This is a serious question. As such be serious in your comments and be mindful of the stream rules. No trolling, period.

You do you. I'm not sure I'd try. Personally, if I can't get pregnant, I'd adopt exclusively.

Too much risk for me, morality aside although I agree with you. It's a pretty big gamble, whereas adoption is a sure fire way to become a parent and give someone a better life.

I believe it's a pandora's box that opens up a host of other issues that would never need to be brought up if a couple simply chose to adopt. For example introducing third parties into an intimate act like procreation, giving a woman multiple hormones so she can produce many eggs at one time, implanting several embryos at once and if multiple ones succeed then aborting the "extras" freezing and storing embryos, the issue of surrogacy and that woman's rights. I just think the harms outweigh the benefit and to what end? So a woman can "experience " pregnancy? I don't understand why we need to go to such lengths when there are already children wanting homes.

So you know where I stand, and I agree with what you're saying, but I'm going to try and run this as neutrally as possible so my reply may not be quite what you expect. You are saying you prefer and promote adoption over IVF, but my question is, is it moral?

I don't think it's moral for the reasons I mention because it leads to one immoral decision after another.

10-4, and I'm with you, like I said just trying to stay neutral :)

Worked for my sister. (I don’t see any moral issue with it. Now cloning...)

And yes, cloning is just...wow. That's taking things too far.

We have several friends and some family that have gone through the process too, some have worked out and are very blessed because of it, some didn't. I honestly never thought about the subject in depth till my wife and I realized we have fertility problems and it came down to either IVF or adoption. The part I really struggled with was what happens to the extra embryos? I'm pro-life, and believe that once sperm joins egg and begins to develop on its own that it's a life, so to think of disposing of those or freezing them did not sit well morally with me. If you're more on the "cluster of cells" side then I can understand your viewpoint but we won't agree.

yes. why not?

What is in-vitro fertilization?

Google it for more info, but basically extracting human eggs from a woman and joining them with sperm outside the body in a lab, and putting one or two fertilized eggs back into the woman to impregnate her. Other fertilized eggs will either be destroyed or cryogenically frozen for later use.

Oh. Well, I suppose that it all depends on what happens to both the woman and the other fertilized eggs. I wouldn't be against freezing them, since they can be brought back.

In one round of IVF, the doctors will extract as many eggs as possible to increase the chances of success. All of them are typically fertilized for the same reason. Then, one or two (based on parents decision) will be implanted in the mother. That leaves potentially four to seven left, which will be frozen for a limited period of time, and I'm not sure what that time period is anymore but lets say 10 years. If after 10 years they have not been used for any number of reasons such as the parents no longer want more kids (8 kids is a lot, and most people don't want to be octo-mom), the mother is unable to conceive, death of the parents, etc. then the fertilized eggs are destroyed.

Jeebus Chrysler, yeah, that sounds kinds dangerous for the woman.

That said, adoption probably would be better, but that wouldn't really make this immoral.

I'd want my child to have good genes.

I'm sure your genes are fine as frog hair, but would you care to elaborate on why or offer refute on the more questionable moral parts of the procedure? If not, cool.

Hi. Remember me? Let me guess, nope.

No I remember you! How you been?

Could be better, I’m under so much pressure

What's going on?

Most nations of the world have a ‘defence’ industry who’s sole purpose is to create technology for the destruction of human beings.
However if we create life utilising technology some people think this is a moral issue.
I suppose what I’m saying is if humans can create items for the taking of life surely we should counter act it by creating items for the bringing of life to fruition.
As long as the child is loved that is all that matters it should be of no ones concern how the was created.

Peace.

I get your analogy, and it makes sense, but we have the natural means to create life and in many cases do not sustain it well enough when it's created, third world starving kids and orphans and such, or to use your point using technology to destroy lives via abortion. Is it moral to spend thousands to create one life (or a few) when other lives suffer or will be lost?

I respect your answer, not trying to argue at all, just dialog for the sake of discussion!

Peace.

Firstly consider the person who wants a child but has some issue that invetero fertilization solves? and should we do that? YES. And then for all good things we invent, man has a possibility to misuse to his own ends. So should we not invent good things because some ppl may misuse them?

Can you say that the standard practice of fertilizing 4 to 8 eggs, using one or two, freezing or disposing of the rest is a good thing? I have been in that position before and have formed my opinion, have you considered the scenario I mentioned? I ask with respect, let me know what you think.

idk.. why is that the standard practice? What is good about doing it that way? and does that out weigh the negatives at that point? I am open minded. If you want legal regulation or something at that point, make the pitch.

