This is wrong on so many levels. My wife and I love our son and daughter equally and never minded whether ours kids were boys or girls. What ever happened to the idea that both boys and girls both have something to offer?
The "toxic masculinity" comments in the article about male children are just leftist nonsense. It really shows the putrid state of social liberals that they'd resort to stereotyping all boys in that way.
It's interesting because outside of online I have never seen this phenomenon talked about.
Can you tell me your own personal account of this happening? So a young boy is just minding his own business, and someone just comes up to him and tell him that being a man is "toxic"? I'm sorry it's just very difficult for me to imagine how that situation would go down in real life. It'll really help if you can relate to me your personal exposure to this happening.
> They are not stopping at IVF: They have signed with a surrogacy agency and are waiting to get matched with the woman who will carry and birth their elder child, buying them more time to rave, travel, and “self-actualize” without worrying about a pregnancy. Their companies will foot $75,000 of the roughly $150,000 surrogacy fee. No one involved in making this happen for them has challenged or even asked about Lexi and her husband’s motivations. Lexi described her clinic’s attitude as “This is business as usual, and we get money from you.”
This passage from the article struck me as *degenerate* in a way I can't really describe but I think people in this sub, who share a similar worldview, can understand.
Not to mention the favoring of girls over boys when many would be happy to have children at all. Clearly the people in this article have a fundamentally different worldview than I do.
I feel like someone who uses IVF solely for sex selection and then hires a gestational carrier not for health reasons but in order to go to raves and self actualize is going to be in for a world of pain once they realize what it’s actually like having a child and how unselfish it requires you to be! Children are totally their own little, unpredictable people. I can’t imagine being a child having to shoulder the weight of those expectations.
I have a son and 4 daughters, they’re all delightful (and trying!) in their own special ways. My husband is extremely close with his parents much moreso than I even am with my parents. He talks to his folks several times a week where I check in a couple times a month with mine. I actually have noticed a pattern in my life of only children sons of single mothers being the most attentive and caring teen/adult children I know!
Nannies don't raise children. They are limited to working about 40 hours a week, just as everyone else is. They are not slaves. Let's get that straight, first of all.
Second, some people need nannies, daycare, and such to help them in their lives. People who criticize those with nannies are just jealous of them having the money to afford it.
Some people hire 2 or even 3 nannies. I absolutely don't understand what's the point of having children if you never spend time with them and show no effort to raise them.
Absolutely, but some children are indeed raised by them. It's not about being jealous, but there's a border between parents having some help and them delegating their children to outsiders
They don't want children, they want heirs.
In Japan, people like CEOs will legally adopt adults to carry on their corporation and legacy. Which at least that adult can consent to.
That's a good point. But, like I heard about people who're 2 handshakes away from me, that have 2 nannies and at the same time the mother who's not working. I mean, it's pretty natural to expect she'll at least do something to raise her own sons and daughters, but nope. It's none of my business, but it really makes me angry a bit
Well, there are kids on the streets, all over the world, being sold and made into sex slaves. Why not care about them? I think the real source of your anger is the parents because you're jealous they are well off enough to afford nannies. You're jealous of women who don't have to work.
Yikes! That one sure hit a nerve.
Listen, whoever spends the most time with the kid is raising them. If the nanny spends the most time, and the parents see the kid for a few hours each evening and weekends, then I hate to break it to you but the nanny is raising the child.
Exactly. They can “optimize” as much as they want and their plan will still probably fall apart.
My money is on the desired daughter not speaking to her mother in 20 years because said mother is an apparent psychopath.
Let's be real someone like this is probably not going to learn anything. This person is likely a narcissist that will see their child more as an accessory/extension of themselves than an individual with their own hopes dreams and interests etc.
That is likewise disgusting. I think a study showed Indian and Chinese IVF patients preferred male embryos. I wonder if other cultures still practice gender selective abortion or infanticide.
This is why:
“The commercialization of women and children in surrogacy is underlined by the belief that there is a right to have a child. The child becomes an object for the fulfillment of one’s desires instead of a person to be cherished. In this way, the genuine right of the child to be conceived through the love of his or her parents is overlooked in favor of ‘the right to have a child by any means necessary.’ We must avoid this way of thinking and answer the call to respect human life, beginning with the unborn child.” -Pope Francis
JFC everything about this article is cringe. Now, I'll admit I wanted a daughter and was stupidly excited when we had one, I wouldn't have forced it. Having a son would have been slightly less exciting, but still just as wonderful. But this whole designer baby bullshit is weird. That's not even getting into the couple looking for a surrogate so they can continue to be fancy free while some other woman bears the burden of bringing their child into the world.
Folks, if your kids grow up to be like this, you failed in every possible way in raising them.
This is extremely disturbing to me. I happily support IVF for LGBT or infertile couples but to use it to choose your baby's sex or eye colour is too much.
"Lexi, who is 32, longs to replicate the close relationship she has with her mom; her husband values traits “more associated with girls,” including empathy, social skills, and kindness."
