Embryos

[funkedup]

Miko in your specific example of the soldier, I think bringing a child into the world without two parents is wrong because it quite clearly hurts the child's development.

In general, I think it's wasteful of society's resources to spend zillions of dollars so somebody can have the superficial warm and fuzzy feeling that their child came from their genetic material.  For people who have problems with their equipment, I think they should adopt.  If adoption is too difficult, then we need to fix that.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So....

A guy has a heart attack, he is saved at the hospital, and 2 years later conceives a child.

Assisted procreation?

What if he had a blockage of the vas deferens and surgery allowed him to conceive a baby?

Assisted procreation?

His wife has a blockage of the fallopian tube, surgery opens the tube, she conceives a baby.

Assisted procreation?

or what if surgery can't open the tube, but we can harvest one of her eggs, combine it with one of his sperm.. conceiving a baby.

Where would you draw the line? and Why?

Surgery doesn't bother me too much.  If something is functionally wrong with your body, fixing it makes sense.  Although obviously there is a cost-benefit tradeoff.  I can't argue with surgeries to correct life threatening disorders.  When we get into surgeries that merely improve quality of life, it's more of a grey area.  Some of the fertility related stuff gets on the edge of being a vanity surgery like a nose job.  I find cosmetic surgery to be perverse and wasteful.

I'd draw the line at anything that involves removal of genetic material, removal of embryos, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, etc.  It has zero benefit to society.  Just a superficial benefit to the egos of the parents.  We have a surplus of fertility, and a shortage of responsible parents.  If that situation changes, I might switch sides.  But I don't see it changing.  It seems the dumbest breed the mostest in this country.

PS This is just my opinion.  I wouldn't shoot these people, that was just silliness on my part.  I don't even think I would outlaw their activities, because I don't think the constitution would support it.  But I would never do it myself, and would discourage anyone I knew who tried it.

[miko2d]

Eagler: mikos ego at it again ... you go clone king

 Ego? Cloning? What the heck are you talking about?


funkedup: Miko in your specific example of the soldier, I think bringing a child into the world without two parents is wrong because it quite clearly hurts the child's development.

 I agree - it would have been much better to let the guy raise his children for 20 years and only go to the boot camp at frisky middle age of 48.
 Unfortunately some occupations coincide with the time when a person is most fertile and most importantly alive. Time works against us in that respect.

 If we deny a person a stake in the future, what incentive does he have to sacrifice for it? What right do we have to ask him to?
 I mean it is good if he subscribes to collectivist ideology that he must sacrifice himself for other people's children and is content with that but what if he doesn't?

 Dying for someone else's interests is pretty bad - meybe evem worse than raising a loved child by singe parents and grandparents.

 How about them, by the way - raising a (sigle?) child and having him die with no hope for grandchildren, no chance to adopt (who would let them at their age?), no hope, no future?

 My grandfather spent five years in Stalin's camps and was released just in time to go die in WWII. He had seen my father for very short time - months, and did not raise him at all. Millions of children were orphaned in similar way and grew up OK. Would you really have wished that they have not been born?

 Oh, yeah - my grandmother lost her health working 20-hour shifts on a munition factory during the war (Siberia, -40 degrees, roof but no walls, etc.) and did not have more children even though she was lucky to remarry - despite a severe shortage of men. An ability to have a child would certainly come in handy if such technology were available.

In general, I think it's wasteful of society's resources to spend zillions of dollars so somebody can have the superficial warm and fuzzy feeling that their child came from their genetic material.

 Who said I want "society" to contribute? A soldier's life sacrificed in the line of duty is certainly worth a few hundred thousand dollars, so the state can provide life insurance for him or private charity if teh state is too cheap.
 For everybody else the creation and storage of embryos is a personal expence and not that large - few thousands for conception and few hundreds a year for storage.
 Cost of raising them may be covered covered by a dead spouse's privately-bought life insurance - or wages of both spouses if one of them got infertile.

 I am talking of course about the situation in a free society. In a communist society where every expence comes out of "society's resources" rather than private ones, your financial considerations are completely appropriate but are probably irrelevant - unless you get to be the top dog.

 Same goes for the "benefit of society". We are not legally required to live for the benefit of society so far and as long as one does not claim society's funds for that, what's the problem?

If adoption is too difficult, then we need to fix that.

 I've never heard a politician running on that issue. Usually people desperate to have children do not have time or inclination for political games. It's not like politically anyone is against it. It's just the actual process of dealing with bureaucracy that is impassable.

 Anyway, many people consider life not limited to one body but mor like a process in action. They do not believe that life ends with the ceasing of function of a particular body but carries on through the descendants.
 Nobody has to share or subcidise their beliefs but doing anything to deny them that choice would be religious prosecution.

 miko

[SOB]

So welfare isn't enough for these people, now we have to raise their children if we can't make our own without medical assistance?  If someone wants to spend a bunch of money to make a kid from their own loins, then more power to 'em.  It's not their responsibility to take in orphans if they're not interested in doing so.

Funked should be shot in the testicles and forced to demonstrate improper breeding techniques with Richard Simmons.


SOB

[SOB]

Ignore Eagler, he doesn't like anything that his imaginary friend in the sky might object to.  Just smile and nod, he'll move on.  


SOB

[miko2d]

funkedup:  We have a surplus of fertility, and a shortage of responsible parents.

