ArtzDarkroom wrote:
Like A******n Access, this jumps out of the political ideologies Hope Chest for some. IVF gives hope to families wanting children.
Should we consider who else might be a supporter of having more children?
BUTT... Kelly Ann Conwoman, remember her? Tromp's mouthpiece, back in the day. She says to stay away from this topic because it is a loser for the GOP, The Dance continues.
I understand why IVF has become a target. However, it is my opinion that IVF as a procedure diminishes the species as it goes against the natural order of the survival of the fittest. While I have been unable to find a verified study that has followed the the genetic implications of forced reproductive processes in humans, I still think that some of those that are for the lack of a better word, barren, should not be considered for reproduction. If a woman has a “hostile womb” and uses another to carry her child does it not circumvent the natural order? Likewise if a man with a low sperm count or his sperm lacks motility wouldn’t forced reproduction using this somewhat defective genetic material weaken the species in future generations?