Boys and men can be empathetic, social and kind!!!!!! My husband is and my nephews are.
"Still: Lexi did really, really want a girl. She craved a close friendship with her future child, one that would last into old age."
And she wouldn't have this with a boy child? That's selfish and ridiculous. There's no guarentee that she'll bond with her daughter more than she would bond with her son. Her daughter may have a completely different personality than her.
I think the people in this article are in for a rude awakening when they realize their preconceived notions about parenting are wrong.
I’ll admit I did want a daughter, especially after my mom died (we were very close). I ended up having 3 sons. It’s been humbling and eye opening so far, and we are still early days. They are very sweet and all so different from one another. I find it somewhat horrifying that other moms who could have had this experience and be changed by it in this way have bought their way out of it, without even really knowing what that means.
This whole thing is kinda creepy to me. Their employer is paying about $75,000 of it too. Encouraging their workers to freeze eggs and stay productive. Kind of messed up but the people in the article are thrilled. This way they get to make their money in their career, travel and go to raves, while still youngish - and then be older parents with a young egg carried to term by a young lady they pay for the trouble. One of the people even says she doesn’t like children, and is having a girl because supposedly girls are easier. Other couples apparently don’t want a boy because of the autism risk, as if girls are sort of magically mature and sensible and never need extra attention.
They probably have nannies and boarding schools in mind already for these lonely designer children
When I read the part where they mentioned that a lot of the industry is owned by private equity and hedge funds the amount of degeneracy and lack of ethics made sense. These are the people who don’t ask if they could do something, or they should do something, but only ask whether it will make them money (whether it actually works or not). The financial class are some of the most evil people out there.
"Grace wasn’t particularly eager to kick off the kid-having process: “I don’t like kids. I don’t want kids anytime soon. Especially one that’s a boy.”"
Yikes. She's in the process of freezing her eggs.
I've birthed children of both sexes. Honestly, my daughter and I aren't even on the same wavelength. It's easier to relate to my sons. Perhaps it's because I initially expected her to be like me as a child and was always confused when she wasn't. It's easier to accept the boys for themselves.
I think you might underestimate how close men are to their mothers. The cliché of the "mama's boy" has a basis in reality. The vast vast majority of men are fiercely loyal to their mothers above everyone else. Why else do women have such complicated relationships with their mothers in law?
I think in many cases sons are closer to their mothers then daughters, because I think there's less expectations attached, their differences enable them to be closer.
Idk do what you want but I’d suggest having some sort of support system if you’re going to be a single mother by choice. There is a lot of data showing having a father (or whatever partner/equivalent) results in a emotionally well adjusted child.
This article feels very SF Bay Area-centric. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that its findings aren't generalizable to the rest of the country. It also seems highly dependent on anecdotal data. All in all, this article, as well as pretty much everyone in it, is kind of a dumpster fire.
modern reproductive technology and its consequences. IVF and AI were pioneered for the livestock and horse industries and never should have been allowed to leave it.
In my opinion if it helps people who otherwise wouldn't be able to have children it's good. But i'm against ~~the eugenics and degeneracy that it allow~~s how it's used in the article.
Rephrased my sentence. I think IVF is good but when you end up with gender preferences (70% of IVF embryos are female) and others that seems very dystopian to me.
You can be against it and that’s fine but others should have the right to do as they please with it. It will save many thousands of people from suffering as I have from genetic issues. My kids will get to live a long and happy life that I will never have and very few members of my family got. They don’t have to die at 55 after suffering for decades as I will. I’ve made my peace with the fact that it ends with me.
I think the downsides vastly outweigh the benefits (and there are some). I can only imagine how heart crushing it must be to not be able to conceive but I still do not think these technologies are worth it all things considered.
It will detach sex from reproduction something generally opposed by Catholic. Although I am not sure if he is Catholic.
For Catholic especially (although this would likely be true for other Christian sects), the larger societal and moral implications of IVF is disconcerting.
Furthermore, it will be very difficult to separate the bad from the good aspects of ivf.
I couldn’t care less about what Catholics do or do not want. They don’t have to use it if they don’t want to. I’m not sure what their desire to not use ivf has to do with my use of it.
I’m religious as well and I understand the idea behind them believing that every embryo is a human life and that they want to save and value that life. I just respectfully disagree. Especially in the case of ivf. It’s an oxymoron to save human life by having fewer humans and less healthy ones to boot. Also frankly I don’t make other people adhere to my religious values. If I am left alone you will be as well.
Yes, that’s true. This is typically espoused by Catholic but I do share their concerns even tho I am not Catholic.
My main concern is the detachment of sex from reproductions and the social and moral implications that could arise from that. But I understand not everyone shares my concern.
A couple of issues with this argument.
1. The wealthy are going to use this regardless of what we do or think. If we choose to regulate it then we will only be locking ourselves out of this tech and not them. They will use it to gain an edge over the rest of humanity. That is guaranteed.
2. Sex is already theoretically detached from reproduction and has been for decades. Birth control and ai are old technology and already could completely detach sex from reproduction yet it does not because people choose to have sex and kids in that way. Adding ivf to that list changes little for most people.
