Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's ironic Western Pilgrim brought up divorce rates as bad and a reason we should forbid donor sperm IVF. You know where divorce rates are highest? In religious red states.
Maybe we should stop all people in red states from marrying and breeding. Afterall, why should such people get to be "parents" if they can't stay married?
Morality and religion are one and the same for most people, including you.
That's ridiculous. Morality and religion are related but separate and distinct ideas. Are you really that incapable of simple distinctions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
You can't bring up the religious argument because you know you're going to lose.
I can and I do, in other venues, when I think it matters. But this topic is morally clear to anyone willing to think and consider the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
You can't bring up the moral argument because most people see nothing immoral about addressing a medical condition.
There you go with your lame euphemisms - "addressing a medical condition". Whom do you think you're fooling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
You can't even bring up stats because the only ones you can find have no validity.
As if you would know a valid study from a pile of steaming compost.
Lady, the fact is that you gave up thinking a long time ago. All I see here is your blinding, paranoid fear of "religion" which prevents you from thinking uncomfortable thoughts.
To support your argument please supply a valid, peer-reviewed study on the negative psychological impact of donor conception IVF, with a large subject group, and reviewers who are experts in the field of mental health. Studies published in religious publications will be considered irrevocably biased on this particular subject. Thanks.
In other words, research performed by people you disagree with need not be considered. Got it.
By the way, neither of the studies I referenced were performed by religious organizations. The Institute for American Values is not a religious organization of any kind. (And since when does a degree in divinity disqualify someone from doing objective research? Charles Darwin had a divinity degree: do you reject his work too?) The questions and the methodology are there for all to examine. What is it about their method that you disagree with? Or do you simply think they are lying?
Have there been other studies that contradict these findings? Please educate us.
In order for there to be studies at all, someone has to care - hence, there is always the potential for bias, no matter who does the work. So look at the methodology and criticize something concrete rather than grasping for reasons to dismiss uncomfortable data out of hand.
That's ridiculous. Morality and religion are related but separate and distinct ideas. Are you really that incapable of simple distinctions?
What's ridiculous is you attempting to pretend that you're not basing your silly OP on your extremist Catholic beliefs.
Quote:
I can and I do, in other venues, when I think it matters. But this topic is morally clear to anyone willing to think and consider the evidence.
Yes. You don't have an argument. You have a religious belief you want to impose on others. That's not moral or evidence.
Quote:
There you go with your lame euphemisms - "addressing a medical condition". Whom do you think you're fooling?
There you go with your scientific ignorance. Donor egg and donor sperm are largely used when someone has a medical condition called infertility. This makes them unable to conceive a baby. Thus the use of medical procedures to correct the problem.
Biology isn't a lame euphemism. Your absurd, ignorant religious extremism is not a good enough reason to deny other people the possibility of becoming a parent.
Quote:
As if you would know a valid study from a pile of steaming compost.
Well you posted that steaming pile so we all a pretty good view of it.
Quote:
Lady, the fact is that you gave up thinking a long time ago. All I see here is your blinding, paranoid fear of "religion" which prevents you from thinking uncomfortable thoughts.
I wasn't aware "thinking" means listening to celibate pedophiles whine that people chose to have a family. You're the paranoid one. You're afraid that someone, somewhere refuses to procreate in accordance with your own ignorant principles.
I'm still waiting for you to admit that most IVF does not use donor eggs or donor sperm. I'm still waiting for you to admit that most adoptees aren't orphans. Or that most people agree that someone who raises a child conceived via donor sperm is still that child's parent.
Really. Find another hobby. Your bizarre obsession with someone else's solution to a horrible medical tragedy is just horribly sad.
Raise your hand if you've attended a Donor ART conference. Anyone? Just me? Hmm.
So here's the deal with donor inseminations and donor IVF. It can definitely be a messy ordeal, legally speaking. Laws vary from state to state and from country to country. America is one of the best countries for donors because it allows for anonymity if desired or full disclosure of identity. Countries that ban anonymity have trouble getting enough donors. Same with states that ban compensation for donation (though there are some legal gray areas in that regard).
In the clinic where I work, all egg and embryo donors are strictly anonymous in both directions. Sperm donations are shipped to us from sperm banks where they and their donors decide their level of anonymity. From what I learned at the ART conference, using a known donor just makes things messier for everyone involved. It opens a lot of avenues for suing for child support which is almost always because a parent wants easy cash.
