One of the pioneers of ivf, Robert Edwards died today.

So what are your thoughts on the subject of 'test tube babies'?

I don't have any ethical concerns about it whatsoever. It would be different if we had a 'Brave New World' scenario where humans are being born in hatcheries. If people want to bring a life into the world and nurture it, God knows we need more people like that.

Apparently there is some sort of Catholic opposition to it. Don't want abortions. Don't want children born unless they approve of the method. Don't want you to have sex outside of wedlock. Don't want you to have sex without a condom at all. Or gay sex. Disapprove of masturbation. Don't want priests to have sex at all. But kiddy fiddling is okay, in fact, we'll try to cover that up if it ever happens!

I don't like the idea of genetic tampering to produce 'designer children', but I do think straight-forward IVF is a fantastic thing for couples desperate to have children & having difficulty conceiving.

Thanks to him and his fellow boffins I have 2 lovely nieces to fuss over.

Top boffin-ing!

I don't know much about test tube babies.

But i think stem cells should be used for injuries worldwide, alot of the pro athletes from here (US) go to Germany for that.

That topic would be a massive derail ra so please start a thread

My thoughts on ivf are split. One side of me sees it as 'playing god' and interfering with the natural order of things.
The other side sees all the people that have lives to live as a result and thinks its great.

In the current paradigm there is a financial consideration. I don't have figures to hand but the costs are high. Whether through social health care or private. What do you lot think about that side of it?

I see nowt wrong with IVF, personally I think I'd be inclined to accept my 'fate' in a similar position but luckily will never have to know that for sure!

In terms of direct and indirect costs, I never let the cost of something be a deciding factor in anything moral and/or ethical.

Agreed oi, the cost is not a factor in the ethics of it but it is a factor for the pragmatic side of it. If I understand correctly, the nhs in Britain will fund the first few 'attempts' but after that it's up to people to fund it themselves. The costs running into many thousands. The financial burden is massive both for the taxpayers and the individuals. Ok, what price do you put on a life? An impossible question ofc. But, some will be priced out of continuing treatment and that leads to a serious inequality.
If you are poor and infertile you've no choice to stop trying when the state funding dries up. If you have wedge, you can keep on trying....

knobmeup wrote: This is the way it is in everything, unfortunately. I don't see it changing any time soon, except that I see the gap between 'haves' and 'have nots' widening and that latter group growing in number. You have this inequality of opportunity in every area of life. One of the most notable for me is education. You can read about an experience I had here:

www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059921452&postcount=22

I'll copy and paste the post if anyone can't read it, but it should be possible for everyone to read it AFAIK. Of course, Ampleforth College is nowhere near the top private school in the country, in fact it's currently ranked 237th:

rankings.ft.com/secondary-schools/second...76|16581|16586|16626

This is the thing that many people don't understand. When MPs are selected from this type of institution, which they almost always are particularly in the upper echelons, people seem to think that they're going to do something to represent the interests of average folk. Why would they? They've never fucking met any of them! They move in totally different circles and have totally different aspirations for their own offspring. And that's what they're interested in protecting. And if that means unlimited IVF for them, and no kids for A.N.Other, so be it.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Are all pro-lifers Catholic?
Do only Catholics preach against sex before marraige?
Does the Catholic Church condemn or condone paedophila?


So very often when people object to "religion", they focus on Christianity (e.g. Dawkins' God Delusion which has most of its chapters imed at Xtianity). And the first target of Xtianity is the RCC.

Funnily Baptisis, Anglicans, Methodists, Prebytyrians, Lutherans, Calvanists and Evangleicals don't get half the crap even if some of them make up your Doctor-shooting Religious Fundie Bible Belt nutfuck crowd. Your Xtian Zionist Rapture waiting misanthropist crowd.

Even though they have had just as many, if not more sex and abuse scandals.

Even though they vote unanimously for Republicans like Bush and support the wars in Iraq amd elsewhere while most Catholics voted the other way and the RCC vehemently opposed the war while many evangelicals and methodists supported it.

Even though the RCC is consistent in its support for life by objecting to both abortion AND the death penalty while the Methodists and Baptists and others support the death penalty.

But no. The Bishops wear frocks and don't fuck. And besides Dan Brown books make easy reading.

I am all for open criticism of the RCC when it is at fault and I happen to disagree with them on this issue.

But you can take your Jack Chick tract and shove it up your arse.

BTW: The RCC does not object to Gamete intrafallopian transfer.

The Catholic Church are specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia page for IVF:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisa...#Catholic_objections

I've got no idea if other churches do or don't agree with it, and I don't have anything more against the Catholic Church than I do against any other institution that dictates to people what they can or can't do based on doctrine. Don't get me started on Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions.

I totally disagree with such an institution imposing its view on other people and telling its followers what they can and can't do with their own bodies and lives because it's supposedly the will of God. This goes against everything I believe in about personal liberty. I would totally oppose it under any circumstances, but I consider the Catholic Church's attitude to sex to be ludicrous, dangerous and hypocritical.

Everyone else is welcome to their own opinion, that goes without saying.

wake_up_bomb wrote: Did you also read that the RCC was officially sanctioning paedophelia?

mikey mikey wrote: I did read that they tried to cover it up, that's just simply a fact.

So did the BBC, Social Services, other Chruches, the Boy Scouts, Public Schools and so on.

Doesn't make it right and I believe that genuine steps to out it right are being taken.

But let's face it: this is off topic and so is the RCC, clerical celibacy, and all of that.

Makes me wonder why you even brought all that up.

mikey mikey wrote: Don't pay the licence fee, not a huge fan of social services, not a huge fan of other churches, definitely don't agree with the Boy Scouts anti-gay angle that I've been reading about recently, public schools I mentioned on this thread. I'm not virulently against the Catholic Church, but yet turn a blind eye to abuses elsewhere. There aren't many institutions that I have respect for.

My point simply is that an institution that covered up paedophilia has no moral authority in my eyes, yet they apparently feel qualified to not only oppose IVF, but tell other people that can't otherwise have children that it's morally wrong. To my way of thinking, it's ludicrous. Obviously hundreds of millions of people see it differently, that's their right.

I'm not prejudiced against Catholics and I certainly don't have any objection to people following the religion, as long as it's not imposed on me. I do, though, reserve the right to my opinion.

Quite right and sorry to derail your thread, mate.

I also disagree with the RCC on the position of IVF. Fortunately, as it is not one of the "non-negotiables" I am, even as a Catholic, free to disagree.

mikey mikey wrote: Doesn't matter, don't worry about it, I think it was pretty on-topic, anyway.