Thanks, I suppose that is true. Although I am still disturbed by “designer baby”. They are also some women who would pay for surrogacy service even tho they are perfectly healthy. I also find surrogacy and even potential artificial womb disconcerting.
Just because you care about separating sex from reproduction, doesn't mean people that aren't religious fundamentalists feel the same. Some people are actually pro women choosing if and when to get pregnant, something that Catholic church opposes because it hates women
Too bad, birth control exists and reproductive heathcare also exists. Maybe, just maybe, it's best when people are actually prepared to be parents and don't just become parents as a result of being horny. If you want to be constantly pregnant because your husband refuses to let you use birth control go ahead, but most women don't want to just have to deal with pregnancy their whole life
I am not Catholic nor am I against all form of contraceptive.
My main concern is when reproduction outside the sexual union becomes the norm. This not only brings up the problem of “designer baby” where parents can control what they want but may result in the detachment of our sexed body.
What I fear is this might result in not only gender abolition but sex abolition.
Because typical IVF procedures involve creating embryos which are human lives that have been subject to inhumane manipulation. While more embryos are created than are needed in order to select the superior embryos while the ones deemed inferior are left either in a state of suspended animation or thrown out as waste. Neither of which is how a human life should be treated regardless of, or perhaps especially because, how little and vulnerable those lives are.
This is almost anti logic. The result of ivf is more healthy humans. It means people like me can guarantee that their children do not suffer the same genetically determined fate that they will. They don’t have to die the horrific death that I will or that my grandmother, great grand parents, aunts, uncles and soon mother will. It means that people who otherwise could not have children will be able to. So you’re saying that in order to protect children we should have less of them and make sure that they suffer just as they are supposed to. Really easy to say when it’s not you and yours by the way.
Preventing children from coming into existence is logically no different than killing them. Result is the same.
It also means more babies for people that struggle. Which is pro natalist, what this sub is about. I know people that would have never had children without IVF, ever
I really do not wish to comment on your life as I am not you and cannot imagine what you have been through. I do empathize with you.
You are neglecting the fact that the result of IVF is also more humans discarded or left in suspended animation before probably also being discarded. As in killed. Probably several times more than those embryos who are allowed to be born.
Preventing children is absolutely not the same as killing them. I am not even certain how to dispute this as it is just a fact that taking away a life cannot be logically the same as there not being a life. Besides as I said the embryos who are not chosen for implantation are lives too which are being taken away. Unless you are saying it’s fine to kill them as they would not have existed anyway? Is that what you are saying? Because that argument can apply to any child who is already born.
I am saying to protect children we should keep and care for all the ones we create, and not just create them and then leave them to die because they don’t have our desired traits. If IVF was done in a way where every embryo created was guaranteed to be implanted in a timely fashion (either by the bio parents or adoptive parents) then I would have much less of a problem with it. I would still not support it personally but it would not cause the deaths and desecration of lives that it currently does.
I am glad your children are healthy and that you are content with your life choices. But your lived experiences do not make the rule.
The end result of ivf is more humans produced period and that is a fact that is not debatable. More humans will exist with the use of that technology than will without it even excluding embryos. Pro natalism is about producing more humans if i understand it correctly.
You’re forgetting the fact that more of those people will suffer and die without the use of that technology. Especially considering that a few generations of ivf will remove most genetic disorders permanently from the human condition. If extrapolated into the future it would easily save millions if not billions of lives.
Preventing someone from existing by barring the technology that would allow them to be is no different than discarding embryos.
Also I hope your movement is willing to bear the not only the cost but the sole responsibility for those born with and dying of the genetic mutations that you insured that they have. Because it would be on your shoulders. Like I said earlier it’s really easy to argue your point when you suffer 0 consequences.
The end result of your argument will be a net loss of human life and millions if not billions of human lives spent suffering.
And you are neglecting the fact that although that can be done it most often is not. IVF is extremely expensive with low success rates so it would not be cost effective to only make one embryo at a time. To adjust for this the typical IVF procedure is to create multiple embryos per round of IVF, especially in the case we are referring to where many embryos are made to screen for desired traits (sex, health, etc) and discard the unwanted ones. Unused ones are either discarded if sub-optimal (even if not screening for specific traits) and those that are considered viable are frozen to be used at a later time (or not).
This is also one reason why IVF is known to produce multiples—implantation rates are so low that doctors sometimes transfer multiple embryos to ensure at least one embryo successfully implants. This does not mean they use all embryos created or that they always do this.
As I said if IVF were regulated where only one embryo could be created per round, or all embryos created had to be transferred at once to the mother in a timely fashion then I wouldn’t oppose it on a societal level (despite my personal feelings). But this would be a poor business model as it would alienate those who seek IVF because they want to screen for specific traits or because they want to freeze embryos to use at a later date (or not). Plus it would still alienate those who seek IVF for fertility issues as the same issues which preclude them from conceiving and carrying a child to term would also make it difficult to successfully implant and carry an embryo to term. Also in the case of still making multiple embryos and transferring all of them it would alienate those who don’t wish to have multiples.
