often lulus (one of my many times great-uncles saved Canada from extinction--TWICE. Three times if you count his 15 children.). And our Lulus are often great women.

It's a question of tactics. Some times it is better to have sons, some times it is better to have daughters. In war you need many sons, in peacetime, many daughters, to get the job done. We have lived in peace for most of our 400 years in the New World. We have prospered, but under a variety of aliases and nationalities.
 
2013-07-25 12:54:48 PM  

vernonFL: [sfist.com image 300x220]


s.mcstatic.com
HE'S ARE BABY TOO
 
2013-07-25 12:57:48 PM  

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


But if you have poor vision, isn't that God's way of saying don't wear glasses?
 
2013-07-25 12:58:58 PM  

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


He's adorable.

Make sure you have copies of his birth certificate if he is eligible to be President. If you need advice on how to dance the infamous Dance of the Seven Veils with birth certificates, my 9th cousin 3 times removed, Barrack Hussein Obama, is considered to be an expert by many of my stupider, more backward cousins.
 
2013-07-25 12:58:59 PM  

bmwericus: /adopted myself


You adopted yourself?  How does that work?

Someone brought up a good point up thread about setting aside money for a year which would cover the cost of IVF.  Daycare for a newborn can easily approach 10K for a year.  Food, clothes, diapers, etc. for a child over year is going to be at least 5K.  If you can't set aside that money over the course of a year, how will you be able to afford raising a child.  If you don't have the planning skills and discipline to save that money, do you have the skills necessary to be a good parent.  This is not saying you need 15K now.  This is saying you want to do this, save for a year and do it.  It will have the added benefit of getting used to not having that extra cash your child will cost you.

Giving people who are not economically able to afford a child (or IVF) is not going to break the cycle of poverty.
 
2013-07-25 01:01:37 PM  
Goddamnit, no. If someone can't afford to take care of a little git, he or she should not farking have them until they are financially stable. Your hearts can hearts bleed all you want them to, but please stop using my money on lost causes; why don't you use it to fight overpopulation, or unemployment?
 
2013-07-25 01:02:20 PM  
Adoption ain't cheap.
 
2013-07-25 01:02:41 PM  

zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.


Awesome, force a couple to raise a child they don't really want. I can't see anything going wrong with that scenario.
 
2013-07-25 01:02:57 PM  

brantgoose: That means the natural state of being happy, not the chase, by the way. The word had a slightly different meaning in those days. It was broader. The Founders believed that the natural state of man was happiness (not contentment, but something more active)


Citation needed.

If that is true I have the right to a lot of things I don't have, because I'm not currently happy.
 
2013-07-25 01:04:24 PM  

brantgoose: * Hey, what can I say? It's your damn Constitution that guarantees people the right to the pursuit of happiness


Was a 28th amendment passed that I don't know about because that phrase does not appear in my version of the constitution. Now my copy of the deceleration of independence happens to have it.
 
2013-07-25 01:07:29 PM  
It's a tax credit, not assistance.  You have to spend money to get the money back.  Poor people dont have the initial 24k it takes to get the 12k return.  Who has 24k laying around that isnt in the Gee Oh Pee's voting bloc?
 
2013-07-25 01:09:20 PM  

someradicaldude: If you can't afford to bring a child into this world by whatever means, how will you afford to raise said child to not be a burden on society?


Not trolling, absolutely dead serious!


You know, it really doesn't cost that much the raise a kid, at least not until they get into school, unless of course you have to pay for daycare. In our case my wife left her job, because we would have lost money with her working and paying for daycare. The food is pretty cheap, our son is 2 and a half, and is happy with a simple sandwich and carrots for lunch, for dinner he eats what we eat, clothes and shows can add up, but Carter's always has big sales, and there are plenty of used clothing stores that specialize in kids clothes, most of which have barely been worn in the first place.

Right now, including inflation and everything else, it will cost me $304,000 to raise my son to 18 years old, and that includes 83k to pay for public college tuition. (http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator) That is around 12k per year.

IVF usually runs 20k per try, or more.

But, here is another way to look at it.

The median salary in the US is $47,000, and those people pay around 7050 in federal income tax per year, then over the course of a 30 year career you can expect those people to pay $211,500 in federal income taxes (Not including state or city taxes).

