This ‘your view’ is prompted by this evening’s national news here in the US. There was a story about the status of the latest multiple births of 8 babies. The exact details of the story are not my focus but the closing commentary of the news show regarding the ethics involved in multiple births. I am assuming although I have not kept up with the details, this instance of multiple births was as a result of artificial means rather than a natural occurrence. Given that the commentator cited multiple ethicists who were all in agreement that this was not ethical due to the various dangers and costs to mother, family and babies, near term and long term, I think it is a safe assumption.
So my question to you is just that is it ethical for humans to artificially create human life as in the means used to have a multiple outcome of 8 babies? Frankly, the exact number is irrelevant; it is the method of conception of life that is my real concern.
Is it ethical to artificially create human life?
The choice of wording in that last sentence should give a hint as to my own opinion. I do not endorse artificial means of conception nor would I ever advise a woman seeking my counsel to pursue such a course of action to have a baby. Given that I am an atheist and major fan of science that might come off as rather odd. Contrary to popular belief, atheists are moral and ethical so it is possible for us to be morally or ethically conflicted as anyone else. Even as a firm supporter of the scientific method I can still be concerned that simply because science can do something, should it. I would advise either coming to terms with her inability to conceive or pursue another avenue for creating a family like adoption. You will notice I am not addressing the paternal side of this issue only the maternal. Which does not mean I do not welcome men’s opinions on this matter, so please do comment.
For the sake of brevity, let me wrap this up by saying I fully understand the gravity of this question. It is not a question to be taken lightly. It is one encumbered with many different issues from the elitism of being financially capable of incurring the enormous cost of something like artificial insemination to the ethical considerations of just being able to create life outside of natural means.
Contributor: Cyn
feels like shes cheating, creating those octuplets
i think that it is the mothers choice. if she is capable of rasing more than one child then why not?
yes yes yes
cyn~
as one atheist to another, thanks for this topic! I also believe that this whole business of fertility treatments, in-vitro fertilization, and embryo transfer is a bit to sci-fi for my tastes.
i do not support fertility treatments to ensure a woman has children. if your body was not biologically capable to bear children, then there is likely a good reason for it!
also, it might be wise to see exactly where the major ethical considerations went awry in the case you speak of-seems the mother of the octs already has 6 other children, is unmarried, lives at home with her parents, and has had all the children by in-vitro!
craziness, huh? how, exactly is she going to fund the dreams of 14 children? she’d have to buy a bus just to take them all to the mall! the biggest concern is that the family cannot support the children, and will rely on public & government assistance.
i just thought humans needed large families years ago to help with the family farm or to ensure survival of at least one or two offspring… not to start your own family softball team!
rtr
Yes and no I guess.
I can’t just say yes, because I agree with the “just because science can do something should it?” (Atomic Bombs dudes)
But I can’t say no because, I’m not a woman. And I imagine being a woman who desires to have children, but can’t through natural means being told “No” to what could be her only real chance at having a child would hurt in some way I couldn’t understand.
Eh. I don’t know.
5. ringtailroxy -
yw
and yeah, that particular story becomes more tragic by the day. getting lotta press coverage stateside. not sure how its playing out around the world.
the genie is definitely outa the bottle on this and there is way too much money to be made so i don’t see it stopping any time soon if at all. then there is this whole cultural pressure to breed..at least here. and definitely fueled by our religious heritage and just such a complex issue because of it.
i love science. but this whole thing scares the hella out me. anything in human hands..religion or science can become so perverse, so contrary to its origins as to become unrecognizable. and so destructive.
and it seems like we keep escalating the body count and damages w/ each new level of any new technique. fire was just burning acreage. maybe few dozen dead. ramp that up to nuclear. you got millions dead. and damage that extends into future generations.
now we’re mucking about w/ the very essence of human life. so who knows…..
It’s fun to rant about your ethics, right? Too bad it gets us no where. Personal ethics mean little in the long run. The question really is not “do you believe in artificial creation?” it should be “should atrifical creation be allowed.” The answer is yes. If science can do something, and people can have a choice in a matter, they should have the right to, and that’s the best mnorality. Let people have any SOCIAL (not always economic) freedoms they want, as long as they don’t infringe on the social freedoms of others. That’s the best ethical code of all.
I’m going along with the question of just because science can do something should it thing here….
I mean I understand if you want to have a baby but geez 8?! thats going a little overkill. also, if you can’t do it naturally then why try and risk it by doing it the artificial way? You have to think of those kids and not just yourself when you make that decision.
I know tons of women who have wanted a baby and tried and tried, a few turned to in-vitro and it didn’t work, and a few adopted. I think that is the best measure honestly….why spend potentially twice as much just getting maybe a chance at being pregnant rather than saving a child from a life of feeling unloved?
