I'm an uber leftist, progressive, environmentalist, feminist. It's nice that you are you, that you're alive. But that's only one data point.
On the whole, ALL of the "fertility" industry is a horror show. No child should be manufactured with sperm and/eggs from randos, it's quite disgusting.
There are 8+ billion humans
There are a bazillion children needing parents already
We should NOT be funding the "fertility" industry, at all.
I have been greatly blessed; I was able to become pregnant the old-fashioned way and give birth to a child at age 40. Couples who need a bit of assistance in achieving their miracle ought have no scorn aimed at them. There's a profound difference between bearing a child, which is a matchless experience, and adopting someone else's baby. The love one gives to each may be equivalent but still there is a primal hunger to feel the kicking of a living child within one's own body and the joy of a man seeing his woman's belly grow round with a wanted baby
Every new technology brings with it wonders and horrors. The rent-a-womb business is a pretty ugly one. The spectre of Eugenics haunts assisted reproduction, though I certainly strongly believe that avoiding the birth of children with life-limiting congenital diseases is good for everyone.
It must have been very hard for your parents to reveal to you a secret that might have endangered family ties and caused unending ripples that could have no easy resolution. But they wanted you so badly and they must be so proud of you now, and so glad they had the courage to find a way to bring you into the world.
It would be very helpful for you to give context to the ruling and provide a PDF of the actual ruling. When I looked it up I was not surprised to see that, as usual, the left has run screaming that the sky is falling and msm is spinning it without actually reading the ruling. Basically my understanding from reading online is that three couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed when an unauthorized person accessed and opened a cryo tank and pulled them out and destroyed them sued the IVF facility. The three heartbroken couples sued the IVF facility claiming that its poor security protocols deprived them of their right to have children in the future using the embryos. A lower court sided with the facility so the couples appealed to the Alabama supreme Court. Alabama apparently does not have up to date laws re:IVF so they had to go back to laws that predate IVF technology. Rather than "legislate from the bench" the justices applied existing law as they rightly should have. This case brought to light a need for new legislation in this state. My reading indicates that the AL state legislature is now addressing that need. The laws need to be balanced. Certainly, the 3 couples who lost the chance to have their embryos implanted lost more than just "property". But did they experience the same level of loss as someone whose child was hypothetically killed by a drunk driver? Was failure to adequately protect the embryos malpractice? Certainly anyone undergoing IVF should want laws to be strict enough that the involved facilities are incentivized to maintain strict security. New law should most definitely require contractual language to cover all the anticipated possibe outcomes. Those who undergo IVF should then really have their own attorney review the documents before signing to make sure their specific interests are represented Undergoing IVF has the potential to be legally very complex yet I wonder how many patients sign consents they don't fully understand without legal representation.
The moral inconsistency of Pro-Lifers supporting IVF (or ALL fertility "treatments") is laughable. But then again, religious moralists are always inconsistent.
Just look at the adulation for multi-divorced anti-family man non faithful Trump! hahaha
An IVF baby, Christopher Brunet, takes on the Alabama issue, and does a great job of explaining why some people oppose IVF.
(Imagine finding out at age 24 that you came to life by technology that most often involves purposeful killing. Possibly (depending on the practitioners) a giant litter of siblings were killed. )
Some vital issues: The Alabama Supreme court decision is limited primarily to allowing parents to sue if the IVF companies throw away their embryos without their consent. People are screeching, either out of ignorance of this limit, or because recognizing that humans are human from the beginning of development should cause us to more respectful of the life giving faculties. That's Not profitable to some very large industries.
The reason 3 clinics stopped doing IVF is more likely because they don't want to be held liable for the sloppy way they create excess human embryos, then clean out their freezers.
That being said, humans belong to the Creator, and have the same intrinsic value, despite how they got here, and none should be purposely killed, sold, or enslaved, as is happening now, worse than ever.
Thank you for sharing this.... I don't have children and refused IVF or any fertility drugs...that was a choice I made..... I wish more people would stop and and ask WHY all this fertility.....I don't judge others that have done it but we need to ask the right questions.... it's become too big of an industry, sort of like the cancer industry.... and both industries also play into people's hopes and dreams..... some even promising things that never come to pass.... I believe that both the cancer and fertility issues are linked with the GMO foods, air, vaccines, etc..... we need to get to the WHY not necessarily just the HOW.....
I'm an uber leftist, progressive, environmentalist, feminist. It's nice that you are you, that you're alive. But that's only one data point.
On the whole, ALL of the "fertility" industry is a horror show. No child should be manufactured with sperm and/eggs from randos, it's quite disgusting.
