Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
I find it interesting that if she decided to abort a dozen of her genetic inheretences, she would be given far more support than if she gives them life.
Go figure.
Go figure.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
"We've found a match for you."
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
whaleskinrug
Golden Member
Because it's her genetic material it might still be of concern. Although that wouldn't bother every person, some would still have a sense of commitment to the child's welfare, even if it was "abstract". It might begin to bother her. I've seen that happen with sperm donors (both thosethat have sold their sperm and those that suspect they may have fathered children at some point) as they age.
GeeeeZ! Things like this irritate me like no tomorrow. First off, let me say that I will not concern myself with this particular case that Dezign has posted about. Whatever decision she makes will be her duty to bear the consequences and hers to make.
But on a general note: Please stop this crap about unfortunate couples. Are you going to tell me that this so-called unfortunate couples are going to stay together for the rest of their natural lives? Does anyone remember the story of the two lesbians in Sweden who got a donor? When things went bad for both of them, the court had to decide who will be responsible for child support. Well, guess what! The man whose sperm contributed to the existence of the child became responsible for it. Without consideration of the court's ruling, my point is why treat another human being as an item of commodity? Yes, by nature we're selfish even when we bring children through the natural process into existence, but why act ridiculously inconsiderate and selfish. The whole idea of sperm and egg donor puts a price on the value of a human being.
If you say it is just to help the unfortunate, please tell me exactly who this "unfortunate" people are? Does a working-class or poor person get that "help" many profess to be offering? So only people who are monetarily fortunate are considered unfortunate for being unable to have an offspring of theirs?
Why create this false dilemma? Why must you have an offspring of yours? I mean, it won't even be an offspring of your significant other and you. If you insist on defying nature and having an offspring, then try IVF. If IVF fails you, then deal with what nature has given you. In my opinion, there are reasons in life for the law of nature.
There are millions of kids waiting to be adopted. If you're concerned about the legal system, why not check for orphans whose parents you're sure are no longer there to help the children? I pity mankind that depends upon technology because one day will come when war or natural disaster will destroy the morales and the technology we've so depended upon. We will have to fend on our own using the tools we once used. I wonder who will survive the hardship. I wonder if people would still spitefully say that the law of nature has no relevance.
Boberfett, do you realise the error in your argument? It leads to a paradox. How could you miss the paradox? So if DNA is unimportant, then why do the couples or one of the couples insist on having an offspring of theirs (forget the fact that it won't be an offspring of both)? Is the mere fact that people have money sufficient reason to grant them their requests for donors? In reference to the predicament of the Swedes: Why should the lesbian care? It is not her child. It's great to know that children implicitly are not exactly of equal footing as far their rights as human beings and the pursuit of happiness.
You have just helped validate my belief in this thing called adoption from crying and helpless orphans. I want to thank you.
But on a general note: Please stop this crap about unfortunate couples. Are you going to tell me that this so-called unfortunate couples are going to stay together for the rest of their natural lives? Does anyone remember the story of the two lesbians in Sweden who got a donor? When things went bad for both of them, the court had to decide who will be responsible for child support. Well, guess what! The man whose sperm contributed to the existence of the child became responsible for it. Without consideration of the court's ruling, my point is why treat another human being as an item of commodity? Yes, by nature we're selfish even when we bring children through the natural process into existence, but why act ridiculously inconsiderate and selfish. The whole idea of sperm and egg donor puts a price on the value of a human being.
If you say it is just to help the unfortunate, please tell me exactly who this "unfortunate" people are? Does a working-class or poor person get that "help" many profess to be offering? So only people who are monetarily fortunate are considered unfortunate for being unable to have an offspring of theirs?
Why create this false dilemma? Why must you have an offspring of yours? I mean, it won't even be an offspring of your significant other and you. If you insist on defying nature and having an offspring, then try IVF. If IVF fails you, then deal with what nature has given you. In my opinion, there are reasons in life for the law of nature.
There are millions of kids waiting to be adopted. If you're concerned about the legal system, why not check for orphans whose parents you're sure are no longer there to help the children? I pity mankind that depends upon technology because one day will come when war or natural disaster will destroy the morales and the technology we've so depended upon. We will have to fend on our own using the tools we once used. I wonder who will survive the hardship. I wonder if people would still spitefully say that the law of nature has no relevance.
Boberfett, do you realise the error in your argument? It leads to a paradox. How could you miss the paradox? So if DNA is unimportant, then why do the couples or one of the couples insist on having an offspring of theirs (forget the fact that it won't be an offspring of both)? Is the mere fact that people have money sufficient reason to grant them their requests for donors? In reference to the predicament of the Swedes: Why should the lesbian care? It is not her child. It's great to know that children implicitly are not exactly of equal footing as far their rights as human beings and the pursuit of happiness.
You have just helped validate my belief in this thing called adoption from crying and helpless orphans. I want to thank you.
Miramonti
Lifer
I have no problem or disrespect for someone donating an egg, whether for $ or other reasons. She's not selling a baby, only an egg(s).
I have no respect for anyone that would buy sperm/egg without exhausting the adoption possibilities first tho. There is such a need for it and the rewards of it and the ways it can enrich the lives of the parents and children are tremendous. (This is the only issue I have with this subject, that it supports someone who might not have looked to adoption as an alternative.)
Good luck to you. 🙂
alkemyst
No Lifer
whoa! and to think many here thought you died.
have you found a head for all those pics yet or do those depend which 'hat' you are wearing (lawyer, doctor, psychologist, teacher, etc)?
I still don't see how any of the points above justify anything you were trying to say....maybe a couple doesn't have eggs to use IVF, maybe they want at least 1/2 the dna to come from them.....same way with dogs and cats.....nothing wrong with a 7 year old dog technically, but why pick one of those when puppies are available?
One's opinion can not be forced upon others.
Nitemare
Lifer
I for one would want my offspring to be genetically linked to both my wife and I. If one of us was not able to have children then I would want it at least half ours genetically. If invitro were to have failed then yes I would adopt, probably from another country.
I want to thank you for validating my belief that I support everything that you are against 100%.
isaacmacdonald
Platinum Member
I don't really undestand the moral objections people have raised. In a primal sense, getting your genetic material out there is an imperative. Getting paid for it (plus not having to be financially responsible) should be a plus. My girl was seriously considering donating eggs as well (there's a decent demand for asian donors). I had no objection to the concept, but given the arduous (and rather invasive) process, we both decided it wasn't worth doing.
Couldn't you see that coming though? I mean you, yourself know how much information you put out there. I would think it would be logical for other people to draw conclusions from only part of the story. Chances are those conclusions are not reflective of the whole story, but since you put that info out there people are gonna have an image of you.
Did the couple you're helping out try adoption? Or whats the story there?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