A friend of mine is adopted and his mom said that it was the best thing she has ever done because you can’t imagine how these kids grow up without love and feeling abandoned. Whether you adopt from the US, China, Russia or wherever, consider that first I think.
greg: Very nice point you have.
I just want to add something here….I’m not saying it shouldn’t be allowed or it should be illegal or banned. people should have that choice, I just wish instead of jumping into this wonder cure that sounds amazing they would look around first and explore other options…
Kids are our future, and how would you feel if you were left alone with no one to guide you and you see people spending thousands of dollars to create something when there are thousands of chances to save a person that’s already there…no science needed….
They haven’t even released whether or not she used fertility drugs, and even considering, I don’t see how it’s unethical. It is her own eggs with another person’s sperm, it’s just skipping the *****ual contact part. This is a decision that many people come to because it’s their last hope. I don’t get the argument.
IMO I don’t see the problem with creating life. Playing god? Are you kidding me? Think about the outcome we can have with artifical births. We can be more resistant to diseases, choose all prolific features and outcome and stuff. I know I’m making some utopian society here but just think what if, no, what is the problem? Is there one? I just don’t see that big of a problem? Overpopulation? Like torturing a baby with the results sure, but you can’t control really anything these days.
I don’t think this form of artificial birth is a good example of creating artificial life. This is nowhere near the plot of Gattaca.
I think it is their right to choose how to have children. It can be very difficult and expensive to adopt, so if they are unable to have kids, why not? I know people who have tried for years to adopt with no success, and then turned to technology, which can be a miracle if you can’t have kids on your own. I agree with exploring adoption first, but sometimes it just doesn’t work out.
There are just so many other worse issues, giving a child to loving parents just doesn’t seem like a problem. It’s not like others having children this way personally affects us, so who are we to judge?
I agree w/ apple464. As someone who has seriously considered and researched adoption, i can tell you, it is not always an option. Financial, social standing, and marital satus may exclude some people, as will their physical health. I’d also like to point out that conservation efforts for some endangered species of animals have used invitro, and artificial insemination methods to bring back populations. Is this unethical? If not, then how can it be unethical for humans. The doctors that argued about the ethicalness of Nadya Suleman’s pregnancy, were not arguing against in vitro or artificial means, but the number of embryos implanted. The number of embryos could have endagered hers, and the lives of each baby. Multiple birth children tend to have more health problems then single births, and those health problems can increase the higher the amount of multiples in one pregnancy. As well i would like to point out that it has been over 20 years since the first in vitro fertilization, yes it has been debated, but is hardly new news. Finally speaking from a personal note, it is not perhaps the first desirable method, natural conception would be perfect, but is not always possible. I myself have been unable to concieve naturally due to medications prescribed for health problems, the same health problems that prevent me from adopting. I am not able to concieve, that does not mean i am unable to parent. I believe i have every right to raise a family with my husband, and am currently looking into using a surrogate mother (my best friend suggested it to me, and suggested herself). Yes my husband, my friend, and myself know that there can be risks, but do not feel it is unethical. We do not want a multiple birth, in fact i would not dream of endangering someone that way, we just want 1 and if medical science can assist us without killing or causing harm to someone else, i fail to see how that is unethical.
Of course. Ethical is what we say it is.
Then again, I personally would like to see a license to procreate – something that will be an actual possibility once birth control becomes advanced enough. Your possibility of getting a license for more children would depend on an evaluation of the psychology of your current one, as well as your economical and relational factors.
Imagine that… in one fell sweep we could eliminate a vast majority of bad upbringings, make sure every child is wanted and well taken care of.
What a utopia that would be.
I think it is completely unethical to use artificial means to create human lives. In the last 10000 years human population has already increased much more than it was prior to that. It is unnatural and the effects of it are already being felt through many evils including global warming (Ref: The Inconvenient Truth) And it we go on creating humans artificially now, then guess some day we will only have humans on this planet, full of suffering.
My opinions about the woman who gave birth to 8 babies aside, I don’t think its fair to say whether its right or wrong if you’ve never been in the situation where you can’t have children. Having said that, I do believe that adoption is the best, but not always possible, method. However it really is up to the woman, and if I ever find myself in this situation I don’t even know what I would do…you just don’t know for certain til its happening to you
I don’t see any problem with artificial insemination, it just takes the fun part out. My problem is with genetic engineering, how can they know what will happen when these altered genes move into the general population.
To those who have a disagreement against a lot of children… you have no right to dictate against the desires of others as long as it does not infringe on your rights or the rights of others. Furthermore, it was not uncommon to bear many children until now.
To those who say that biologically incapable women should not bear children, and probably for good reason… that is just complete arrogance. You do not know these women and there are many more child-bearing-capable women who should morally not be allowed to bear children. Furthermore, one of the purposes of medical science is to give opportunities to those who have been deprived of it, in average. For example, we try to help people born with disabilities to live a normal life.
