Ragoo said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

are you a doctor?

---

Are you? It's considered a geriatric pregnancy over 35 for a reason..

shack009 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

It's news to me that IVF has always been controversial. The only people I've ever heard even mention it are the couples doing it. Have never actually heard one dissenting word on this procedure until this thread and the recent "controversy" in the news.

It simply seems like a next battle line that has come up after the SC ruling on abortion.

---

It's only controversial to people who are just learning that Catholicism exists.

But it's only a difficult issue for a lot of pro life Protestants because they've never thought about this issue before. They aren't able to apply pro life logic consistently on this issue, and that's why you seem them argue like lefties using emotion and personal stories rather than logic and sound philosophical arguments.

---

That may be my issue then. My only real interaction with Catholics is my wife who is a recovering Catholic that left the flock before she met me. She's never mentioned this topic.

I think your second paragraph goes back to what I mentioned. Abortion has been ruled upon and returned to the states, so this is simply the next battle line drawn on this overall issue. It was not thought about before probably because of the juxtaposition of simultaneously destroying cells while attempting to create life.

That adds a new element to the debate.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

I love my IVF twins more than life itself. Don't care what anyone says.

---

They still think you're a murderer for the others that did not implant in a uterus and become children.

---

I love how you consistently blow up threads with straw men arguments and logical fallacies. I think it really helps make a point for whatever side you are defending.

YouBet said:

---

It's news to me that IVF has always been controversial. The only people I've ever heard even mention it are the couples doing it. Have never actually heard one dissenting word on this procedure until this thread and the recent "controversy" in the news.

It simply seems like a next battle line that has come up after the SC ruling on abortion.

---

It's like the zealots can't be happy that they got what they want and are now searching for their next outrage.

Ragoo said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

are you a doctor?

---

Are only doctors allowed to know that the prime baby making years are well before 40?

Aggies1322 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

I love my IVF twins more than life itself. Don't care what anyone says.

---

They still think you're a murderer for the others that did not implant in a uterus and become children.

---

I love how you consistently blow up threads with straw men arguments and logical fallacies. I think it really helps make a point for whatever side you are defending.

---

That is your point though.

That creating embryos that aren't used is not just morally wrong, but also murder - the same as abortion.

Aggies1322 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

I love my IVF twins more than life itself. Don't care what anyone says.

---

They still think you're a murderer for the others that did not implant in a uterus and become children.

---

I love how you consistently blow up threads with straw men arguments and logical fallacies. I think it really helps make a point for whatever side you are defending.

---

No I think he nailed it.

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

Now THAT is a straw man.

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

Now THAT is a straw man.

---

It's the logical conclusion of exactly what you said.

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

I won't be surprised when you get some affirmative responses to this post...

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

This thread is about IVF and having kids. Extrapolating past that IS a strawman.

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

I won't be surprised when you get some affirmative responses to this post...

---

I won't either. Although, for their family's sake, I hope they're lying.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

This thread is about IVF and having kids. Extrapolating past that IS a strawman.

---

And IVF is a moral issue. Morality in general is being discussed here and how that applies to IVF. He said people should do what is best for themselves no matter what. Well we as a society put restrictions on people because we all understand you can't just do whatever you want that you think is best for yourself and family. You still have to live by a set of moral standards.

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

Now THAT is a straw man.

---

It's the logical conclusion of exactly what you said.

---

No it's not. And a straw man is, by definition, a derail. If you can't keep on topic and make your argument at the same time, maybe you should give up.

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

This thread is about IVF and having kids. Extrapolating past that IS a strawman.

---

You beat me to it.

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

shack009 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

This thread is about IVF and having kids. Extrapolating past that IS a strawman.

---

And IVF is a moral issue. Morality in general is being discussed here and how that applies to IVF. He said people should do what is best for themselves no matter what. Well we as a society put restrictions on people because we all understand you can't just do whatever you want that you think is best for yourself and family. You still have to live by a set of moral standards.

---

I never said "no matter what". You said that. That's the straw man. Does this need to be drawn out in crayon for you?

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

Aggies1322 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

I love my IVF twins more than life itself. Don't care what anyone says.

---

They still think you're a murderer for the others that did not implant in a uterus and become children.

---

I love how you consistently blow up threads with straw men arguments and logical fallacies. I think it really helps make a point for whatever side you are defending.

---

Some evidence to detail my point:

Making a bunch of baby humans then disposing some of them so a woman can have a child is asinine and no less murder than abortion.

We should not be willing to murder other human beings to obtain an as yet non-existent child.

That's not how morality works. Murder is still a moral issue even though I don't do it.

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

How do you know this as a fact, since you're stating it that way?

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

This thread is about IVF and having kids. Extrapolating past that IS a strawman.

---

And IVF is a moral issue. Morality in general is being discussed here and how that applies to IVF. He said people should do what is best for themselves no matter what. Well we as a society put restrictions on people because we all understand you can't just do whatever you want that you think is best for yourself and family. You still have to live by a set of moral standards.

---

I never said "no matter what". You said that. That's the straw man. Does this need to be drawn out in crayon for you?

---

Well it's called logical consistency. Just like people on the left, pro-IVFers don't have it.

People's reasoning gets clouded on this issue - where a good results from a bad act - because they are guilty and their conscience is dead.

