The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was shocked to hear that in Isreal, they have pioneered a scheme where the eggs of aborted female foetuses could be extracted and used for IVF for a woman who is infertile. The eggs are extracted from the dead foestus' ovaries, fertilised with the 'father's' sperm and implanted in the womb of the woman who wants a baby. Shocking.
This means that the baby's biological mother was not only not the woman who carried it and will raise it, but was never born in the first place. So, in the eyes of the law, the baby's mother never existed! Also, the father of the baby has had the equivilant of sex with an unborn baby (quite disgusting, actually.)
What do you think about this? What do you think about IVF generally?
This means that the baby's biological mother was not only not the woman who carried it and will raise it, but was never born in the first place. So, in the eyes of the law, the baby's mother never existed! Also, the father of the baby has had the equivilant of sex with an unborn baby (quite disgusting, actually.)
What do you think about this? What do you think about IVF generally?
Page:
I was shocked to hear that in Isreal, they have pioneered a scheme where the eggs of aborted female foetuses could be extracted and used for IVF for a woman who is infertile. The eggs are extracted from the dead foestus' ovaries, fertilised with the 'father's' sperm and implanted in the womb of the woman who wants a baby. Shocking.
This means that the baby's biological mother was not only not the woman who carried it and will raise it, but was never born in the first place. So, in the eyes of the law, the baby's mother never existed! Also, the father of the baby has had the equivilant of sex with an unborn baby (quite disgusting, actually.)
What do you think about this? What do you think about IVF generally?
This means that the baby's biological mother was not only not the woman who carried it and will raise it, but was never born in the first place. So, in the eyes of the law, the baby's mother never existed! Also, the father of the baby has had the equivilant of sex with an unborn baby (quite disgusting, actually.)
What do you think about this? What do you think about IVF generally?
I think it offers the chance of kids to people that otherwise may never have them.
The End.
The End.
I find it abhorent and disrespectful to allow ANYONE to have kids by any means whatsoever; natural pumping, un-natural pumping, piping and pippeting.
Kids-don't have them.
Kids-don't have them.
IVF is alright on its own. But I think that Israeli thing is a step too far.
I think that if science can be used to give people who want children but couldn't have them otherwise then there is no problem and it should be done.
Goatboy wrote:
> I think it offers the chance of kids to people that otherwise may
> never have them.
> The End.
But it's not really the end though is it? This is involving taking the eggs form an unconsenting (obviously) female who hasn't even been born! This is a terrible abuse of technology.
I agree that normal IVF is good in a way, but it has triggered off all sorts of undesirable options such as the above and 'designer babies.'
> I think it offers the chance of kids to people that otherwise may
> never have them.
> The End.
But it's not really the end though is it? This is involving taking the eggs form an unconsenting (obviously) female who hasn't even been born! This is a terrible abuse of technology.
I agree that normal IVF is good in a way, but it has triggered off all sorts of undesirable options such as the above and 'designer babies.'
DébUK wrote:
> But it's not really the end though is it? This is involving taking the
> eggs form an unconsenting (obviously) female who hasn't even been
> born! This is a terrible abuse of technology.
Why ? It allows people who could not have children to have them, as Goatboy said; The End. As it is another person has already destroyed the life of the, as you put it, "unconsenting female", by having an abortion in the first place. Hence the foetus could never be a person, but at least it can be used to bring new life to a couple who want a baby.
> I agree that normal IVF is good in a way, but it has triggered off all
> sorts of undesirable options such as the above and 'designer babies.'
Same here, what is actually wrong with designer babies ? Most children are 'moulded' by their parents in early life to be what the parents want them to be, so I don't see the problem in people being able to choose sex, hair colour, eye colour and so on because at the end of the day it still lead to a child, new life. In some countries the ability to choose gender could save the needless suffering of children who are abandoned for being the wrong gender, especially in China with it's 1 child rule.
> But it's not really the end though is it? This is involving taking the
> eggs form an unconsenting (obviously) female who hasn't even been
> born! This is a terrible abuse of technology.
Why ? It allows people who could not have children to have them, as Goatboy said; The End. As it is another person has already destroyed the life of the, as you put it, "unconsenting female", by having an abortion in the first place. Hence the foetus could never be a person, but at least it can be used to bring new life to a couple who want a baby.
> I agree that normal IVF is good in a way, but it has triggered off all
> sorts of undesirable options such as the above and 'designer babies.'
Same here, what is actually wrong with designer babies ? Most children are 'moulded' by their parents in early life to be what the parents want them to be, so I don't see the problem in people being able to choose sex, hair colour, eye colour and so on because at the end of the day it still lead to a child, new life. In some countries the ability to choose gender could save the needless suffering of children who are abandoned for being the wrong gender, especially in China with it's 1 child rule.
and the sheet about the man 'in essence' having sex with an unborn baby is TOTAL sheet. That is just complete crap.
How is it? Sex= baby. There is no other way of naturally producing a baby. Therefore, IVF is artificially doing the job sex naturally does.
Imagine the effect having a mother who hasn't even been born would have on the child. Also, the child's grandmother would have a grandchild she wouldn't even know exists. We wouldn't take the eggs out of an adult who had died, so what makes it right to take them from a dead foetus? It is a breech of human rights.
There are plenty of children waiting to be adopted. Why ressurrect life from something that is already dead? Why not just leave the baby to rest in peace and not mess with it?
Imagine the effect having a mother who hasn't even been born would have on the child. Also, the child's grandmother would have a grandchild she wouldn't even know exists. We wouldn't take the eggs out of an adult who had died, so what makes it right to take them from a dead foetus? It is a breech of human rights.
There are plenty of children waiting to be adopted. Why ressurrect life from something that is already dead? Why not just leave the baby to rest in peace and not mess with it?
DébUK wrote:
> How is it? Sex= baby. There is no other way of naturally producing a
> baby.
There isn't?! So why have I been paying the CSA all these years? Hey....
Back to serious stuff, if you were never born, then you can't have human rights to be breached.
What bothers me is that to be able to extract eggs from a foetus, it would have to be quite far along. And then for it to die or be aborted for eggs is off. What is wrong with adoption? Or even surrogacy?
And then there is questions regarding the foetus. How long before the system in place here is abused and someone gets pregnant, then has an abortion solely for the eggs. That is just morally wrong in my opinion, but a distinct possibility.
> How is it? Sex= baby. There is no other way of naturally producing a
> baby.
There isn't?! So why have I been paying the CSA all these years? Hey....
Back to serious stuff, if you were never born, then you can't have human rights to be breached.
What bothers me is that to be able to extract eggs from a foetus, it would have to be quite far along. And then for it to die or be aborted for eggs is off. What is wrong with adoption? Or even surrogacy?
And then there is questions regarding the foetus. How long before the system in place here is abused and someone gets pregnant, then has an abortion solely for the eggs. That is just morally wrong in my opinion, but a distinct possibility.
Page: