4 ms·

I’m not sure on the first question but I imagine that yes, the same types of tests are conducted. As for any to-be parents - yes and I’d recommend it. You may

I’m not sure on the first question but I imagine that yes, the same types of tests are conducted. As for any to-be parents - yes and I’d recommend it. You may find you both carry a relatively rare recessive gene that would give your offspring a 25% of having a certain disorder. This can guide your decision on if you want to go forward with natural fertilization and risk it (and make the choice after testing the cells of the developing baby) or opt for IVF to prevent the disorder (and all others that are testable). In parents that don’t have infertility problems, IVF is pretty successful. Especially if the mother is still in prime form (under 35 great but under 30 is spectacular) and the father doesn’t have poor sperm count and/or quality. For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life.

nemo44x 6y ago
I should add - for men with poor count and/or quality there is a product called ICSI which involves the IVF clinic inspecting sperm cells and finding “the best” one and injecting it into the ovum. To me it’s spectacular how involved we can be in the natural selection process due to our brains evolving so much. I can’t wait to see how we further this.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
> For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life. It certainly is a personal liberty. I am French, atheist, and I am very much attached to that freedom. Having healthy discussion about this is good as it is an eye opener for all the sides involved. Now, there is the general population part: someone who willingly decides to have a sick child that will cost more to the society must be ready to bear all the costs, including the ones after their death. On the other hand, this should also apply to people who smoke, are overweight etc. and though this choice are also a burden for the society, financially speaking. The last part (money) is not an easy one. The first one (morality) is much easier as everyone is an expert in the subject :)
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  > have a sick child that will cost more to the society This is easy - you just need a way to measure in advance someone's total utility to society, including any inventions they might make, number of people they make laugh or encourage, how many lives or livelihoods they may save, and then decide whether or not they're worth it. Get back to me when you have that, would you?
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    Oh come on - you pay taxes, don't you? Either we get rid of money and we live in some kind of wonderland, or we pay for the society and expect it to be serious. I am very much for a socialist society, like the one we have in France. I am ready to pay, and do it with pleasure, so that people born disabled, or living in poverty have a chance like my children do. When someone makes the clear decision to have a child that will be disabled then that person must assume that the world will not be running to help them when they realize they have huge expenses. They wanted these expenses so please do not come crying afterwards, though campaigns. This is very much different from accidents - we need to be solidar here. This is very similar to people who smoke or eat to become overweight and then cry when comes the operation that costs a fortune. Sorry - but I want my money to be spent on things that help the ones who need help and did not expect or predict to be in a bad situation. Not the ones who decided to have a disabled child becaise of some shower vision of theirs.
    - robertlagrant 6y ago
      In the scenario mentioned, no one decided to have a disabled child.
      - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
        See a few steps up in the thread: > For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
> or opt for IVF to prevent the disorder (and all others that are testable) This is a point I never considered (theoretically - I am a parent of teens so the question is over for me). I always assumed that IVF is much more risky (all things taken into account) that natural procreation but I have never actually gave a thought on that.

nemo44x 6y ago

I should add - for men with poor count and/or quality there is a product called ICSI which involves the IVF clinic inspecting sperm cells and finding “the best” one and injecting it into the ovum. To me it’s spectacular how involved we can be in the natural selection process due to our brains evolving so much. I can’t wait to see how we further this.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago

> For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life. It certainly is a personal liberty. I am French, atheist, and I am very much attached to that freedom. Having healthy discussion about this is good as it is an eye opener for all the sides involved. Now, there is the general population part: someone who willingly decides to have a sick child that will cost more to the society must be ready to bear all the costs, including the ones after their death. On the other hand, this should also apply to people who smoke, are overweight etc. and though this choice are also a burden for the society, financially speaking. The last part (money) is not an easy one. The first one (morality) is much easier as everyone is an expert in the subject :)

robertlagrant 6y ago
> have a sick child that will cost more to the society This is easy - you just need a way to measure in advance someone's total utility to society, including any inventions they might make, number of people they make laugh or encourage, how many lives or livelihoods they may save, and then decide whether or not they're worth it. Get back to me when you have that, would you?
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  Oh come on - you pay taxes, don't you? Either we get rid of money and we live in some kind of wonderland, or we pay for the society and expect it to be serious. I am very much for a socialist society, like the one we have in France. I am ready to pay, and do it with pleasure, so that people born disabled, or living in poverty have a chance like my children do. When someone makes the clear decision to have a child that will be disabled then that person must assume that the world will not be running to help them when they realize they have huge expenses. They wanted these expenses so please do not come crying afterwards, though campaigns. This is very much different from accidents - we need to be solidar here. This is very similar to people who smoke or eat to become overweight and then cry when comes the operation that costs a fortune. Sorry - but I want my money to be spent on things that help the ones who need help and did not expect or predict to be in a bad situation. Not the ones who decided to have a disabled child becaise of some shower vision of theirs.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    In the scenario mentioned, no one decided to have a disabled child.
    - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
      See a few steps up in the thread: > For the last one I err towards it being a personal liberty to decide what life you do and do not bring into the world. But it does get more hairy when you start discussing public support in terms of resources to support the child/family. Then it is everyone’s business imo. But I’d imagine people that can afford IVF don’t rely on government programs to finance their life.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago

> or opt for IVF to prevent the disorder (and all others that are testable) This is a point I never considered (theoretically - I am a parent of teens so the question is over for me). I always assumed that IVF is much more risky (all things taken into account) that natural procreation but I have never actually gave a thought on that.