5 ms·

>> We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Can you expand? Are you making the claim that normal ivf is either immoral or illicit? Based on religiou

>> We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Can you expand? Are you making the claim that normal ivf is either immoral or illicit? Based on religious grounds, or actual discussable morality? There are many ethical discussions to be had about research and potential genetic manipulation, but I'm not aware of any general "we" that believes IVF is immoral, other than orthodoxly religious. I'm eager to be enlightened otherwise!

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
As an atheist, I can say that I have misgivings about it myself. At minimum, the true need for IVF is quite small compared to its demand, where it is used as a crutch by people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives.
- richie_adler 3y ago
  > people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives Who would those be?
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on the poor decisions, and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? More generally - It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, so I'd be genuinely eager to hear more!
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    The biggest, would be waiting too long to attempt procreation. No one should be having kids in highschool, but if you're in your late 40s and only getting around to it at that point... waited too long. Questionable lifestyles with all their ill health implications would be a close second. I don't know that I could give you dozens of distinct reasons, but I bet I could fill out a top 5 pretty easy. > and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? Let's be objective here. If, through no fault of your own, you are sterile and childless and if technology makes it possible to effectively reverse that, then though it may not be ideal it is acceptable. Though far too late for the victims, those who were forcibly sterilized decades ago would have qualifed. Someone with some congenital issue maybe. Possibly those who have suffered peculiar accidents (more likely for men than women?). > It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, If we're talking about people I care about, relatives of mine or not, I would want those children to have a true and genuine human experience. "Mommy couldn't bother to get around to making you before her ovaries shriveled up, and so Dr. Frankenbaby cooked you up in a test tube and gestated you inside GMO-gestation livestock" isn't that. The only thing that gives me pause is that, generally speaking, I don't care about any of you. This will make it easier to think of the vast bulk of humanity as things, rather than people.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      > waiting too long to attempt procreation > If, through no fault of your own, you are sterile and childless and if technology makes it possible to effectively reverse that In the modern Western economy, it's pretty easy to find oneself not financially able to sustain a family until one is in one's early forties. I'd say people "waiting too long" are meeting your criteria. > I would want those children to have a true and genuine human experience. "Mommy couldn't bother to get around to making you before her ovaries shriveled up, and so Dr. Frankenbaby cooked you up in a test tube and gestated you inside GMO-gestation livestock" isn't that. For what it's worth... I gestated a bit too long and wouldn't biologically come out. Nearly died. Was "from my mother's womb untimely ripp'd," as the Bard might put it. Me and about 32% of other American births. None of this bothers me, of course, because I don't remember any of it. I don't have any memories until about the time I was verbal. So my lack of having the true and genuine human experience of passing through a vagina into a waiting nurse or OB-GYN's arms hasn't really been, you know... An issue. For me or the other 32% of living Americans. I'd counsel against putting hard limits on what makes for "a true and genuine human experience." This deeply unnatural technology of the Caesarean section has allowed me and millions of others a chance at life, as well as decreasing the maternal death rate drastically. If gestation in whatever a "GMO-gestation livestock" is provided even more people a chance at life... Who cares? Such limits are also a good way to miss the awesome breadth of what the human experience is. It's a pretty wide thing. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        > In the modern Western economy, it's pretty easy to find oneself not financially able to sustain a family until one is in one's early forties. I'd say people "waiting too long" are meeting your criteria. In Africa, there's someone who lives on $10/month. It's not stopping them. When you talk about "being financially able to sustain a family", I get the impression you're talking about getting a purebred dog with a pedigree, because you want a pet but it can't be just any... "has to be perfect". > So my lack of having the true and genuine human experience of passing through a vagina No one cares about that, least of all I. If you think it's comparable to what some people dream of though, well, I don't know what to say. Be grateful for your lack of imagination and its protective properties to the manmade horrors beyond comprehension heading our way.
- krapp 3y ago
  You want to limit access to reproductive medical technology only to those who meet your arbitrary moral criteria? Are you certain you're an atheist?
  - anon291 3y ago
    Not the OP, but you seem to be confusing atheist with having no moral norms.
    - krapp 3y ago
      I'm not, I'm implying that putting moral prerequisites onto reproductive rights is a de facto religious point of view.
      - anon291 3y ago
        It's really not. Religion is about a human connection with the divine or supernatural. Encoding morality into public rules is a legal question.
    - NikolaNovak 3y ago
      Not the OP or GP either :-) but while I agree that literally everybody has internal morals, by definition; there is such a huge correlation in western society between religion and opposition to reproductive rights / aids, that I can understand the question even if not the snarky tone. I've seen very few (not zero but close) non-religious ethical systemic discussions against reproductive aids. As I said in another comment though,I'm eager to learn!
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Well, this person hasn’t said it shouldn’t be allowed, they’ve explicitly walked it back to saying that most people don’t have a “true need” for IVF, and have made other bad lifestyle choices. Which seems weird and judgmental, but it doesn’t necessarily have to come from a religious place. It is hard to speculate about people’s beliefs without putting words in their mouth. But generally people can use all sorts of things (evolutionary biology, economics, whatever) to justify themselves.
- almatabata 3y ago
  You mean cases like this maybe? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/annegret-raunigk-german-woman-birth-quadruplets-aged-65 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/annegret-rauni... At 65 the woman wanted more kids even though she had already had 13 before those 4 if i understood the article correctly. As far as i understand german doctors would not let her do an IVF but in ukraine she found a doctor. It seems they went above and beyond the usual numbers of embryos to guarantee she would get pregnant.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

