145Fw: Re: Why breed? IVF facepalm
- Jun 17, 2012--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Beth" <beth_h8@...>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 05:31:34 -0000
Subject: Re: Why breed? IVF facepalm
There are too many women - including feminists - who believe that
"choice" means a woman's fundamental right to give birth to children.
The fact is that we don't NEED all of these children, and this uber-high
and growing population is going to be the destruction - and death - of
everything and everyone. You only have "rights" until they impinge upon
more fundamental rights of other or more people. That's what this "right
to give birth" is - it impinges upon other's rights, leaving alone for
the moment of who pays for their upkeep?
Oddly, I think on this, we could become "strange bedfellows" with the
anti-choice, anti-abortion groups, for the mere reason that IVF destroys
numerous foetuses, which are not implanted or implanted and later
Recently, I've read that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) increases the risk
of birth defects.
-babies-study-finds/ I wonder if we could get an odd ally in groups
such as the March of Dimes who fight birth defects?
Of course, it costs more money to provide for someone with a serious
birth defect than it costs for anyone else - in terms of money or
--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "aditmore@..." <aditmore@...> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Why? Because we can????
> Your healthcare dollars at work,
> VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
> The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters may subscribe to
Yahoo! Groups Links
Credit Company Breach
LifeLock Ultimate™protects your identity from the effects of data breach.