- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: IVF and “build a baby, inc” will become the moral issue of our time?
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:46 am to burger bearcat
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:46 am to burger bearcat
IVF disgusts me. Too many embryos are robbed of their humanity by being frozen indefinitely or just outright destroyed.
0
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you engage in IVF you're still putting your trust in God,
Go argue with someone else. If you don't understand this you don't trust in God. You just hope YOUR plans work out.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
People likely see this and think Gattaca but it's more viability.
It is an interesting dilemna. For the religious it helps in procreation and they are not concerned with characteristics. I believe they also can screen for downs etc but not sure. I would want to know that but I know some do not.
Of course, our society is and has become so superficial that as it advances it will be used as described above.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:50 am to Deuces
quote:
I can see both sides. I feel sorry for folks who want children that have trouble having them.
Why isn't adoption more prevalent in this discussion?
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:51 am to burger bearcat
While I might agree with you technically, this issue doesn't move the needle for me. There are too many shitty parents and shitty kids being created the normal way for me to be upset about a rounding error being created via IVF - the vast majority by male/female couples who want children.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:51 am to Deuces
It’s why the Catholic Church opposes it.
——
My son was born IVF. I can’t imagine the Catholic Church telling me about children and the raising / handling of such.
——
My son was born IVF. I can’t imagine the Catholic Church telling me about children and the raising / handling of such.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:52 am to burger bearcat
quote:
You would be a lot easier to have a reasonable debate if you weren’t so intentionally difficult with your over the top and absurd “technicalities” that you think are some amazing “gotcha”
He was programmed genetically - then reinforced by habit to be that way. Additionally, I think he is rewarded with kibble for his argumentative posts.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:55 am to Snipe
quote:
Cold hard facts. No Christian that claims to place their full trust in God could ever support or participate in this.
There are some real retards in this thread. When does God allow for modern medicine and does he not?
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:56 am to Snipe
quote:
Go argue with someone else. If you don't understand this
You seem to be the one who doesn't understand the process.
quote:
You just hope YOUR plans work out.
God still decides the results, though.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:59 am to dafif
quote:
It is an interesting dilemna. For the religious it helps in procreation and they are not concerned with characteristics. I believe they also can screen for downs etc but not sure. I would want to know that but I know some do not.
Of course, our society is and has become so superficial that as it advances it will be used as described above.
The biggest problem is trying to transfer shaky logic from one argument (abortion) that has created ideological hardlines into a different context, where it doesn't work as well. Most of these "conceived souls" never become humans, and that's from the natural processes and not any intentional act of humans (feticide, abortion, etc.). This makes the "conception" line much less impactful for this discussion.
Now for abortion, which almost exclusively relies on arguments well past conception where the embryo has become implanted and viable, working back to conception is a much easier bright line to use to project hardline stances.
This illogical mixing and matching of arguments from different scenarios is what's leading many down the path of bad takes.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
IVF is an area where Trump is 100% correct and I'm very glad he hasn't fallen victim to the insane, extremely religious types in his administration who would influence him on these issues.
Wow, " insane and extremely religious types"? Why hide behind such cloudy language? We all know it is ONLY the Catholic Church that condemns this.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 8:00 am to Louisianalabguy
quote:
Why isn't adoption more prevalent in this discussion?
Adoption is incredibly difficult and expensive.
If you don't foster children, adoption costs more than IVF and the end result isn't your genetic progeny.
Adoption is a wonderful thing but not a like:like replacement for IVF
Posted on 5/28/26 at 8:04 am to Louisianalabguy
quote:
Wow, " insane and extremely religious types"? Why hide behind such cloudy language? We all know it is ONLY the Catholic Church that condemns this.
Which Catholics in his admin would qualify as insane or extreme (in the context of religion)? Rubio and Vance are pretty milquetoast
JD Vance supports IVF pretty strongly
Rubio supports access to IVF
Neither qualify as insane/extreme in terms of religion
You are projecting a bit, creating an argument I did not make.
This post was edited on 5/28/26 at 8:12 am
Posted on 5/28/26 at 8:13 am to burger bearcat
quote:Perhaps, but there is another side to the argument.
I really just think most people have not put a lot of deep thought into this.
Real story: A lady I know comes from a long familial line of genetically predisposed breast cancer. Breast cancer took her mother and an aunt. It took her grandmother. All in their 40s.
She was found to have the same gene, and chose to have elective bilateral mastectomies. Prior to having children, a genetic counselor mentioned that she could select embryos which specifically did not carry the breast cancer gene.
She now has two daughters who will never have to worry about that particular malady, nor will the future family line.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 8:19 am to burger bearcat
quote:
Anecdotally, someone I know, a woman who focused on her career into her early 40s. Is not too attractive anymore and can’t find a man now that she would seem worthy. She had previously froze her eggs, and has turned to IVF and surrogacy to create or her own custom baby, because she “always wanted to be a mom, but wanted to do it on her own time”.
She can thank liberal feminism for that. Unlike men, women have a biological clock on reproduction. That's not a criticism, just a reality of biology. The more one tries to do end-runs around biology, the more they risk creating children with problems. This is why ART pregnancies (including frozen egg IVF) are associated with modestly higher rates of birth defects, preterm birth, and some neurodevelopmental issues.
The liberal feminist mindset is the one which seems to most ignore the biological differences between males and females, pushing females to behave more like males by putting off marriage and child-bearing in their younger, healthier, more fertile years for later in life.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 8:36 am to Bard
quote:
The liberal feminist mindset is the one which seems to most ignore the biological differences between males and females.
To frame this as a pervasive “liberal feminist” mindset is disingenuous. Most Americans affirm that sex is biological and is determined at birth.
quote:
pushing females to behave more like males by putting off marriage and child-bearing in their younger, healthier, more fertile years for later in life.
I find it interesting that you are framing postponing marriage and raising children as an inherently masculine quality.
Coincidentally, I read a study yesterday that showed women who gave birth after 33 years of age have significantly longer telomeres as they age than women who had their children before turning 34. Breast cancer risks also decrease for women who have children after 33. So there are some benefits for women who postpone childbearing.
This post was edited on 5/28/26 at 8:42 am
Posted on 5/28/26 at 8:52 am to burger bearcat
Without IVF I wouldn’t have my son, I don’t think people should play God and do crazy stuff, but for people who have problems having kids it is a gift from God.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 9:03 am to RustyDaDog
Making sweeping generalizations about people who make any reproductive choices is very low-brow imo. Women are constantly judged for having kids, having too many kids, not having kids, not having enough kids, having kids too young, having kids too old, etc etc. There are so many extenuating factors that contribute to those realities, many of which are beyond anyone’s control. It’s a deeply personal and emotional topic and warrants sensitivity that is rarely found on internet message boards.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 9:04 am to burger bearcat
The fact is: people don't have the right to a baby. Only babies have reproductive rights to a mother and a father. Our decadent society only thinks in terms of our own personal wants as rights. Children aren't commodities.
Posted on 5/28/26 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I could see the argument against IVF if there was something unnatural or similar to the gene editing issue, but, at its heart, it's a natural progress just done in a very refined way.
The Church teaches that sex is both unitive and procreative in nature. Without both of those aspects being present, the act is no longer moral.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News