Now lets say that taxes pay 100% of the IVF treatment, and assume that the average IVF successes rate is 50%, so for each successful IVF it costs roughly 40k. That would mean over the given lifespan of that person, we have a positive tax income of $171,500

So the government is really just investing in future labor force and tax payers.
 
2013-07-25 01:11:37 PM  
Sure, $100-200K is totally worth it to create a new human, because there are so few of us.
 
2013-07-25 01:17:08 PM  

oldtaku: Sure, $100-200K is totally worth it to create a new human, because there are so few of us.


my point being, money isn't a valid argument, if you are saying the US is overpopulated, then that is just silly. the US isn't over populated, we have plenty of food, and plenty of space. We have a poor management system, and we do a bad job of dealing with those problems, I'll certainly agree with that.

But don't use the, "not with my money" line, because in the end, they money is more than paid back.
 
2013-07-25 01:17:46 PM  

brantgoose: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

He's adorable.

Make sure you have copies of his birth certificate if he is eligible to be President. If you need advice on how to dance the infamous Dance of the Seven Veils with birth certificates, my 9th cousin 3 times removed, Barrack Hussein Obama, is considered to be an expert by many of my stupider, more backward cousins.


Birth Certificate?  I've got video of his birth in a Boston hospital and him immediately swaddled in an american flag.
 
2013-07-25 01:20:58 PM  

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


As a atheist, I say Fark 'im. What has God done for us lately? Isn't He dead or something? You don't see him around much anymore, like you used to in the first chapters of Genesis.

It's not wise to fool around with Mother Nature, but it's not hard to improve on her handiwork either. Decisions have to be on a case-by-case basis. I'd hate to see reproductive technology used for unethical purposes or unwise purposes, such as sex-selection or the elimination of homosexuals. Homosexuals occur naturally in most of the "higher" species, so they must be useful to the species.

There's a lot to be said on either side of reproductive issues, but I think mostly every one should have freedom unless they are grossly incompetent or warped in some way. Even retarded people can produce healthy children of normal or superior intelligence, and even people with serious genetic tares that threaten the life of their offspring can use reproductive technology to avoid the sperm that carry those genes.

There's a reason why men produce gadzillions of sperm. They (the sperm as well as the men) compete. They are immensely variable. They give the species more room to evolve at near zero cost. In short, the Y chromosome is a good thing, even if it means a few genetic problems when it carries a defective gene. One reason why it is getting shorter is that all the defective genes it carries are being eliminated. The X chromosome often exists in two copies (even in some men) and thus doesn't get naturally selected as quickly.

Sex is a fairly good system. It works.

But reproductive technology can help when it doesn't work. It needs to be used carefully, prudently, ethically, and wisely, but it is all in all, a good thing.

I have concerns about the use and abuse of reproductive technology, but we don't have to listen to religion or to older, evolutionary imperatives. We can think and we should think until it hurts. This is part of being human. We are, as the philosopher said, slender, fragile, weak reeds, but we are reeds that think.

Bring on the genetic revolution, but make haste slowly, as the Emperor Augustus advised his bureaucrats to do.

The decision to have a child is one that most fallible humans can make for themselves. It is one that Nature no longer makes for every living thing because we have evolved minds and culture and religion and ethical philosophy, all tools that can be a powerful and healthy supplements to our instincts.

J.B.S. Haldane, whom I am reading with great pleasure and profit, said that some people use mainly human-based thinking and some people use universe-thinking. Scientists are in the universe-thinking camp mostly, while religious thinkers and the instinct-driven are mainly thinking in human terms or not thinking much.

I agree with him that we need both kinds of thinking, and that most of us muddle through with one or both at times. The truthiness people and the truth people, the fact-based and the Faith-based, the Xenophobes and the Xenophiles, use both to various degrees. I lean towards the universe-based camp but do not regard this kind of thinking as fool-proof, fail-safe or infalliable.

We need to think both on human time scales and universal time scales, we need to act locally and globally, we need to be better than we are.