The problem with studies that seem to show children born from donor eggs or sperm or embryos having more emotional issues, resentment, etc is the way they find these people to survey. In all aspects of life, people with negative things to say work harder to find an outlet for their complaints than those who are satisfied will seek out ways to express their positive opinions. If I post a notice looking for people born from donor products, I will get more responses from unhappy people because those are feel satisfied and unaffected won't seek out a notice like that. The scales are tipped.
The problem with studies that seem to show children born from donor eggs or sperm or embryos having more emotional issues, resentment, etc is the way they find these people to survey. In all aspects of life, people with negative things to say work harder to find an outlet for their complaints than those who are satisfied will seek out ways to express their positive opinions. If I post a notice looking for people born from donor products, I will get more responses from unhappy people because those are feel satisfied and unaffected won't seek out a notice like that. The scales are tipped.
That might have been a problem if donor conceived children were the only ones studied. But the second study I referenced also had two comparison groups, selected in the same way. So that particular objection is moot.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 08-14-2012 at 05:03 PM..
That would have been true if donor conceived children were the only ones studied. But they also had two comparison groups, selected in the same way. So that particular objection is moot.
Not at all. The comparison group was adopted children, correct? Adoption and donor conception are totally different. An adopted child might feel much more connected to their origins than a donor child, in part because a donor child knows their origins. They don't wonder what the circumstances were that led their genetic parent to donate. A donor child may not feel any curiosity at all about their genetics, since even anonymous donors provide a slew of medical, family, and personal information, while an adopted child is often left completely in the dark about their genetic background. As well, a donor child still goes through all the same bonding processes of a genetic child, being born from their mother's womb, breastfeeding, knowing their parents from the moment they're born. These are experiences that most adopted children are not able to have.
Not to say all adopted children feel isolated or disconnected from their parents. I'm sure many aren't the least bit interested in seeking out their birth parents and feel no different than had they been born to the parents who raised them.
Not at all. The comparison group was adopted children, correct? Adoption and donor conception are totally different. An adopted child might feel much more connected to their origins than a donor child, in part because a donor child knows their origins. They don't wonder what the circumstances were that led their genetic parent to donate. A donor child may not feel any curiosity at all about their genetics, since even anonymous donors provide a slew of medical, family, and personal information, while an adopted child is often left completely in the dark about their genetic background. As well, a donor child still goes through all the same bonding processes of a genetic child, being born from their mother's womb, breastfeeding, knowing their parents from the moment they're born. These are experiences that most adopted children are not able to have.
Not to say all adopted children feel isolated or disconnected from their parents. I'm sure many aren't the least bit interested in seeking out their birth parents and feel no different than had they been born to the parents who raised them.
If you go to the study and read the methodology employed (pp. 119-122), you'll find that the problem of self-selection was completely avoided. They contacted 48,637 people without regard to their donor-conception status. This group was then divided into donor-conceived, adopted, and biological offspring categories.
What are you against? IVF or single mothers having IVF? Both?
Are you a Catholic? Heck, even if you aren't, you might want to read what Pope John Paul I (Cardinal Luciani) said about IVF after Louise Brown was born. He said he had no right to condemn the family and sent his best wishes to the newborn baby. He also said if they acted out of "right intention and good faith" they may even have "great merit before God for what they have decided on and asked the doctors to carry out." (There's a reason he's called "the Smiling Pope".)
Each family has problems enough of its own. I think we should concentrate on that and not worry about how someone else chooses to have a family. It's really none of our business.
p.s. Having only one parent is NOT a "broken situation". Which is better: The two parent family that has a husband/father who is a raging alcoholic who beats his children and his wife or the mother who leaves that man and raises her children by herself? Not everyone with two parents gets the fairy tale.
While that may have been said, the official stance of the Church is that IVF is a mortal sin. Embryos (babies in the Catholic belief) are killed. There are also other reasons it is a mortal sin having to do with the process.
Hilarious. This is not a religious topic and no religious arguments have been advanced. And yet, you can't keep yourself from injecting religion into the conversation - the very thing you accuse me of doing, and which I have not done.
Freud had a name for this, I think ...
You have proven it by your study which was done by a christian organization which shows its bias in the report itself and the website who commissioned it further compounds that fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