Therefore, I have no qualms against safe artificial insemination. Besides, is there really a profound difference other than methodology on something that is artificial versus something biological? Both produce children and I would not differentiate the two, indeed, they are both humans. Both are from biological eggs and sperm cells.
I guess where it all begins to blur is when genetic engineering comes into play as some have said above – i.e. when artificially-created cells (sperm and egg) are created (of course most likely with DNA compatible to the parents). And when DNA engineering is possible.
I have my views on genetic engineering but i’ll save it some other time as my post is getting too long xD.
In a society where morals and ethics are becoming increasingly relative, who’s to say what is ethical and what isn’t unless we appeal to some greater source of authority or a greater ethical standard?
I believe in a case like this, the persons motivations need to be considered, and also, if there is a husband involved, it is NOT just the woman’s body. If she really cares about her husband, she won’t do anything so widely outside his will without good reason.
Back to motivations, does she want 8 children as a novelty or because she truly wants to raise wonderful individuals? If she’s a loving, dedicated mother, she’ll generally produce decent children and we need more in this world frankly.
But some women act out of desperation, selfishness and greed. Desiring something that perhaps isn’t meant for them, and rather than truly considering the consequences and the possibilities, they fall in love with the idea itself. It moves from being a desire to an obsession and obsession is a dangerous thing. You lose sight of priorities and what’s right.
Someone said that no one can say anything about this woman’s desires because they’re not her. Are we not all human? She is not an entirely different species that we have absolutely no idea. It doesn’t take a genius to be able to see and make a call on something questionable. If anything, we NEED people outside our own personal spheres to snap us out of short sightedness sometimes. We need an outside opinion to see the bigger picture.
But we are so consumed by our own lives and “looking after number 1″ it’s like we don’t share the same country, earth or universe, but it’s our own to do with as we will. It’s not.
So yes, to me I believe we should take advantage of the benefits of scientific discovery as we’ve been blessed with minds capable of doing so. But I believe our inner motivations and actions following this can determine what is ethically sound. It’s a bit of a grey area so I’d be inclined to say, if it can be avoided, it should be, but can’t say whether it’s out and out WRONG.
Sure, why the hell not.
No human life was “artificially created” in your example.
That’s basically saying that bees “artificially create” flowers because they pollinate them.
The argument is fundamentally flawed.
But your gist, that artificial insemination is wrong and unnatural because these people couldn’t naturally harks back to the days of eugenics. Our society has abandoned and forgotten the ways of eugenics because it was deemed immoral to “speed along evolution” through selective breeding of humans.
Funny that you “immoral sayers” want to do it all over again by persecuting certain individuals who exercise their right to procreate.
I think the line should be drawn at modifying genetic information of gametes. Not using some pipettes to suck up sperm and squirt it out again.
“i do not support fertility treatments to ensure a woman has children. if your body was not biologically capable to bear children, then there is likely a good reason for it!”
I really don’t get this argument. A good reason for it? You mean Big Guy in the Sky doesn’t want you to have a baby? Does that mean that if you get cancer because the tendency is in your genes then maybe you shouldn’t treat it because “there is likely a good reason for it”?
Generally speaking, I’m a big supporter of choice. I don’t think the question of ethics applies to a woman who can’t conceive but wants to.(The last thing on her mind is ethics.) If advancements in science such as invitro will allow her to have children and she chooses to use these options, who are we to question it? It’s wrong to tell a woman that she should just accept the fact that she can’t have children. How the hell could anyone with a heart do that?
…There are people that will disagree with every little thing.
I was reading the telegraph today and it claimed that an extinct Ibex was successfully cloned from frozen tissue samples. how long will it be now until the ban against human cloning is reversed. What about those people cryogenically frozen, wouldn’t cloning bring them back to life? would that be ethical? I think that there are no easy answers when it comes to interfering with the natural order of things. My friends mother suffers from debilitating Parkinsons disease. twice now she has travelled to China to receive illegal stem cell treatment and for several months following her treatment she is almost normal again. Is that ethical?
I think a woman who can’t naturally produce a child, will go to whatever lengths to have one. Hey, if she wants 8, then let her have them. I don’t think that’s unethical at all, however, if she can’t afford 8 children, then that’s where the problems begin.
On the issue of cloning and creating artificial life, I hate to sound cruel, but humans need to experiment on humans a whole lot more. If we want to advance, we need to know more about how our brains and our bodies work. Lab mice can only go so far.
I always thought, what if scientists created a line of humans just for experimental purposes? They could always give them some sort of historical recognition for their sacrifices for science.
I actually wouldn’t mind going through a few experiments myself, if it would help out the human race.
I can’t see how anyone would want to have 8 babies at once, and I am not familiar with the whole story, so I can’t really be the judge. However, I think fertility treatment is ethical and should be available to those in need. My husband’s cousin has undergone fertility treatments with no luck, and I know that she was meant to be a mother. I would actually consider being a surrogate for her. But, as far as creating life for purposes of scientific research and such, well that is another story. There should be a line drawn somewhere.
