Many animals will kill young of another males. And not all Animals accept young from another.
IVF, NHS & Kids waiting for adoption.
- Thread starter Resident
- Start date
Many animals will kill young of another males. And not all Animals accept young from another.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
I'm not claiming they all do, I'm saying that the desire to nurture outweighs any desire to nurture solely your own offspring which was the point the poster was trying to make and it's certainly no reason why tax payers should foot the bill as the continued survival of ones lineage is no way comparable to the continued survival of ones self
That is a fairer point.
If you didn't have IVF would you adopt?
I still don' rreally mind IVF on NHS compared to some self inflicted treatments
Someone needs to pay for my retirement!
and I'm not having kids of my own!
no, the other poster simple made a point about preferences
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I feel that I should post the terms of eligibility for NHS IVF as we are discussing it like they hand it out to everyone and anyone for nothing. Going privately could see costs of between 3000 and 5000 per cycle
This was pretty much it... That some animals will look after young from their own species, that are not directly related to them, or even young from different species is beside the point as animal rearing isn't generally a free for all where the young are looked after by unrelated adults randomly. Some communal animals do spread out the child rearing more widely between the group but they tend to be biologically related and are somewhat akin to a wider human family unit with 'aunties', cousins etc pitching in.
Generally animals prefer to raise their own biological offspring for reasons that are fairly well understood (natural selection preferring behaviours that progate the spread of the organisms own DNA)
To deny someone medical help based on your not approving is the same as denying treatment to someone that has been in an accident.
Someone needing IVF is doing it through something being wrong medically, and needing funding. Someone gets themselves hurt, knowing the potential danger, needs funding.
Fertility problems aren't a choice, unlike the examples I gave.
I think people forget how hard it can be to adopt too. A quick Google suggests it's a 6 month process these days but it was up to two years fairly recently. That's 6 months of filling in forms, background checks and constant monitoring by the adoption agency to ensure you're capable. All of this is after picking a child you think you can love unconditionally for the rest of your life which in itself can be a long and arduous process. Not to mention that it costs £28,000 if the child is outside of your local authority and guess where that comes from? The Government.
simply not true. many animals will kill offspring that are not theirs. some species fool them into raising other species offspring but its simply because they dont know. Have you studied biology or behavioural ecology in any detail?? People want their own children for the same reason animals do. Continuation of the genetic lineage.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
The problem is you can't use the natural selection card for this argument because IVF goes against everything natural selection is supposed to represent, so it's either applicable or not, you can't say you support IVF because people through natural selection inherently want their own biological offspring whilst at the same discounting the fact that natural selection has made them infertile
By that logic we should have the NHS fund cosmetic surgery because people who got unlucky in the genetic lottery happen to be ugly and we should also have a prostitution fund for people who are inept at forming a sexual relationship because they have a natural desire to have sex, it's just stupid
Fertility is not a choice, choosing to have offspring however is
Comparing someone being in accident to having children is silly, one chooses to have a child (and generally it takes 2 people to decide) whilst one does not choose to walk into an accident (unless they did it for youtube views)
Thankfully the people that actually make these decisions do not share your mindset.
I can answer this from experience. My brother married a single mother and legally adopted her baby son. A few years later they had their own child. Both were brought up the same and they didn't tell either child until they were almost adults.
Their eldest son has a lot of the traits of his real biological father and is very different in many regards than his brother. So while nurture does have an impact I have seen that nature is a stronger influence.
Fascinating stuff. I kind of would have guessed that. It's in the genes and all that.
?
Children born by IVF are still 100% the biological product of their parents (currentlyl)
You might as well say casesarian sections go against nature and so we shouldn't fund people to have their children survive if they are unable to undergo a 'natural' vaginal birth.
Not being able to have children causes a fair amount of anxiety and distress to humans and IVF isn't that expensive in the grand scale of things costing the NHS about £4k per cycle.
I don't think it's reasonable to say to a couple wanting a child, who haven't been able to conceive, no you can't have any artificial assistance to have your own child. If you want one you should get one from the orphanage.
It can of course be offered to them as an option but fostering isn't for everyone and can come with a particular set of challenges in addition to the normal parental ones.
Exactly!
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Well they do fear that infertility is on the rise due to fertility treatments and IVF.
I'm not exactly afraid that we are going to end up an infertile society struggling to pop out children as the fertile ones will continue to have children and as it stands, we seem to be overpopulated as it is.
Thank god it isn't a one or the other choice. This sort of argument does not come into it because the limiting factor as to whether people get a new lung/kidney and i assume IVF is not funding but rather eligibility and non monetary resources.
I'm not exactly afraid that we are going to end up an infertile society struggling to pop out children as the fertile ones will continue to have children and as it stands, we seem to be overpopulated as it is.
Thank god it isn't a one or the other choice. This sort of argument does not come into it because the limiting factor as to whether people get a new lung/kidney and i assume IVF is not funding but rather eligibility and non monetary resources.
Many genetic siblings have huge varying traits. It's probably not necessarily because one was adopted.
In my experience that isn't the case. Obviously I don't know about every adoption out there, but the majority of people I have come across have adopted out of necessity, not choice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
This is true.
I am an IVF triplet and we three couldn't be further from each other if we tried.