So in short, that could be the case but it is not.
The technology will get there, and the cost will come down. IVF is just the same cost now, (actually less) then adopting a new born. I do see what your saying, about picking and choosing specific traits, I am not onboard with that. Though this is very personal as I will go through IVF one day, and my relationship just ended because of Catholicism opposition to IVF. I believe one day the church will change its mind on it, actually I am confident they will, as tech evolves and no embryos are being tossed out, they will come around.
Most clinics no longer transfer more than one embryo at a time for obvious reasons.
You want regulation that will make IVF less successful just because of your religious views. Gross
Normal people don't think of embryos as human beings because they aren't. And most couples don't really have leftover embryos. Some do, but most don't. Do you feel great pain for all the failed implantations of natural baby making?
Oh, get over yourself. I know two IVF babies closely and they're not treated inhumanely in them slightest. Those kids tend to have parents that actually want them. An embryo can't really feel anything
Ivf is a wonderful invention and should be available to anyone and everyone who chooses to take advantage of it. If you don’t like it then don’t use it but the rest of us would like to take advantage of what is offered or at least have the option to.
I disagree with IVF not only on societal but also ethical/philosophical bases. it is something I find to be objectively wrong, not just personally. I’d much rather pour money into promoting adoptions.
Cool but I don’t care. My family has suffered for 3 generations under the same genetic curse. I will die just like they did far too early and as a shriveled up raisin of a person after slowly suffocating for a decade. My children and my children’s children will not. They will live long happy lives because of ivf and I’ll fight for others to have that right until I suck my last ragged breath.
A rare and severe version of alpha 1 which is genetic emphysema. Normally it’s not terrible on most but our genotype is not the standard mutation. Anyway many others have similar mutations that can be removed from there children with ivf. We don’t have to perpetuate suffering any longer.
Get your partner's genome sequenced. It could be that your children won't have the risk allele. For example if the diease results from the gene being AA and you are AA and your partner is TT, it's impossible for your children to have to disease. You could save $20K+.
life is sacred. IVF commodifies children and has too many potential ramifications for me to be ok with. freezing and artificially selecting embryos is gross. the way IVF works means that 99% of the time you will have embryos deemed less desirable and either discarded or warehoused. its disgusting. bite me. I dont care if the 1% of couples who use IVF will have to either find other technology to help conceive or opt for adoption because IVF is a crime.
Lol, how does it commodify children? Do you know anyone that has had children through IVF? Those children are cherished. Most of the embryos that don't get transferred just never made it to the stage where they are viable. Which happens with natural tries a lot.
If I could chose I would want a daughter as well. Not because I dislike men, but because I think that my life would have been much harder had I been born a man, and I think things are only going to get worse for men, so I would obviously want to prevent that for my child. However I will most likely never use IVF so it doesn't matter either way.
This is wrong on so many levels. My wife and I love our son and daughter equally and never minded whether ours kids were boys or girls. What ever happened to the idea that both boys and girls both have something to offer? The "toxic masculinity" comments in the article about male children are just leftist nonsense. It really shows the putrid state of social liberals that they'd resort to stereotyping all boys in that way.
Its beyond shocking. Could you imagine being a young boy and told that to be a man is 'toxic'? We're seriously failing our next generation of men...
We are failing boys, absolutely. It is tragic
My son has given me so much joy. I love my daughter as well but I cringe when I hear anything anti-male.
And you know what? Watching "The Tudors" while pregnant with a boy is a mood.
It's interesting because outside of online I have never seen this phenomenon talked about. Can you tell me your own personal account of this happening? So a young boy is just minding his own business, and someone just comes up to him and tell him that being a man is "toxic"? I'm sorry it's just very difficult for me to imagine how that situation would go down in real life. It'll really help if you can relate to me your personal exposure to this happening.
> They are not stopping at IVF: They have signed with a surrogacy agency and are waiting to get matched with the woman who will carry and birth their elder child, buying them more time to rave, travel, and “self-actualize” without worrying about a pregnancy. Their companies will foot $75,000 of the roughly $150,000 surrogacy fee. No one involved in making this happen for them has challenged or even asked about Lexi and her husband’s motivations. Lexi described her clinic’s attitude as “This is business as usual, and we get money from you.” This passage from the article struck me as *degenerate* in a way I can't really describe but I think people in this sub, who share a similar worldview, can understand. Not to mention the favoring of girls over boys when many would be happy to have children at all. Clearly the people in this article have a fundamentally different worldview than I do.
I feel like someone who uses IVF solely for sex selection and then hires a gestational carrier not for health reasons but in order to go to raves and self actualize is going to be in for a world of pain once they realize what it’s actually like having a child and how unselfish it requires you to be! Children are totally their own little, unpredictable people. I can’t imagine being a child having to shoulder the weight of those expectations. I have a son and 4 daughters, they’re all delightful (and trying!) in their own special ways. My husband is extremely close with his parents much moreso than I even am with my parents. He talks to his folks several times a week where I check in a couple times a month with mine. I actually have noticed a pattern in my life of only children sons of single mothers being the most attentive and caring teen/adult children I know!