It's the age-old story of the good Christian you know whose entire perspective changes when they are personally affected by a difficult moral question. ("I love my gay child.")

All we're asking folks to do is use their brains and not their emotions to think about this issue. Once you do that, you see the deeply problematic nature of IVF as currently practiced. Yes, a good may result from it, no one's denying that, but doing a bad thing to cause a good thing is almost always morally wrong.

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

How do you know this as a fact, since you're stating it that way?

---

He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

And that's their decision to make for their lives. Why should the government tell them what they can or can't do?

I mean, what if someone never wanted kids, then later in life they find someone who makes them feel a way they never did before and now they want a child with that person?

Should the government tell them no because politicians where that couple lives don't think they should be allowed, even if the science and the doctors say they can?

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

People in their 40s should have multiple grown kids, not be having newborns for the first time.

---

People in their 40s should do what is best for themselves without regard to what some rando on the politics board of a college sports website thinks they should do.

---

So you're just allowed to do whatever is best for yourself no matter what?

---

This thread is about IVF and having kids. Extrapolating past that IS a strawman.

---

And IVF is a moral issue. Morality in general is being discussed here and how that applies to IVF. He said people should do what is best for themselves no matter what. Well we as a society put restrictions on people because we all understand you can't just do whatever you want that you think is best for yourself and family. You still have to live by a set of moral standards.

---

I never said "no matter what". You said that. That's the straw man. Does this need to be drawn out in crayon for you?

---

Well it's called logical consistency. Just like people on the left, pro-IVFers don't have it.

---

And we've now moved on from straw men to ad hominems AND red herrings.

Also, IVF is such a symptomatic issue of much deeper, structural sin in our decadent culture. Women shovel their bodies full of hormones to delay pregnancy until it's too late (career! fulfillment! things!), often with a wrecked reproductive system, so we have to shovel them full of other hormones at age 38 to squeak out that last batch of low-quality eggs.

That's why I believe thinking about IVF consistently through the same moral lens as other issues that rot our culture is beneficial.

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

And that's their decision to make for their lives. Why should the government tell them what they can or can't do?

I mean, what if someone never wanted kids, then later in life they find someone who makes them feel a way they never did before and now they want a child with that person?

Should the government tell them no because politicians where that couple lives don't think they should be allowed, even if the science and the doctors say they can?

---

This exact argument can be applied to a lot of things, most similarly abortion. You can extrapolate it to many other things including murder of born people.

Ragoo said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

are you a doctor?

---

Ah, the old Covid argument.

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

And that's their decision to make for their lives. Why should the government tell them what they can or can't do?

I mean, what if someone never wanted kids, then later in life they find someone who makes them feel a way they never did before and now they want a child with that person?

Should the government tell them no because politicians where that couple lives don't think they should be allowed, even if the science and the doctors say they can?

---

Emotion! Love! Regret!

You could use this same exceptionalist reasoning to justify anything.

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

And that's their decision to make for their lives. Why should the government tell them what they can or can't do?

I mean, what if someone never wanted kids, then later in life they find someone who makes them feel a way they never did before and now they want a child with that person?

Should the government tell them no because politicians where that couple lives don't think they should be allowed, even if the science and the doctors say they can?

---

This exact argument can be applied to a lot of things, most similarly abortion. You can extrapolate it to many other things including murder of born people.

---

Yet that doesn't answer my question.

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

shack009 said:

---

It doesn't matter what you believe or how you think life should be lived, people in their 40s aren't biologically meant to be having babies and definitely not their first child.

---

People weren't meant to survive cancer, AIDS, and many other things from a completely biological point of view, yet technologies and medicines have come about that have let their bodies do things they shouldn't be able to, biologically speaking.

Are you saying that people who come under any medical ailment should refuse any medical treatments or technologies?

---

Those things don't at all apply here. Doctors consider 35 years old to be a geriatric pregnancy. Don't know if you know this but 40s are well past 35.

---

And if a doctor considers someone in their 40s as being able to use IVF to have a child, why should that mother not be able to go through with a procedure her doctor says she could?

---

40 year olds can get pregnant and go through pregnancy. The problem is that it's not healthy for them or the child, no matter what a doctor says. It just isn't. If you want kids, have them when your body is able to make it happen well.

---

And that's their decision to make for their lives. Why should the government tell them what they can or can't do?

I mean, what if someone never wanted kids, then later in life they find someone who makes them feel a way they never did before and now they want a child with that person?

Should the government tell them no because politicians where that couple lives don't think they should be allowed, even if the science and the doctors say they can?

---

Your point as I understand it: if something is medically possible and someone wants to do it, does the state have an interest in regulating that?

My answer: yes, the state does have an interest in that and steps in all the time even where only the patient himself would be harmed. We ban euthanasia, transing kids, amputating healthy limbs because someone thinks the CIA implanted a mind-control device in their hand, etc.

Add in the element that persons beyond the patient himself are harmed - ie embryos are routinely created knowing many will be destroyed/allowed to die/never implanted/given a chance to live - and the state's interest is even stronger.

So to answer your question, yes, a state could very reasonably and consistently step in and say "no IVF" or "you can do IVF but only 1 embryo at a time" or whatever.