I don’t see artificial means of insemination as being unethical or immoral. It’s just facilitating a natural process. Although the initial paragraphs introducing this discussion highlight the possible inability of the woman to conceive, sometimes it is not her problem but her partner’s. Medically each case should be assessed for feasibility individually as I’m sure it is. It would be unethical say if a medical practitioner took money for artificial insemination that had no possibility of working but otherwise I can’t see a problem with it.
As to whether people of questionable means should be prevented from using such services to procreate – it seems that it would be immoral to help people bring children into the world that they cannot adequately care for but seeing as people who have no problems conceiving are allowed to procreate at will regardless of circumstances it would really be unethical to deny certain people the rights others have as a matter of course. I wonder if it would even be legal to essentially discriminate against people based on their social and economic status.
Personally I would say it’s irresponsible to have a child you cannot afford to keep or have the time to raise well. I would imagine though that most people who go through the expense and often much heartache to have children artificially are both financially capable of raising their offspring and desirous enough of having that child that it would be cherished greatly. I suspect the case of the mother with 8 children is more of an exception rather than the norm.
let’s clear something up. seems like alot of people here are confusing the definitions of ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’
Ethical~ of the study of right & wrong or an acceptable code of conduct for professionals.
Moral~ of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. often with religious basis for behavior or retribution.
from Wikipedia, referencing Peter Singer:
‘A central aspect of ethics is “the good life”, the life worth living or that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.’
back to the topic-
maybe i was heartless earlier. if a loving couple wanted a child, and they couldn’t conceive, then maybe a little help form a fertility clinic is acceptable. but not to the tune of an unwed mother living with her parents having 14 kids, all conceived in a lab!
yes, throughout history families had many children… for 4 reasons!
1.) mortality rates for infants & children where high, and the more you have, the more likely one or two (or more!) might reach adulthood!
2.) women lived shorter lives, and often started reproducing early in their teenage years…by the time they where in their 30′s, they could effectively have had 10 or more births!
3.) patriarcal societies placed great value & status on a man’s ability to produce many children… to the extent of local custom to allow, even encourage, men to have multiple wives to procreate more! from what i understand this is still practiced in developing countries around the world…doesn’t Osama Bin Laden have 4 wives and some 24 children????
4.) religion. yes, religion. does not the judea-christian bible say “go forth and be plentiful & populate the earth?” actually, let me go check…
Genesis 1/28
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
yup. that is why we are the only mammalian species that numbers 6.5 + billion. some people act like they have never heard of that figure. really. it’s as if since it doesn’t appear to impact them as individuals, it doesn’t matter. well, it affects all of us. and i sure as hell don’t want my tax money to pay for some unwed mother who cannot afford to raise hew children. it’s not the children’s fault-it’s the selfish ignorance of the mother. can we say ‘home-schooled’?
take a gander at this organization… i was introduced to them during an Earth Day celebration back in 2007…
http://www.populationconnection.org/
nuff’ said. i don’t want children. my bf does. we argue. i win. no babies.not because i don’t like children… but because children right now would stop my career cold. but i have to watch him…i think he’s sneaky…
ringtailroxy
I think there are too many babies in the world who need loving homes. A more practical solution would be to fix the adoption system.
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/02/01/octuplets-mom-obsessed-with-having-babies/
all of her 14 children are by in vitro. same donor. this is an exceptional case. but it does shine a very painful and awkward light ..at least in this country..on how the laws and social mores are way behind science and technology.
we can do it. but we have not given much thought to how to regulate it. or prevent misuse or abuse of it. nor any thought to consequences to future generations.
given the incredible # of babies involved..this got the press coverage..i seriously doubt this is the only instance of abuse of this technology. something which serves neither the potential parents or children well. so we do need some kind of legal oversight of this process. there is potential for real harm here. as in this case..there is the very real possibilty that all these children will require life long medical support of some kind and atm that appears it will be funded by the state.
I think we already _have_ created artificial life, haven’t we? Didn’t anyone see Sarah Palin in the vice-presidential debates…?
I am not sure but I suspect in the UK this situation might not have been allowed to occur. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has a code of practice for it’s licensed practitioners that require careful consideration of the circumstances especially in the case where a child will have no legal father. I have only briefly scanned it but the assessments also include history of substance abuse and violence by the prospective parents etc.
If anyone wants to read it (it’s lengthy) it can be found at
http://cop.hfea.gov.uk/cop/pdf/CodeOfPracticeVR_4.pdf
The section about assessing the parents is at G.3.1. Sorry, not sure how to link to the section directly.