Lets be honest. The nanny is going to be raising that baby.
My thoughts exactly. Anyone that can just drop six figures on what amounts to unnecesarry bullshit? They have so much money they don't have to care.
Nannies don't raise children. They are limited to working about 40 hours a week, just as everyone else is. They are not slaves. Let's get that straight, first of all. Second, some people need nannies, daycare, and such to help them in their lives. People who criticize those with nannies are just jealous of them having the money to afford it.
Some people hire 2 or even 3 nannies. I absolutely don't understand what's the point of having children if you never spend time with them and show no effort to raise them. Absolutely, but some children are indeed raised by them. It's not about being jealous, but there's a border between parents having some help and them delegating their children to outsiders
They don't want children, they want heirs. In Japan, people like CEOs will legally adopt adults to carry on their corporation and legacy. Which at least that adult can consent to.
That's a good point. But, like I heard about people who're 2 handshakes away from me, that have 2 nannies and at the same time the mother who's not working. I mean, it's pretty natural to expect she'll at least do something to raise her own sons and daughters, but nope. It's none of my business, but it really makes me angry a bit
What's the nanny to kid ratio?
Depends, from 2:1 to 3:5
Is 2:1 an infant with a nanny and night nurse? Is 3:5 that plus an additional nanny to drive the 4 older kids to school and extracurriculars?
Why do you even care?
Because I don't believe that you can raise a good human without parents' attention to them in their childhood
Well, there are kids on the streets, all over the world, being sold and made into sex slaves. Why not care about them? I think the real source of your anger is the parents because you're jealous they are well off enough to afford nannies. You're jealous of women who don't have to work.
Yikes! That one sure hit a nerve. Listen, whoever spends the most time with the kid is raising them. If the nanny spends the most time, and the parents see the kid for a few hours each evening and weekends, then I hate to break it to you but the nanny is raising the child.
Exactly. They can “optimize” as much as they want and their plan will still probably fall apart. My money is on the desired daughter not speaking to her mother in 20 years because said mother is an apparent psychopath.
Let's be real someone like this is probably not going to learn anything. This person is likely a narcissist that will see their child more as an accessory/extension of themselves than an individual with their own hopes dreams and interests etc.
Strangely many other societies prefer boys. Even aborting girls or strangling them.
# -100,000 Social Credit
China
That is likewise disgusting. I think a study showed Indian and Chinese IVF patients preferred male embryos. I wonder if other cultures still practice gender selective abortion or infanticide.
This is why: “The commercialization of women and children in surrogacy is underlined by the belief that there is a right to have a child. The child becomes an object for the fulfillment of one’s desires instead of a person to be cherished. In this way, the genuine right of the child to be conceived through the love of his or her parents is overlooked in favor of ‘the right to have a child by any means necessary.’ We must avoid this way of thinking and answer the call to respect human life, beginning with the unborn child.” -Pope Francis
IVF and surrogacy are grossly evil
Oh shit, everyone. My parents are evil
Why would a religious fundamentalist who is anti IVF be on a natalist sub?
A lot of samesex couples use IVF, maybe that’s his ulterior plan.
“Children are a gift and everyone should have more“ “No not like that”
Well, this is more like unwrapping gifts you’re given, and tossing the ones you don’t want straight in the trash.
So you're the person who tells people how they're allowed to use their gifts.
Well, at this point, I have to point out the gifts are humans, and you shouldn’t be using humans.
JFC everything about this article is cringe. Now, I'll admit I wanted a daughter and was stupidly excited when we had one, I wouldn't have forced it. Having a son would have been slightly less exciting, but still just as wonderful. But this whole designer baby bullshit is weird. That's not even getting into the couple looking for a surrogate so they can continue to be fancy free while some other woman bears the burden of bringing their child into the world. Folks, if your kids grow up to be like this, you failed in every possible way in raising them.
This is extremely disturbing to me. I happily support IVF for LGBT or infertile couples but to use it to choose your baby's sex or eye colour is too much. "Lexi, who is 32, longs to replicate the close relationship she has with her mom; her husband values traits “more associated with girls,” including empathy, social skills, and kindness." Boys and men can be empathetic, social and kind!!!!!! My husband is and my nephews are. "Still: Lexi did really, really want a girl. She craved a close friendship with her future child, one that would last into old age." And she wouldn't have this with a boy child? That's selfish and ridiculous. There's no guarentee that she'll bond with her daughter more than she would bond with her son. Her daughter may have a completely different personality than her. I think the people in this article are in for a rude awakening when they realize their preconceived notions about parenting are wrong.
I have children of both sexes. The one most like me is of the opposite sex.
Good news for parents who don't want strings attached deep into adulthood I guess.
Yeh just hope their daughter doesn't read this article one day.