There are 8+ billion humans
There are a bazillion children needing parents already
We should NOT be funding the "fertility" industry, at all.
No eggs
No sperm
No surrogacy
No multiple embryos
No to the entire disgusting scheme.
A lovely and graceful essay.
Just FYI, Marc Girardot thinks there's a lot of overwrought hysteria suggesting women who put off childbearing until their, say, late 30s are gravely endangering their fertility. https://covidmythbuster.substack.com/p/whats-driving-the-infertility-boom
I have been greatly blessed; I was able to become pregnant the old-fashioned way and give birth to a child at age 40. Couples who need a bit of assistance in achieving their miracle ought have no scorn aimed at them. There's a profound difference between bearing a child, which is a matchless experience, and adopting someone else's baby. The love one gives to each may be equivalent but still there is a primal hunger to feel the kicking of a living child within one's own body and the joy of a man seeing his woman's belly grow round with a wanted baby
Every new technology brings with it wonders and horrors. The rent-a-womb business is a pretty ugly one. The spectre of Eugenics haunts assisted reproduction, though I certainly strongly believe that avoiding the birth of children with life-limiting congenital diseases is good for everyone.
It must have been very hard for your parents to reveal to you a secret that might have endangered family ties and caused unending ripples that could have no easy resolution. But they wanted you so badly and they must be so proud of you now, and so glad they had the courage to find a way to bring you into the world.
It would be very helpful for you to give context to the ruling and provide a PDF of the actual ruling. When I looked it up I was not surprised to see that, as usual, the left has run screaming that the sky is falling and msm is spinning it without actually reading the ruling. Basically my understanding from reading online is that three couples whose frozen embryos were destroyed when an unauthorized person accessed and opened a cryo tank and pulled them out and destroyed them sued the IVF facility. The three heartbroken couples sued the IVF facility claiming that its poor security protocols deprived them of their right to have children in the future using the embryos. A lower court sided with the facility so the couples appealed to the Alabama supreme Court. Alabama apparently does not have up to date laws re:IVF so they had to go back to laws that predate IVF technology. Rather than "legislate from the bench" the justices applied existing law as they rightly should have. This case brought to light a need for new legislation in this state. My reading indicates that the AL state legislature is now addressing that need. The laws need to be balanced. Certainly, the 3 couples who lost the chance to have their embryos implanted lost more than just "property". But did they experience the same level of loss as someone whose child was hypothetically killed by a drunk driver? Was failure to adequately protect the embryos malpractice? Certainly anyone undergoing IVF should want laws to be strict enough that the involved facilities are incentivized to maintain strict security. New law should most definitely require contractual language to cover all the anticipated possibe outcomes. Those who undergo IVF should then really have their own attorney review the documents before signing to make sure their specific interests are represented Undergoing IVF has the potential to be legally very complex yet I wonder how many patients sign consents they don't fully understand without legal representation.
Congratulations!
The moral inconsistency of Pro-Lifers supporting IVF (or ALL fertility "treatments") is laughable. But then again, religious moralists are always inconsistent.
Just look at the adulation for multi-divorced anti-family man non faithful Trump! hahaha
An IVF baby, Christopher Brunet, takes on the Alabama issue, and does a great job of explaining why some people oppose IVF.
(Imagine finding out at age 24 that you came to life by technology that most often involves purposeful killing. Possibly (depending on the practitioners) a giant litter of siblings were killed. )
Some vital issues: The Alabama Supreme court decision is limited primarily to allowing parents to sue if the IVF companies throw away their embryos without their consent. People are screeching, either out of ignorance of this limit, or because recognizing that humans are human from the beginning of development should cause us to more respectful of the life giving faculties. That's Not profitable to some very large industries.
The reason 3 clinics stopped doing IVF is more likely because they don't want to be held liable for the sloppy way they create excess human embryos, then clean out their freezers.
That being said, humans belong to the Creator, and have the same intrinsic value, despite how they got here, and none should be purposely killed, sold, or enslaved, as is happening now, worse than ever.
Thank you for sharing this.... I don't have children and refused IVF or any fertility drugs...that was a choice I made..... I wish more people would stop and and ask WHY all this fertility.....I don't judge others that have done it but we need to ask the right questions.... it's become too big of an industry, sort of like the cancer industry.... and both industries also play into people's hopes and dreams..... some even promising things that never come to pass.... I believe that both the cancer and fertility issues are linked with the GMO foods, air, vaccines, etc..... we need to get to the WHY not necessarily just the HOW.....
Orthodox Jews who also have traditional moral values see IVF as a permissible way for couples who have fertility problems to have children.