14. Abbey ~
okay. you all are going to make a stew out of me for this one… but i am simply curious and not understanding something here.
if you are unable to adopt a child due to “health problems” that’s medications make you infertile, i am led to believe that the adoption agency knows something you aren’t sharing. maybe they are concerned about you emotional stability? your financial ability to raise a child? or, sadly, if you will survive long enough to raise the child to adulthood?
okay… here’s my heartless comparison. (this is how i feel about this right now, but this site has enlightened me in many ways, so feel free to comment, but please do not immaturely flame me here)
people whom try adoption first, get rejected, and then go to the fertility clinic to have in-vitro fertilization and embryo implantation remind me of people whom get rejected at the local humane society from adopting a dog then just go down the street to a pet store and buy one. (defeating the whole purpose of adopting an animal)
seriously. if adopting is a way of giving love to an baby (or animal) and raising it, if you get rejected, you just try to rectify the reasons they rejected you to show your interest and desire to be the best parent (pet gaurdian) you can be.
you don’t get all *****y and huffy, storm off, and contribute to the world overpopulation problem, while leaving the perfectly adoptable baby (or dog)
now, maybe that’s a terrible comparison,but since i don’t have kids, and don’t know anyone whom has ever adopted, i don’t know how it goes. i only know that at the shelter i volunteer at, we go through a great amount of interviewing and home checks prior to adopting out a dog. why? because we don’t want them to be returned! we want dogs to go to a final, permanent home with a loving family! we don’t want to see people go off and buy dogs, either. so it can be difficult… but maybe… just maybe…
not everyone should have a pet. and not everyone should have a child.
there. i’ve said it. (goes & hides in the innermost room in the house for the bombing to commence)
ringtailroxy
Is it really that hard to create natural babies in the first place??? It’s not like there’s already a gajillion ways to make (or get) your very own bundles of love.
Stop complicating things and go to an adoption home. They’ll be more than happy to give you one of their cutest pouters. Hell, I think they’d throw another 7 in for free if that’s your burning desire.
Okay, I know it’s a little bit more complicated than this, but seriously, there’s absolutely no lack of loveless babies (or baby-making) in this already sad sad world, so that you’d need to bring even more in such convoluted ways…
ringtailroxy -
“…not everyone should have a pet. and not everyone should have a child…” (uh, yeah bit of an awkward comparsion. i do ‘get’ what you meant tho.)
usually i will err on the side of being more hands off regarding adult behavior. as in less govermental oversight. less social interaction. etc.
but when it comes to engaging in any activity that has potential harm to people beyond the person engaged in that activity..i do draw a line.
and this is a very complicated issue.
who should parent? how does one legislate any part of the process? lotta issues involved.
still i do think something should be done. granted w/ much prior thought and consideration given to it.
there seems to be this notion in American culture that people are entitled and for some due to religious reasons..actually obligated to procreate.
so from that stand point having children becomes the ultimate in selfishness w/ no real regard for the children. they become the vehicle to attain a goal of the parent. not created out of love.
so first we need to sort out exactly why we want to have children before we have them.
and i’d hope people would comment w/ some thought given to the FAQ. personal attacks are not what this site is about. simply have your say w/out ‘bombing’ anyone. k?
Kreature- I like your common sense on this matter.
Being pregnant and giving birth are VERY overrated. I endured 38 hours of misery in labor with my daughter, and with my son, I threw up every day (sometimes more than once) for the entire pregnancy.
If I couldn’t have had my kids, I would have adopted. I still might like to one day. Or take in a foster child.
oh ..and humans have this perverse tendency to become obsessed w/ something that they are denied or have restricted access to. reason why prohibition never works.
and to me..an indication of just how emotionally immature the human species is at this stage of its evolution.
once denied or restricted access psychologically we create ..out of nothing..justifications for just about anything. like we must do something because some ‘higher authority’ told us to.
..be fruitful and multiply…
*pokes at the hornet’s nest*
Okay- sorry for the triple post, but I keep thinking of things after I hit the submit button…
Something that REALLY bothers me is when they deliberately implant WAY too many embryos in order to “weed out” the weak ones later by aborting them. Just incredibly wrong.
Hmm, touchy subject for debate and likely to lead to an atomic bomb of atheist/Christian debates. Again. Haha, anyways I think alot of this is being looked at from the perspective of the parents. How about the kid himself? I mean damn, how are you gonna feel when you find out you were a test tube baby? I mean, kids get enough trauma after finding out they were adopted. Finding out that you were artificially created is a completely different load of crap to take. I personally think that is something so many of these mothers to do in vitro fertilization fail to take into account. Yes, it rectifies your own problems and you can have a baby. Yay you just made yourself happy. However this child that you created might not be too happy to find out he’s artificially created. In fact, he just may flip ***** and you have a brand new set of problems to worry about.Especially if he flips ***** as an emotionally unstable teenager.
