Is it normal to think that artificial reproduction should be limited?

47% Normal
16 Comments

Meaning, IVF is to be gotten rid of, a infertile couple can only use Artificial Insemination 6 times max and if all attempts fail, they are to be encouraged to adopt. If one's incapable of having biological children, people need to understand that it's not meant to be (It's not life being cruel or unfair to them). No one is entilted to propagating their DNA. There's so many kids already alive that would love to have new parents that are forced to go without because people are too self-interested and only care about their genetics. There's no sense in undergoing a insemination procedure 7+ times or seeking out a very expensive and very invasive procedure (IVF) just so you can have a baby. There also needs to be a maximum age limit in which you can undergo artificial reproduction: no older than 39.

If you're 40 or over, you can't recieve any of it and adoption should be your only option. We don't need anymore women having babies at 40+.

Voting Results
47% Normal
Based on 15 votes (7 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 16 )
  • disthing
    9 years ago

    I generally agree with you.

    If there's a biological issue preventing two people from having children, then that's what should be tackled i.e. the causes of infertility should be given the attention.

    Using expensive artificial means to create children, just so they share the genes of their parents, seems bizarre - especially when there are so many children in need of adoption.

    However, if a couple decide to pay for IVF or similar, then I think that's their prerogative. It's their money, their choice.

    My problem is with the fact that, in the UK, you can receive IVF on the NHS (National Health Service) - paid for by our taxes. When we have a health service that struggles to provide front-line care as it is, and is facing increasing strain due to various factors, IVF is an absolute luxury, akin to cosmetic surgery.

    So I don't have an issue with treatments like IVF providing they're paid for by the prospective parents - I don't agree with you that there should be a limit. But I DO have an issue with governments spending people's taxes on providing such treatments.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • Nokiot9
    9 years ago

    I think more people should adopt anyway. I was adopted. And there are tons of orphans all over the world that need a mother and father and a safe place to sleep and food to eat. In the rural areas of china, if ur family has a boy, GREAT, you can send him off to the city to work and he can send $ home. If you have a girl, BAD, they can't work. And since they can only have one child, they feed her ground up glass and pins.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Nokiot9
      9 years ago

      If more people adopted there would be a place for children in situations like that to go. Anyway. There have been more than a few parents that have done just that, and years later take their daughter to the doctor because she is complaining of pain in her abdomen. They do X-rays and see that her small intestine is littered with broken razors and pins from her birth parents trying to off her.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • [Old Memory]
    9 years ago

    Nah I don't agree with you and don't think it's really your business, and also that it's nothing to be worked up into a tizzy about. If they are willing to spend the money, if they are willing to go through what it takes, then why not? Who cares what they do. When it comes to having children, I think it's ok for people to be "self-interested" and want their own child. Telling someone "its just not meant to be" is crap when we have the technology to make it be, even if it just takes seven or eight times.

    Just because there are children needing adopted doesn't mean you should put limits on what a couple can do to have their own child. Maybe it'll take eight tries and they will give up and adopt, but that's their choice.

    So...nah

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • omgcatz
    9 years ago

    Eugenics is unpopular for a reason. Human rights and all that jazz. Sounds like you were born in the wrong era. Nazi germany sounds more your style.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      9 years ago

      I'm not a nazi. All I'm saying is that you're already screwing with nature by seeking artificial means of reproducing so the least you could do is quit when you come up babyless after 6 tries. It's not about eugenics. You can try to have a baby by artificial insemination but there must come a point where you shouldn't try anymore and just accept it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • omgcatz
        9 years ago

        That is exactly what your OP is suggesting.

        eu·gen·icsyoˈjeniks/noun: eugenics

        The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          9 years ago

          I'll repeat myself:

          You can try to have a baby by artificial insemination but there must come a point where you shouldn't try anymore and just accept it.

          Again, not eugenics but common sense. I'm not saying that no one should reproduce. I'm saying people need to be more accepting of their misfortunes.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • omgcatz
            9 years ago

            Eugenics - a infertile couple can only use Artificial Insemination 6 times max

            Eugenics - No one is entilted to propagating their DNA.

            Eugenics - There also needs to be a maximum age limit

            Eugenics - We don't need anymore women having babies at 40+

            You, sir, are a bigot.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              9 years ago

              1)Not Having kids over 40 is a simple matter of common sense. Have you heard of all the difficulties of having one over that age? Do you really want more disabled/deformed babies? It's selfish to place that upon them.

              2) The world's overpopulated as is. So no, no one's entilted to that.

              3) I'm female by the way.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • thegypsysailor
    9 years ago

    Basically, I agree with both the OP and disthing, though I lean a bit farther toward accepting what nature gives you.
    However, sadly, it all boils down to money again, honey. In the US there is definitely a double standard; the rich do not often pay for their crimes nearly as heavily as the poor. So in this case, those who can afford the IVF will have genetic children, but some poor working family (who would probably make much better parents, by the way) will not. But I'm with disthing that public health should not pay for it.
    I believe that each couple should be restricted to no more than 2 children, no matter whether they can afford more or not, because large families are just not needed any more. As there is no way to legislate this, perhaps tax incentives for less than 2 kids would help.
    At some point, humanity will reach critical mass and it would be a great thing if each couple voluntarily chose to avoid this rather than procreate beyond reason.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0