As an atheist, I can say that I have misgivings about it myself. At minimum, the true need for IVF is quite small compared to its demand, where it is used as a crutch by people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives.

richie_adler 3y ago
> people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives Who would those be?
NikolaNovak 3y ago
Can you elaborate on the poor decisions, and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? More generally - It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, so I'd be genuinely eager to hear more!
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  The biggest, would be waiting too long to attempt procreation. No one should be having kids in highschool, but if you're in your late 40s and only getting around to it at that point... waited too long. Questionable lifestyles with all their ill health implications would be a close second. I don't know that I could give you dozens of distinct reasons, but I bet I could fill out a top 5 pretty easy. > and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? Let's be objective here. If, through no fault of your own, you are sterile and childless and if technology makes it possible to effectively reverse that, then though it may not be ideal it is acceptable. Though far too late for the victims, those who were forcibly sterilized decades ago would have qualifed. Someone with some congenital issue maybe. Possibly those who have suffered peculiar accidents (more likely for men than women?). > It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, If we're talking about people I care about, relatives of mine or not, I would want those children to have a true and genuine human experience. "Mommy couldn't bother to get around to making you before her ovaries shriveled up, and so Dr. Frankenbaby cooked you up in a test tube and gestated you inside GMO-gestation livestock" isn't that. The only thing that gives me pause is that, generally speaking, I don't care about any of you. This will make it easier to think of the vast bulk of humanity as things, rather than people.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > waiting too long to attempt procreation > If, through no fault of your own, you are sterile and childless and if technology makes it possible to effectively reverse that In the modern Western economy, it's pretty easy to find oneself not financially able to sustain a family until one is in one's early forties. I'd say people "waiting too long" are meeting your criteria. > I would want those children to have a true and genuine human experience. "Mommy couldn't bother to get around to making you before her ovaries shriveled up, and so Dr. Frankenbaby cooked you up in a test tube and gestated you inside GMO-gestation livestock" isn't that. For what it's worth... I gestated a bit too long and wouldn't biologically come out. Nearly died. Was "from my mother's womb untimely ripp'd," as the Bard might put it. Me and about 32% of other American births. None of this bothers me, of course, because I don't remember any of it. I don't have any memories until about the time I was verbal. So my lack of having the true and genuine human experience of passing through a vagina into a waiting nurse or OB-GYN's arms hasn't really been, you know... An issue. For me or the other 32% of living Americans. I'd counsel against putting hard limits on what makes for "a true and genuine human experience." This deeply unnatural technology of the Caesarean section has allowed me and millions of others a chance at life, as well as decreasing the maternal death rate drastically. If gestation in whatever a "GMO-gestation livestock" is provided even more people a chance at life... Who cares? Such limits are also a good way to miss the awesome breadth of what the human experience is. It's a pretty wide thing. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      > In the modern Western economy, it's pretty easy to find oneself not financially able to sustain a family until one is in one's early forties. I'd say people "waiting too long" are meeting your criteria. In Africa, there's someone who lives on $10/month. It's not stopping them. When you talk about "being financially able to sustain a family", I get the impression you're talking about getting a purebred dog with a pedigree, because you want a pet but it can't be just any... "has to be perfect". > So my lack of having the true and genuine human experience of passing through a vagina No one cares about that, least of all I. If you think it's comparable to what some people dream of though, well, I don't know what to say. Be grateful for your lack of imagination and its protective properties to the manmade horrors beyond comprehension heading our way.
krapp 3y ago
You want to limit access to reproductive medical technology only to those who meet your arbitrary moral criteria? Are you certain you're an atheist?
- anon291 3y ago
  Not the OP, but you seem to be confusing atheist with having no moral norms.
  - krapp 3y ago
    I'm not, I'm implying that putting moral prerequisites onto reproductive rights is a de facto religious point of view.
    - anon291 3y ago
      It's really not. Religion is about a human connection with the divine or supernatural. Encoding morality into public rules is a legal question.
  - NikolaNovak 3y ago
    Not the OP or GP either :-) but while I agree that literally everybody has internal morals, by definition; there is such a huge correlation in western society between religion and opposition to reproductive rights / aids, that I can understand the question even if not the snarky tone. I've seen very few (not zero but close) non-religious ethical systemic discussions against reproductive aids. As I said in another comment though,I'm eager to learn!
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Well, this person hasn’t said it shouldn’t be allowed, they’ve explicitly walked it back to saying that most people don’t have a “true need” for IVF, and have made other bad lifestyle choices. Which seems weird and judgmental, but it doesn’t necessarily have to come from a religious place. It is hard to speculate about people’s beliefs without putting words in their mouth. But generally people can use all sorts of things (evolutionary biology, economics, whatever) to justify themselves.
almatabata 3y ago
You mean cases like this maybe? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/annegret-raunigk-german-woman-birth-quadruplets-aged-65 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/annegret-rauni... At 65 the woman wanted more kids even though she had already had 13 before those 4 if i understood the article correctly. As far as i understand german doctors would not let her do an IVF but in ukraine she found a doctor. It seems they went above and beyond the usual numbers of embryos to guarantee she would get pregnant.