Not looking for legal regs at all, just for people to think about it. Multiple eggs are used because the lab is not as precise as natural fertilization, plus naturally only the best sperm ever make it to the egg. In a lab, you just have someone randomly grabbing sperm and injecting it into an egg, so survival of the best DNA is left to the lab tech, not nature. As such, some embryos are more suitable or viable than others just because of the human error factor. Then it's up to a doctor to decide which one(s) are best to use for impregnation. Some fine human beings have been born through the process, but others have been born into suffering or did not make it period. The negatives are risk vs. Cost, having to decide what to do with "left over" embryos, doctors playing God, and potentially wasted efforts when perfectly viable children (such as my daughter) are born all the time and could have nothing to look forward to but foster care by the state. That's a lot of words for a response, but you asked and I'm being honest. So please dont hold back in your response, I'm obviously thorough in my replies so I cant refuse someone elses, lol! Cheers, and thanks for chatting.

I dont...really know...I mean,I know what it is, but I dont know everything that goes on, you know?

Don't feel bad, it's a very complex procedure and even at 33 years old with plenty of explanation it took me and my wife several weeks to process it all and make a decision for ourselves. We ultimately chose to adopt instead because we couldn't justify IVF morally and financially, and there is significant risk involved along with a very intense medical regimen that puts the woman's body through a lot of stress. If you're interested, I recommend you check out the actual details on the interwebz to learn more.

I will.I didnt really realize there were things wrong with it until now.Thank you.

So I guess this is where the "know your debater" concept comes into play...I've seen enough dialog between you and others to know some of your points that will form your stance, and a lot of it goes along with your stance on abortion. The definitions of fetuses, babies, zygotes, "clusters of cells", etc. are used with the IVF argument as well. I'll say that for me, I feel that when sperm joins egg and they "fuse together", and begin to multiply on their own (a mother sustains the growth, but the cells do their own thing independently of the mother with their own DNA), that is an individual human life that should not be destroyed. So when extra embryos are either cryogenically frozen or "disposed of", that is ending a human life, which I am against and don't want to be held accountable for that. I've honestly avoided some opportunities to speak up in some of your conversations in the past because I know that you fundamentally disagree with me on several things, and honestly I've had some pleasant conversations with you on other topics, and felt that it would be best just to concentrate on humor and other topics we DO share common interest in. But, I'm honored you decided to comment on my question, and won't refuse a discussion if you think we'll get anywhere with it. I'm all ears to see what your thoughts are if you'd like to talk about it.

Yes, I think many on here don't give you that credit, that you have your opinions just as everyone does, but you are very fair if a conversation is kept civil and respectful. I have nothing against people with differing opinions or discussion of those opinions, I do have issues with those who try to force their opinions instead of defending them, or resort to insults or disrespect. I will say you do a great job of stirring the pot though, and it can be quite entertaining :) hence why I've typically just stayed on the sidelines. I'm not big on confrontation, life is too short to argue with people.

I think for me it's my religious beliefs, God plays a big part of it. I know you are an atheist, but have you read the Bible or any part of it? I could point to several places which explain my belief, but otherwise just know that I feel innocent life is innocent life and it should be protected at all stages, not just at the line in the sand that people tend to draw, which is another problem with the whole thing for me. Many people have differing opinions on where that line is and what is acceptable and what is not. Your line is when pain can be felt, others are ok with right before the head pops out. At some point you have to ask, if even the supporters are having so much disagreement about what is ok and what is not, is this something that should be ok at all?

Thanks for responding, stay safe on the road today if you're working :)

I HAVE to be against it because I’m against both abortion and procreation. I find it truly amazing that folks are willing to go that far to pass down their genes instead of adopting. Doing something this unnatural simply for self-satisfaction (at the expense of childless taxpayers and unlucky aborted embryos) is where one’s ego reaches the bottom of the barrel.

Well you know what your position is and you own it, I'll give you that :) Based on previous conversations I've had with you, we may not agree on many things but we can agree on adoption and have the same stance on IVF, so hey, there's our common ground! I have to say though, although I disagree with the procedure, I try to find the bright side of anything I can, and good things have come from it such as progress made into fertility treatments (you are anti-procreation so I doubt we'll agree on that point), and I have come to know some wonderful people who were born out of the process, several family members in fact that are class acts. People can be blessed by it, but I believe blessings can be attained from other avenues without the risk and cost of IVF, such as adoption which is obviously my preferred option.

Your friends who were born from IVF could’ve just been born from traditional reproduction.

They as individuals would not have been, as their parents (like me and my wife) dealt with infertility. But, others as single statistics of population counts would have been. Had they been adopted, they would be different people.

They probably would’ve still existed as different life forms. Besides, what if a really terrible person comes from IVF?

I think as a Christian that every life is unique, and it only manifests once as one body, mind, and spirit, but if you believe otherwise I can understand what you mean at least. What if a terrible person is born naturally? They already have been in the past, and more are sure to come by whatever means they are born...don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for IVF, but I know good people who were born that way. I think we're in a circular dialog now though...

I was just saying that bad people could be born from IVF to refute your argument about good people from IVF. Even if you believe that the meaning of life should be to bring as many souls to life as is possible, giving birth causes children in Africa to suffer & die from starvation, and more importantly, keeping humans alive requires deforestation, which kills (and prevents the existence of) many wild animals who could’ve lived & reproduced in those raided habitats.

yup