Now then for comment number 16 by Darshan Chande:
“I think it is completely unethical to use artificial means to create human lives. In the last 10000 years human population has already increased much more than it was prior to that. It is unnatural and the effects of it are already being felt through many evils including global warming (Ref: The Inconvenient Truth) And it we go on creating humans artificially now, then guess some day we will only have humans on this planet, full of suffering.”
Okay, your last sentence would have been a good basis for an argument. However you’re arguing against artificial creation using, not ethics, not morals, but Global Warming? Really? -sighs- Read a science magazine or two dude, Mars is heating up at the exact same rate as earth. Last time I checked there was NOTHING living on Mars to contribute to it’s warming. I also suppose the fact that the southern ice cap is growing while the northern is shrinking is something you didn’t know about either. There is still exactly as much ice as before, it’s just in a different place. HOWEVER enough about that. It’s another debate that belongs elsewhere. My point is this. Next time you use an argument in a subject, make sure you know it’s been proven to be true, because last time I checked Global Warming being caused by humans is still being debated.
Back to the real debate. My stance is that artificial creation is wrong. Not because it’s a morally or ethically poor decision for a mother to make. In all honesty, let her make the decision herself, it’s all between her and whatever God/not God she believes in. I think it’s wrong just because of the effects it will have on the child itself. Even if it’s a genetically superior super child it will still have the “Oh you aren’t even a normal person because you were created artificially” thing hanging around in the back of its head.
Cyn~ put that stick down! don’t you remember what happened last time you stuck that wooden appendage in the boiling womb of THAT hornet’s nest???!!!
but i agree. see my post #30.
although i definitely see the reasoning behind ‘parental selfishness’ in the desire to have a child by any means necessary, whether it be beneficial to the future child or not, i ultimately look at our species as a whole and think that every human life should contribute to our advancement in some way.
backwater, slum-living families in tin roof houses in garbage strewn streets should not be having 8 children who have to get their meals from the local gabage dump!
thankfully, Prez Obama repealed Bush’s ‘gag’ order and made funds available to family planning facilities in impoverished nations that PERFORM ABORTION SERVICES. prior to that, the only american monies going to family planning in other areas of the world preached… abstinence! like people with no goals beyond procuring food & fresh water aren’t going to have *****…
rtr
Abortion is not the answer to overpopulation. It causes a lot more harm to the mother than the Pro-choicers would have you believe (but that’s a different hornet nest I’ll poke at later.) Abstinence is not the answer either, as that just simply does not work! People are going to have *****, whether you tell them the truth about it or not. It is human nature and a simple fact of life. ***** education that is truthful and birth control that is easy to get and use is. I am conservative, but I do not understand why other conservatives treat this as an either/or issue. It seems like a common sense issue to me.
nicosia~
i was not saying that abortion is the answer! i was saying that american funding will go to family planning centers & organizations that offer abortion services… in addition to pre-natal care, contraception, and communication. during Bush’s time, the money was not given to organizations that offered abortions!
what is the answer? a pivotal shift in the way humans see themselves! when we, as a species, can recognize the problems that we procreate effect more than just us, our immediate family, our immediate community… it’s hard to convince a developing countries’ people that what they do effects the world on a global scale…since they must feel the world doesn’t seem to think of them…
rtr
It’s because it is an either or issue, just like abortion. I personally believe abortion is only right when a mother does so to protect her own life, however just because I think it’s wrong doesn’t mean that the mother will. It is her decision, if she decides to do so and you believe it’s wrong from a Christian standpoint, then leave it between her and her God/not God.
This is the exact same kind of issue, just like stem cell research.It comes down to the individual. If you believe it’s something that’s wrong from your Christian standpoint, then let yourself believe that the God you believe exists will take care of it. You don’t need to yourself.
What I am saying is that a whole lot of the abortion debate would be negated if people had access to birth control. Encouraging abstinence is one thing, but not telling people how to prevent pregnancy is just irresponsible and short-sighted. Whether they do it inside marriage or out, the biology remains the same and they need to know how it works. Ringtailroxy- I misunderstood you!
to ringtailroxy. I’m not offended, nor will i get alll huffy. I have had rheumatoid arthritis since a child, which normally wouldn’t prevent a woman from conceiving, i’m not going to go into what any of my meds are, suffice it to say, some meds can help in ways while still harming in others. That being said i understand your comparison, but i don’t feel that adopting a child is the same as adopting a animal from the pound. Adopting a pet is a bit of a different process (yes i have 2 cats from the shelter). Believe it or not, the adoption process can actually be more expensive than in vitro in some circumstances. I wholeheartedly agree that giving a loving home to an unwanted child would be the best thing. In full honesty, i’ve always wanted to adopt rather than have biological children. again, having been through adoption sites and lawyers, apparently it was not an option for me. Adoption agencies are not clamoring to just give children away, at least not in my personal experience. Cyn, you’re right, people do often want what they cannot have, i won’t deny that i myself have felt i was becoming obsessed with my own fertility. This is natural, though
perhaps not all the time healthy, but i am only human and those are how my emotions have come out. It is a human nature to want to procreate, it is our biological impetus, just like any other animal on this planet. I agree with the poster that says we’re not talking about genetically engineering a sperm, egg, child, organ, or whatnot. This could be considered a medical procedure, no less ethical than some others i feel. Is it unethical to give someone an organ transplant (i know not the best example), or rebuild a cervix for childbirth? Finally i like the poster who suggested foster children. That is a wonderful and fulfilling option, that again not everyone can qualify for. I’ll save my overpopulaton argument for later. I do welcome any debate, and have to say there are some good arguments on this forum in favour of both views.