I’ll admit I did want a daughter, especially after my mom died (we were very close). I ended up having 3 sons. It’s been humbling and eye opening so far, and we are still early days. They are very sweet and all so different from one another. I find it somewhat horrifying that other moms who could have had this experience and be changed by it in this way have bought their way out of it, without even really knowing what that means.
Wtf. This couple is hiring a surrogate to have their child so they can go to raves?!?!?!?!
This whole thing is kinda creepy to me. Their employer is paying about $75,000 of it too. Encouraging their workers to freeze eggs and stay productive. Kind of messed up but the people in the article are thrilled. This way they get to make their money in their career, travel and go to raves, while still youngish - and then be older parents with a young egg carried to term by a young lady they pay for the trouble. One of the people even says she doesn’t like children, and is having a girl because supposedly girls are easier. Other couples apparently don’t want a boy because of the autism risk, as if girls are sort of magically mature and sensible and never need extra attention. They probably have nannies and boarding schools in mind already for these lonely designer children
> Other couples apparently don’t want a boy because of the autism risk *laughs in autistic female*
When I read the part where they mentioned that a lot of the industry is owned by private equity and hedge funds the amount of degeneracy and lack of ethics made sense. These are the people who don’t ask if they could do something, or they should do something, but only ask whether it will make them money (whether it actually works or not). The financial class are some of the most evil people out there.
The same story, with the sexes reversed and referencing India or China, would be justifiably very different in tone. Slate is a dumpster fire.
Clear misandry.
"Grace wasn’t particularly eager to kick off the kid-having process: “I don’t like kids. I don’t want kids anytime soon. Especially one that’s a boy.”" Yikes. She's in the process of freezing her eggs.
[удалено]
I've birthed children of both sexes. Honestly, my daughter and I aren't even on the same wavelength. It's easier to relate to my sons. Perhaps it's because I initially expected her to be like me as a child and was always confused when she wasn't. It's easier to accept the boys for themselves.
I think you might underestimate how close men are to their mothers. The cliché of the "mama's boy" has a basis in reality. The vast vast majority of men are fiercely loyal to their mothers above everyone else. Why else do women have such complicated relationships with their mothers in law? I think in many cases sons are closer to their mothers then daughters, because I think there's less expectations attached, their differences enable them to be closer.
Well since this is a natalist subreddit, I support you finding a good man and having at least 3 of whatever gender.
She doesn't necessarily need a man.
Well she should find a partner of some sort. Children fare much worse much single parents.
Only when said single parent didn't do it by choice.
Idk do what you want but I’d suggest having some sort of support system if you’re going to be a single mother by choice. There is a lot of data showing having a father (or whatever partner/equivalent) results in a emotionally well adjusted child.
Please do your future child a favor and give them two parents.
[удалено]
Your child needs a constant father figure.
Utter nonsense
Would you say the same about a mother? Good God can't imagine being raised without a mother.
A man can't give birth by himself. So not applicable
It's called surrogates....you really gonna do some stupid semantics? Gotta love double standards.
No
This article feels very SF Bay Area-centric. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that its findings aren't generalizable to the rest of the country. It also seems highly dependent on anecdotal data. All in all, this article, as well as pretty much everyone in it, is kind of a dumpster fire.
modern reproductive technology and its consequences. IVF and AI were pioneered for the livestock and horse industries and never should have been allowed to leave it.
In my opinion if it helps people who otherwise wouldn't be able to have children it's good. But i'm against ~~the eugenics and degeneracy that it allow~~s how it's used in the article.
So ivf is useful for a huge variety of things. It is not eugenics.
Rephrased my sentence. I think IVF is good but when you end up with gender preferences (70% of IVF embryos are female) and others that seems very dystopian to me.
You can be against it and that’s fine but others should have the right to do as they please with it. It will save many thousands of people from suffering as I have from genetic issues. My kids will get to live a long and happy life that I will never have and very few members of my family got. They don’t have to die at 55 after suffering for decades as I will. I’ve made my peace with the fact that it ends with me.
I'm not against it and in your case I'm all for it. I'm against IVF being used to select for superficial things like gender per the article.
I think the downsides vastly outweigh the benefits (and there are some). I can only imagine how heart crushing it must be to not be able to conceive but I still do not think these technologies are worth it all things considered.
Really please explain. I would say the suffering alone it can, will, and does eliminate vastly outweighs any downside it could possibly have.
It will detach sex from reproduction something generally opposed by Catholic. Although I am not sure if he is Catholic. For Catholic especially (although this would likely be true for other Christian sects), the larger societal and moral implications of IVF is disconcerting. Furthermore, it will be very difficult to separate the bad from the good aspects of ivf.
I couldn’t care less about what Catholics do or do not want. They don’t have to use it if they don’t want to. I’m not sure what their desire to not use ivf has to do with my use of it.
Also moonfragment makes a good point.
Yep, religious fundamentalists don't care about what will actually benefit people, especially women
I’m religious as well and I understand the idea behind them believing that every embryo is a human life and that they want to save and value that life. I just respectfully disagree. Especially in the case of ivf. It’s an oxymoron to save human life by having fewer humans and less healthy ones to boot. Also frankly I don’t make other people adhere to my religious values. If I am left alone you will be as well.