Reproductive technology can help a lot to eliminate our faults, but it shouldn't be used to eliminate the wrong faults. Some of our faults are good for us. All science is based in a profound understanding of the role of ignorance in learning about the world. In fact, one of the greatest achievements of science, the theory of evolution, is practically a solution to the greatest problem which theologians have failed to solve in the last six thousand years or more: the Problem of Evil.

Not only does death play a creative role through natural selection, creating diversity and great beauty and strength in species by carving away the weak or maladapted like a sculptor carving stone or a topiary artist carving plants, but some of the other "evils" are similarly virtues in moderation and under proper control and guidance.

Our instincts are "designed" for a different world. We need to change them and guide them or we face death by obesity, death by addiction, death by violence or stupidity or misguided thoughts and actions, death even by hubris as we come to gain the powers of the gods without their wisdom and patience.
 
2013-07-25 01:23:02 PM  

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


Adorable.

I'll continue it with my 5-week old IVF twins

img842.imageshack.us

Could we have done adoption?  Sure, but it wouldn't have been any less expensive and the chances of actually getting placed were about the same as the chances of IVF success.  I wanted my own babies...sue me.

Oh, and we saved, scrimped, and borrowed $20K for these two and another $20K for Gratchling #1 (4 year old).  Never a second thought about the investment.

//we're all doing just fine without any government assistance, thank you very much.
///laughing at all the wildly inaccurate assumptions about both IVF and adoption in this thread
 
2013-07-25 01:23:26 PM  
Despite being rampantly fertile with two of my own wonderful kids, we looked into adoption and foster care.  We have a lot to share, and I don't want to do the pregnancy thing again.

Adoption - crazy money and hoops to jump through, with a high probability of failure.  Fostering, we are out because we are both engineers and work outside the home.  If you need daycare, you are ineligible to foster.
 
2013-07-25 01:28:36 PM  
You can't make insurance companies cover birth control but let them not cover IVF.

Either they cover everybody's reproductive preferences or none.
 
2013-07-25 01:32:33 PM  
According to the second creation myth in Genesis, God threw mankind out of Eden for fear least we eat of a second tree's fruit, the Tree of Life. We had already eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so we are ethical creatures, but with immortality we would have "become as gods".

I have noticed that people who have apple trees tend to count the apples and notice if some of them are missing. This may have been inherited from our Creator--be he or she God or Nature.

But the Old Coot had a point. We would have been even more destructive if we were immortal before we were wise and good. The Earth would have perished long ago as it is in danger of perishing not too far into the geological future from our wanton wastefulness.

But the Old Coot had a point. I will admit that much even though I don't believe in Him. I can still think like a Christian even though I haven't been a dues-paying Christian since puberty.

I believe, as Terry Pratchett and others have put it, that Darwin might have made a truly great theologian. I believe with them that he solved the Problem of Evil as well as Spinoza or any theologian or philosopher.

Death and evil are necessary for progress to exist. The trouble with angels is that they lack free will and a number of other improvements that make Man such an interesting experiment in Good and Evil.

And boy, do we ever excel in Evil! The Devil was put out of work by us long ago! In Good, however, we have our work cut out for us. There is often only one right way, although there are thousands of ways to go wrong. And sometimes there are many right ways, of which we are aware of only a few and have practiced even fewer.

If, and it's a big if, there is a Providence that shapes our ends, it seems to be of the DIY kind. We are jerry-built, bodgets, unfinished, and what programmers call kludge.

God obviously forgot some of his best work between one day and the next. Squids have better eyes than men. Birds have better lungs. Bees can see ultraviolet light and thus find their way into trumpet flowers that are clearly marked in ultraviolet patterns that are invisible to the human eye. But then birds and bees and flowers evolved together in ways they did not evolve with humans. They form a mutual aid society in which we have little part.

So God is not the be-all-and-end-all for me. He is just another tool, doing the best he can in a world that is obviously pretty well-fitted to fend for itself.
 
2013-07-25 01:34:41 PM  
Look at all of the charming people who will stand up on their soapbox and tell other people that they should adopt, but have no intention of ever doing so themselves. That sort of thing is for *other people.*
 
2013-07-25 01:39:51 PM  

Gratch: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

Adorable.

I'll continue it with my 5-week old IVF twins

[img842.imageshack.us image 480x640]

Could we have done adoption?  Sure, but it wouldn't have been any less expensive and the chances of actually getting placed were about the same as the chances of IVF success.  I wanted my own babies...sue me.