>
In the case of this one particular lady with the octuplets, yes, it is wrong. She has six children prior to the birth of her new eight kids and was already having financial troubles caring for the original six. Now she’s got 14…meaning (assuming she’s also got a husband) 96 square meals a day, at least 98 outfits to wash a week, vaccinations, doctors visits, a gajillion diapers… given they were in financial straights prior to conception, I’m expecting most of these kids to earn their college degrees in 10 years through part time night college or not go at all (which is a shame because nowadays we’re getting to the point where a bachelors degree is so commonplace that it’s the masters that people take notice to). Adoption process is so rigorous to ensure the child is going to a good home (and I agree there are situations where the rules are too extreme. Sorry about your situation, Abbey), but why is the main (and appears to be only) limitation for in-vitro to be if you can afford the procedure? Since we currently have in-vitro and the like, the very least that can be done is stricter rules on who can have the procedure.
A few more insights on AI… it’s expensive. Medically, they are only allowed to place two embryos at a time (for women over 30 or 35…I can’t remember) hoping one of them will latch on, but oftentimes both will be duds. Part of the reason doctors create so many embryos is to save the cost and health hazards of an invasive procedure like in-vitro. Then we get into the sticky situation in which all of them are viable…how do you feel about abortion, how about adoption, how can you choose which one to keep and which to give up, how can you justify financially and emotionally keeping all of them?
Too much drama. I would say scrap the whole thing, but not the entire project…endangered animals are benefiting from this because they can’t get it on with all the tourists watching. Humans, however, aren’t endangered so we don’t need this. Is it an innate biological need to pass on your bloodlines and the names of your forebearers, to increase the size of your brood to ensure an heir and a spare as well as a number of comely wenches to create politically advantageous alliances with neighboring tribes? Or is in an innate biological need to simply have children? Like the appendix, the wisdom teeth or the pinky toe being practically obselete, haven’t we evolved scientifically and socially enough to not need one to drop out of our own cahooter and be satisfied that your baby came from adoption or surrogate? And I bet there’s no better feeling in the world than to surrogately help out some good parents-in-waiting or to give some one-on-one parenting to a child who never got it when they were first born.
If I was too vague earlier, my answer to your question is No.
And actually, ringtail, your comments were fine to me! I know lots of people will be all indignant about comparing babies to dogs but I do it, too. And to be honest, between the gnawing on your hand, the blank stares when you reprimand them, the smiles they have on when they pass gas…a baby at 4 months isn’t too different from a puppy at 4 months. I love the idea of adopting but fear my family would always treat them as “the adopted one” rather than just “family”. Personally, I see no difference between a child given to me and one that used the slip and slide and one of my friends commented that it was obvious given the way I treated all my foster dogs, whether they were long term or weekenders, my dog or a temporary visitor…they all got love. I still don’t understand how he made the connection between adoption and my being a dog fosterer but you and he think alike! You’re not alone in your comment bomb shelter!
o.O I have no idea what just happened there. The possible side effects of prolonged use of Birth control pills is why they aren’t made accessible however. It also has a lot to do with the fact that doctors make a ***** load of money off of those suckers, why would they want to make them readily available and take away from their own income?
Abbey, I’m not familiar with the adoption process, but have you considered adopting abroad? It’s a shame that adopting here doesn’t appear to be a viable option but maybe elsewhere you’ll have better luck?
Or surrogate. There’s a growing surrogate movement, particularly for single men who want a child but are not allowed to adopt (for no better reasons than they are single and they are male).
yes!
i am a woman who cannot have children because of the shape of my uterus. i am a healthy woman!
my uterus was deformed at birth but it can be fixed with expensive surgery… whats the difference?
i am very impressed by the maturity and composure of all the comments so far! seems like LV is getting back to the REAL ORIGINAL AUDIENCE…
abbey~
i am actually shocked that your condition would render you unable to adopt! there is no feeling worse than the desire to rasie 7 provide love to another human and being denied for a reason like that! (i was afraid you had something a little more terminal or mental)
as an adult who went through the foster care system of the early 90′s… i am forever in deepest debt to the 2 families who fostered me. although i cannot locate them at this time, they know i have never forgotten them. their kindness, love, and guidance helped me at the most difficult times in my life. (as a teenage runaway and molested teen) so i am all for foster families…we desperately need you!
ringtailroxy
43. ringtailroxy -
but i get such perverse pleasure from doing so! 