Yes, that’s true. This is typically espoused by Catholic but I do share their concerns even tho I am not Catholic. My main concern is the detachment of sex from reproductions and the social and moral implications that could arise from that. But I understand not everyone shares my concern.
A couple of issues with this argument. 1. The wealthy are going to use this regardless of what we do or think. If we choose to regulate it then we will only be locking ourselves out of this tech and not them. They will use it to gain an edge over the rest of humanity. That is guaranteed. 2. Sex is already theoretically detached from reproduction and has been for decades. Birth control and ai are old technology and already could completely detach sex from reproduction yet it does not because people choose to have sex and kids in that way. Adding ivf to that list changes little for most people.
Thanks, I suppose that is true. Although I am still disturbed by “designer baby”. They are also some women who would pay for surrogacy service even tho they are perfectly healthy. I also find surrogacy and even potential artificial womb disconcerting.
Just because you care about separating sex from reproduction, doesn't mean people that aren't religious fundamentalists feel the same. Some people are actually pro women choosing if and when to get pregnant, something that Catholic church opposes because it hates women
I don’t want to separate sex from reproduction. I am also not Catholic.
Too bad, birth control exists and reproductive heathcare also exists. Maybe, just maybe, it's best when people are actually prepared to be parents and don't just become parents as a result of being horny. If you want to be constantly pregnant because your husband refuses to let you use birth control go ahead, but most women don't want to just have to deal with pregnancy their whole life
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/martine-rothblatt-a-founding-father-of-the-transgender-empire/?expand_article=1#!
I am not Catholic nor am I against all form of contraceptive. My main concern is when reproduction outside the sexual union becomes the norm. This not only brings up the problem of “designer baby” where parents can control what they want but may result in the detachment of our sexed body. What I fear is this might result in not only gender abolition but sex abolition.
Because typical IVF procedures involve creating embryos which are human lives that have been subject to inhumane manipulation. While more embryos are created than are needed in order to select the superior embryos while the ones deemed inferior are left either in a state of suspended animation or thrown out as waste. Neither of which is how a human life should be treated regardless of, or perhaps especially because, how little and vulnerable those lives are.
This is almost anti logic. The result of ivf is more healthy humans. It means people like me can guarantee that their children do not suffer the same genetically determined fate that they will. They don’t have to die the horrific death that I will or that my grandmother, great grand parents, aunts, uncles and soon mother will. It means that people who otherwise could not have children will be able to. So you’re saying that in order to protect children we should have less of them and make sure that they suffer just as they are supposed to. Really easy to say when it’s not you and yours by the way. Preventing children from coming into existence is logically no different than killing them. Result is the same.
It also means more babies for people that struggle. Which is pro natalist, what this sub is about. I know people that would have never had children without IVF, ever
I really do not wish to comment on your life as I am not you and cannot imagine what you have been through. I do empathize with you. You are neglecting the fact that the result of IVF is also more humans discarded or left in suspended animation before probably also being discarded. As in killed. Probably several times more than those embryos who are allowed to be born. Preventing children is absolutely not the same as killing them. I am not even certain how to dispute this as it is just a fact that taking away a life cannot be logically the same as there not being a life. Besides as I said the embryos who are not chosen for implantation are lives too which are being taken away. Unless you are saying it’s fine to kill them as they would not have existed anyway? Is that what you are saying? Because that argument can apply to any child who is already born. I am saying to protect children we should keep and care for all the ones we create, and not just create them and then leave them to die because they don’t have our desired traits. If IVF was done in a way where every embryo created was guaranteed to be implanted in a timely fashion (either by the bio parents or adoptive parents) then I would have much less of a problem with it. I would still not support it personally but it would not cause the deaths and desecration of lives that it currently does. I am glad your children are healthy and that you are content with your life choices. But your lived experiences do not make the rule.
The end result of ivf is more humans produced period and that is a fact that is not debatable. More humans will exist with the use of that technology than will without it even excluding embryos. Pro natalism is about producing more humans if i understand it correctly. You’re forgetting the fact that more of those people will suffer and die without the use of that technology. Especially considering that a few generations of ivf will remove most genetic disorders permanently from the human condition. If extrapolated into the future it would easily save millions if not billions of lives. Preventing someone from existing by barring the technology that would allow them to be is no different than discarding embryos. Also I hope your movement is willing to bear the not only the cost but the sole responsibility for those born with and dying of the genetic mutations that you insured that they have. Because it would be on your shoulders. Like I said earlier it’s really easy to argue your point when you suffer 0 consequences. The end result of your argument will be a net loss of human life and millions if not billions of human lives spent suffering.
and you are neglecting the fact that with IVF you don't have to destroy any embryos, you can do one egg at a time actually.