Oh, and we saved, scrimped, and borrowed $20K for these two and another $20K for Gratchling #1 (4 year old).  Never a second thought about the investment.

//we're all doing just fine without any government assistance, thank you very much.
///laughing at all the wildly inaccurate assumptions about both IVF and adoption in this thread


those are some keepers right there.
 
2013-07-25 01:42:34 PM  
The only mention I saw in TFA about the government actually paying for the procedure referred to the VA helping out with IVF or adoption services for people who suffer infertility due to service-related injuries.  I don't have a problem with that.
 
2013-07-25 01:44:21 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness a sign from natural selection that you shouldn't propagate


FTFY
 
2013-07-25 01:51:44 PM  
Buncha holier-than-thou people floating around in this thread. There's pros and cons to adoption and IVF. Just don't be an asshole and do what's right for you. Adoption should be easier and less expensive. There should also be access to mental healthcare for the child. Not all children up for adoption are dream kids. Some of them are nightmares, but not through any fault of their own.
 
2013-07-25 02:01:55 PM  

flondrix: The only mention I saw in TFA about the government actually paying for the procedure referred to the VA helping out with IVF or adoption services for people who suffer infertility due to service-related injuries.  I don't have a problem with that.


There was also talk of a tax credit for out of pocket expenses
 
2013-07-25 02:03:00 PM  

Rev.K: People who can't afford IVF treatments doesn't equal "poor people"  subby, you sh*thead.


Uh, that's exactly what it equals.
 
2013-07-25 02:09:06 PM  

Gratch: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

Adorable.

I'll continue it with my 5-week old IVF twins

[img842.imageshack.us image 480x640]

Could we have done adoption?  Sure, but it wouldn't have been any less expensive and the chances of actually getting placed were about the same as the chances of IVF success.  I wanted my own babies...sue me.

Oh, and we saved, scrimped, and borrowed $20K for these two and another $20K for Gratchling #1 (4 year old).  Never a second thought about the investment.

//we're all doing just fine without any government assistance, thank you very much.
///laughing at all the wildly inaccurate assumptions about both IVF and adoption in this thread


I love the babby photo and congrats to you and your spouse.  Good on 'ya. Good for not relying upon the silly US government for aid and choosing your own path.  BTW, the one on the right looks like he's ready to go out dancing :)
 
2013-07-25 02:12:47 PM  

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


He's beautiful. :)
 
2013-07-25 02:19:12 PM  
After seeing Gratch's great photo, and having read and re read this thread (it is relevant to my interests, after all). I can only get to two conclusions:

1.  No government or agency should prohibit, restrict, nor encourage the inception of children, unless at the will of parents/family/step parents and at that point, government needs to back out of the bedroom, slowly.

2.  It is still wrong for the US government to fund IVF when our foster care system is so out of whack and people like me living common law have a step child with no background checks, no security checks, nada.  Just my word that I'm his stem mom and no one worries about it.  How many people abuse that same trust?
 
2013-07-25 02:20:35 PM  
*step, not stem.
 
2013-07-25 02:36:13 PM  

GirlScoutSniper: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

He's beautiful. :)


i make pretty babies.

/actually, my wife brings the pretty
//https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151589691927359&l=876053419 9838 987261
/// notice he is putting things away in that video: those are my wife's genes
//// notice he is drooling and has command of random facts: those are my genes
 
2013-07-25 02:39:05 PM  
Don't need no stinkin' Nipple Necks!

s8.postimg.org
 
2013-07-25 02:39:29 PM  
If you can't come up with the money to make it, where will you get the money to raise it?

\\It wasn't unworldly expensive, pricey yes, but not so expensive that a person that could afford to raise a child couldn't afford it.
 
2013-07-25 02:51:03 PM  

ThatDarkFellow: Uh, that's exactly what it equals.


So supposing you needed IVF treatments right now, you've got $20,000 cash ready to go?
 
2013-07-25 02:53:47 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.

Ok, and are you ok with the government paying for the sometimes $20,000 it costs to adopt?


Oh no, the kids would be free from the orphanages.
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report