 We have surplus of fertility of arguably questionable genetic value in the underclass - subcidised by welfare, where is the social utiltyn in that, while responcible parents who are capable (may be genetically linked) and take time to establish careers in order to afford proper care for ther families could have lost their fertility by the time they are ready - women's frtility declines terribly by 35. That kind of situation is the norm now, not exception, by the way.

 Why should their genetic heritage be discareded and they be forced to raise a possibly genetically inferior and most likely gestationally-damaged  (drugs, alcohol, tabacco) child most likely of a different race who will have hard time taking on their culture and values and relatives?

It seems the dumbest breed the mostest in this country.

 Which is exactly what "can now, give birth when ready" technology is helping to fix.

I don't even think I would outlaw their activities, because I don't think the constitution would support it.  But I would never do it myself, and would discourage anyone I knew who tried it.

 OK than. As long as you are aware of that opportunity, my job here is done.

 miko

[miko2d]

SOB: So welfare isn't enough for these people, now we have to raise their children if we can't make our own without medical assistance?

 Welfare? Their children? Who mentioned welfare?

 It's career families spending the most fertile years in college and work that suffer most and would benefit the greatest - with small expence upfront helping avoid huge medical costs or childlessness later.

 Welfare queens have time to have their children naturally and usually ahve full complement by the age of 20 - when a capable women just graduates.

 miko

[Eagler]

Originally posted by SOB
Ignore Eagler, he doesn't like anything that his imaginary friend in the sky might object to.  Just smile and nod, he'll move on.  


SOB

moving on ... ty sir

[midnight Target]

Adoption is only difficult if you are looking for a newborn white baby.

There are 500,000 children waiting to be adopted out there. They just made the mistake of being the wrong color, or too old, or handicapped in some way. If your cousin wants to raise a child and provide a human with a wonderful life, there are many just waiting for the call.

[Raubvogel]

Originally posted by miko2d

 We have surplus of fertility of arguably questionable genetic value in the underclass

 miko

Those who can't conceive naturally have questionable genetic value also  Natural selection doesn't really care how much money someone is making.

[miko2d]

midnight Target: Adoption is only difficult if you are looking for a newborn white baby.

 Unfortunately that is not true. Some couples do not want to adopt a sick baby or another race baby for various reasons but many do. Plenty of white couples are willing to adopt a black child - not necessarily a newborn or of good health. It is practically impossible or at least very difficut/expensive becasue of the racial policies of government bureucrats based on the protests of  black organisations.
 
 Basically, they make value judgements and insist that giving a black baby to a white couple would deprive him/her from black culture into which he/she must apparently be locked just becasue he/she was born black.

 It is much easier to adopt a different race baby in some thirld world country and many people do just that. You cannot reasonably believe they just hate american black babies but love foreign ones.


Raubvogel: Those who can't conceive naturally have questionable genetic value also

 Sometime. But in modern american society it is a rare exception rather than the rule.

 You see, a healthy women is most fertile at about 18 with full complement of her eggs already present. From 18 to 28 her fertility falls fast and after 28 it falls even faster.
 Besides loss of fertility and increased risk of pregnancy complications, the eggs themselves do nothing but deteriorate with time and the chances of having a non-viable egg or a baby with accumulated spontaneous chromosomal abnormalities (absolutely not the same as inheritable genetic defects in parents) increase exponentially.

 For example, a perfectly healthy and genetically perfect woman of 18 has about 1/40,000 chance that her egg will have an extra chromosome resulting in a baby with Down syndrome. Meyosis is a complicated process of sorting 23 pairs of chromosomes corectly and may fail even under best conditions.
 At 35 that risk of Down syndrome is 1/150 and at 45 it's 1/10.

 And there are plenty more cromosomal abnormalities or accumulated damage to good genes that just Down syndrome.

 So a women that wants to be a professional and postpone her childbearing till 30s would be smart to store her 20yr old eggs or better embryos (frozen much more reliably than eggs) to spare herself the anguish of miscarriages, abortions and unhealthy babies. You see, the "natural" baby born at 35 may come from the same egg that could have been frozen at 20 - just spared 15 years of aging and deterioration.
 Same egg, same sperm, same uterus - just less deterioration.

 If you want to have a classic new 2001 Corvette to give your son on his birthday in 2016, you can buy one now only 2 years old and store it in a dry garage for 13 years in pristine condition.
 This way the gift woule be much better than if you bought a worn 15-year old car right there - maybe even the same one!
 You woudl call stupid a man that would suggest that you should wreck your pristine car to compensate for abcent aging for which you did not get any use, right?

 Anyway, a healthy, capable woman is more likely to delay her childbearing because of education and career considerations and a healty man is more likely to engage in risky or damaging occupations (military?) that may leave him infertile.
 Also, proportional effort and expence per baby in upper class are greater than in underclass since the baby will more likely be capable of higher education, etc. and the parents feel obliged to provide it, hence limiting the number of children to that which can be given quality upbringing.

 All that while welfare underclass reproduces young and plenty and do not spend much time/effort on their children.

 Good genes - especially linked to health and intelligence are counter-reproductive trait in our society and thus are selected out. It is called dysgenic effect - persuasion and creating disincentives so that capable healthy people do not to reproduce while subcidising reproduction by disabled and less capable is the opposite whhat eugenics tried to do.

 So natural selection is working the wrong way in our welfare culture society that punishes success, rewards failure and dissuades capably women from childbearing in favor of career.

 It is natural selection in some way but memetic one rather than just genetic one. The cultures that can successfully resist such presures and promote more childbearing by more capable people - ortodox jews, some christian sects, some others - do not experence such drastic genetic degradation as the society in general.

 miko