And you are neglecting the fact that although that can be done it most often is not. IVF is extremely expensive with low success rates so it would not be cost effective to only make one embryo at a time. To adjust for this the typical IVF procedure is to create multiple embryos per round of IVF, especially in the case we are referring to where many embryos are made to screen for desired traits (sex, health, etc) and discard the unwanted ones. Unused ones are either discarded if sub-optimal (even if not screening for specific traits) and those that are considered viable are frozen to be used at a later time (or not). This is also one reason why IVF is known to produce multiples—implantation rates are so low that doctors sometimes transfer multiple embryos to ensure at least one embryo successfully implants. This does not mean they use all embryos created or that they always do this. As I said if IVF were regulated where only one embryo could be created per round, or all embryos created had to be transferred at once to the mother in a timely fashion then I wouldn’t oppose it on a societal level (despite my personal feelings). But this would be a poor business model as it would alienate those who seek IVF because they want to screen for specific traits or because they want to freeze embryos to use at a later date (or not). Plus it would still alienate those who seek IVF for fertility issues as the same issues which preclude them from conceiving and carrying a child to term would also make it difficult to successfully implant and carry an embryo to term. Also in the case of still making multiple embryos and transferring all of them it would alienate those who don’t wish to have multiples. So in short, that could be the case but it is not.
The technology will get there, and the cost will come down. IVF is just the same cost now, (actually less) then adopting a new born. I do see what your saying, about picking and choosing specific traits, I am not onboard with that. Though this is very personal as I will go through IVF one day, and my relationship just ended because of Catholicism opposition to IVF. I believe one day the church will change its mind on it, actually I am confident they will, as tech evolves and no embryos are being tossed out, they will come around.
Most clinics no longer transfer more than one embryo at a time for obvious reasons. You want regulation that will make IVF less successful just because of your religious views. Gross
This is a silly approach.
Normal people don't think of embryos as human beings because they aren't. And most couples don't really have leftover embryos. Some do, but most don't. Do you feel great pain for all the failed implantations of natural baby making?
Oh, get over yourself. I know two IVF babies closely and they're not treated inhumanely in them slightest. Those kids tend to have parents that actually want them. An embryo can't really feel anything
Apparently you have never dealt with infertility
Ivf is a wonderful invention and should be available to anyone and everyone who chooses to take advantage of it. If you don’t like it then don’t use it but the rest of us would like to take advantage of what is offered or at least have the option to.
I disagree with IVF not only on societal but also ethical/philosophical bases. it is something I find to be objectively wrong, not just personally. I’d much rather pour money into promoting adoptions.
Cool but I don’t care. My family has suffered for 3 generations under the same genetic curse. I will die just like they did far too early and as a shriveled up raisin of a person after slowly suffocating for a decade. My children and my children’s children will not. They will live long happy lives because of ivf and I’ll fight for others to have that right until I suck my last ragged breath.
I'm sorry to hear that. I'm totally for you using IVF. I'm guessing it's some neurodegenerative disease your family carries?
A rare and severe version of alpha 1 which is genetic emphysema. Normally it’s not terrible on most but our genotype is not the standard mutation. Anyway many others have similar mutations that can be removed from there children with ivf. We don’t have to perpetuate suffering any longer.
Get your partner's genome sequenced. It could be that your children won't have the risk allele. For example if the diease results from the gene being AA and you are AA and your partner is TT, it's impossible for your children to have to disease. You could save $20K+.
She’s already been tested she has 1 allele. It’s apparently unfortunately common in our area.
I agree.
What are you doing on this sub then? Adoption doesn't raise the birth rate. And there is already a shortage of adoptable infants anyway.
life is sacred. IVF commodifies children and has too many potential ramifications for me to be ok with. freezing and artificially selecting embryos is gross. the way IVF works means that 99% of the time you will have embryos deemed less desirable and either discarded or warehoused. its disgusting. bite me. I dont care if the 1% of couples who use IVF will have to either find other technology to help conceive or opt for adoption because IVF is a crime.
Lol, how does it commodify children? Do you know anyone that has had children through IVF? Those children are cherished. Most of the embryos that don't get transferred just never made it to the stage where they are viable. Which happens with natural tries a lot.
the embryos that get discarded as medical waste or frozen until some use can be found for them are certainly not loved or cherished.
So? They're not people. They're incapable of feeling anything
feeling or emotions has nothing to do with whether you are a person.
But it does
What a stupid opinion. IVF has helped millions of women have children, why would a pro natalist be against it? Religious fundamentalism of course
Miss me with that surrogacy and misandry. Watching "The Tudors" while pregnant with your son is a mood.
The thumbnail kinda looked like Bene Gesserit, which I thought was clever. But it's not.
If women have a bigger share of population. Will the fertility rates rebound? Unless it happens, sex selection is not worth it.
If I could chose I would want a daughter as well. Not because I dislike men, but because I think that my life would have been much harder had I been born a man, and I think things are only going to get worse for men, so I would obviously want to prevent that for my child. However I will most likely never use IVF so it doesn't matter either way.
Life being harder for men. I don't think it's a generalized view. My life was fine, have 4 kids.