& i’ve changed in how i see things online..especially here. aside from obvious violations of the FAQ & annoying asshat spammers
i’ve accepted that people simply do not pay attention to anything other than what they wrote themselves. w/ the rare and far more intelligent variation of the species exceptions ofc.
frankly, this aspect of science in all its permutations scares the hell outa me. and its the same spectrum. from artifically creating life where none existed to altering existing genetic structures. and yeah, saving extinct species of ANIMALS sounds good ..on paper but even that creeps me out. why not address why they went extinct in the first place? since the rate of extinction has increased w/ human expansion and development and is not..apparently..a part of a natural dying off a species process. which is the key to understanding OUR impact on this planet. how was life altered by our introduction into the equation? by our expansion into all corners of the globe? by our supplying our needs at the expense of not only other species but ecosystems and yes, even other people in other countries?
we are an incredibly self obsessed and selfish species that is also the most powerful agent of change this planet has ever known.
and i just wonder what future generations will think of us…if there are any…
will they look back and see the 1st test baby as ‘the event’ that changed the course of human history? or what? its just very scary stuff. and i don’t think people give any of it enough thought. and i mean cool, impersonal, w/ an eye to the future consideration. instead its all about ME ME ME and what i want. NOW NOW NOW.
I think this issue has a lot of pros and cons. I think you’ve hit the nail Cyn when you asked whether science should even though it could. I have no problem with artificial insemination, but when it comes down to playing with genetics and creating ‘designer babies’, count me out.
There is a difference, stef…or at least I’ve perceived that you are electing surgery to fix your uterus. Yes, technically it is reconstructing the uterus artificially (artificially? I don’t know what this surgery entails) to create a space for a fetus to develop but a child is a possible conclusion of the conclusion, not the actual end result of the surgery. The surgery would be reconstructing your uterus and not artificially creating life.
55: Cyn, I don’t think a rant does any harm now and then..
Humans are scary – they are the dominant species of the planet but don’t take respnsibility for their actions. Are WE the great plague of locusts? But think back a few decades; how innocent were we in the 60′s? How about the 70′?, even the 80′s? Pretty innocent, or perhaps naive as a race. Now things are speeding up, for the first time we can actively DEBATE these issues, with a large number of strangers, from all around the world – instantly. I do believe we have made an ADVANCE in our thinking, and at last we can – as a race – take steps to highlight our views, and make those changes (before science messes up the gene pool as well as the planet).
all this cloning babies and in-vitro science reminds me of an old twilight Zone episode i saw when i was 12. (the summer i was 12 i was allowed to stay up and watch all the creepy shows until 1 a.m.!) i forgot the name of the episode, and all i remember was this couple going to a doctor’s office, and being handed a book, and given the options as to what height, eye color, *****, and personality their children could have… it wigged me out then, and it still wigs me out now!
rtr
p.s.holy hell! i just got this link forwarded to me by my friend in Jersey! thanks, kim!
http://www.cbs.com/classics/the_twilight_zone/
i have the overpowering urge to call Cyn ‘cinnamon’…now i’m hungry! thanks for ruining a month of weak self-control!hey- i knew my diet wasn’t going to work!
ringtailroxy
56. lifeschool -
it is a mortal and potentially fatal flaw of the human species..simply because we can do something we feel compelled to do so. and that is horribly, horribly short sighted, selfish and i think morally and ethically wrong.
because we can create life doesn’t mean we should anymore than because we can end life we should. you can come at this from both ends of the process..birth to death.
i would no more advise a woman to seek artifical means to create a life than i would advise her to terminate a life artificially simply because she wanted to. it is far more complex than just cuz you want to. or for that matter cuz you think you need to. as odd as it may sound to some unenlightened coming from an atheist..life is precious and for lack of a better secular word, sacred. and not to be toyed w/ lightly.
and no, i’m none to thrilled w/ artificial insemination either. i dunno. this is when i go all 60′s hippy do dah and say natural is best. the science that i love and respect as a whole..just wanders down some very dark and scary paths when it comes to the creation process. *shudder*
think we’d be better @ re tooling the adoption process in this country. and re educating folks about foster care and adoption in this country. (the foreign adoption thing bothers me too)
and there are other aspects to life than family and parenting. and sorry, i don’t buy the biological urge thing as justification for obsessively pursuing creating a family. we are animals and we do have intellects too. so..we can exercise choice in the matter.
and yeah, some of all that seems contradictory in a way but hey, i’m just a simple human evolving into a higher intelligence…at some point.
just not soon enough. 