Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

140Re: Why breed? IVF facepalm

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    May 9, 2012
      I agree wholeheartedly. But we must keep in mind that opposing IVF involves a truly fundamental political realignment against prochoice femminists and groups like NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood? Is the overpopulation movement strong enough to stand on it's own without being part of this coalition????? Is ther a potential coalition with anti-immigration groups????
      I think the answer is yes, we can survive without these coalitions, but ONLY if we are willing to migrate like the Mormons to concentrated, overpopulation movement towns, where overpopulation activists can elect our own mayors.

      ---------- Original Message ----------
      From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
      To: Why_breed@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Why breed? IVF facepalm
      Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 00:34:22 -0000

      On another group, someone and his wife have had some very negative things happen in regard to their current attempts to "have a family" (argh!) via in vitro fertilization.

      It's the procedure known in the 1970s as a "test tube baby" which seemed almost science fictionish. Now, it's a common although very expensive procedure to create babies for those who could not otherwise have them. It's a several part procedure, involving a couple of invasive surgeries, egg harvesting, then fertilizing them and freezing them. The first two pose risks of injury or death to the would-be mother that she wouldn't have otherwise.

      Unused embryos are discarded. All too often the woman gets pregnant with a large number of foetuses. "Selective abortions" are usually performed. The alternative is "octomom". This is at best morally questionable for anyone who is anti-abortion.

      But, in their haste to have a baby... errr... a family, they often don't pay attention to any of this. Then, are upset when they find out that there are embryos out there frozen. "Custody" of these becomes an issue in divorce cases, as does the question of support in a few cases.

      The problem at hand is when some of the realities of the procedure came up. Then, more and more of them came up. It seems that they initially thought this would be a "new term for artificial insemination". WRONG!

      This can produce HUGE numbers of babies! And, then the "it's a life" thing comes up after it's too late. If things aren't labeled correctly, someone can end up with someone else's baby, or a baby that is the biological child of one parent but not the other. It causes all manner of problems. Of course, the possibilities for using it for eugenics abound.

      There's the old "woman's right to start a family" argument. R-I-G-H-T. If she no longer has a husband to help support her. If said husband is in the process of divorcing her? If the procedure itself causes strain on the marriage and causes a divorce. These children then are weapons to use in court.

      It would seem to me that the sensible thing to do is to prohibit this monstrous procedure for as long as there are unwanted babies and children around. Perhaps until humans are an endangered species. This is the ultimate in making a "designer baby".

      How is this pro-life? How is it pro-choice (when your ex can force you to support these potential children?) How is this pro-ANYTHING?

      The nonsense of the whole routine is bothering me. Why, when the whole human overpopulation is where it is, when the future of humanity itself is very much in question, when the ecology of the planet is in question threatening the whole biosphere, it seems completely immoral to use this procedure!

      Why? Because we can????

      Your healthcare dollars at work,


      VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
      The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried