TheBiologySpace.BioBlog

This has little to do with the article, but last semester Mrs. Fergeson asked are humans really superior, and every one was like yes, but no one could explain it.

This article made me think why humans would be better, i would say because we build of other humans. In all other specious they come they die and then the new generation starts. In the human race we come we die, but we leave our work behind for the next generation.

I don’t know where I stand on the whole fetus or human question, but none the less this whole process is probably controversial for many, but for others its an oppurtunity to have a child. I personally think if you can’t have a kid naturally, God is probably trying to tell you to adopt a kid.

Well, this is a hard topic. I don’t think that it’s ethical to select certain fetuses for elimination because you are getting rid of what I think of as human lives (I’m assuming this is done while the baby isn’t just a mass of stem cells because of the degree of difficulty of getting rid of a few of these but leaving some). However, I don’t think it is responsible to have a litter of children because each has low chances of survival. For right now I think mother’s should probably go more with ICSI or implanting less In vitro while this moral debate continues.

I believe that the process behind in vitro fertilization is ideal for couples who cannot bear children naturally. However, science should direct its research in implanting the fertilized egg into the uterus. Humans are biology designed to carry offspring one at a time, even though there are common exceptions. Multiple births can create many issues in pre- and post- birth.

Also, speaking of natural selection, would the offspring of parents who have defective reproductive organs have similar defects? If so, maybe this was natures way of “selecting” these people from producing offspring. If humans continue to bypass natures attempt to stop couples from having offspring, who knows what consequences this would have a few generations down the line. Some genetic mutations that should not have been passed along may be spread rather quickly if this is becoming a common place around the world.

Not to sound niave….or ignorant….or heartless….but arent those wannabe mothers kind of selfish? There are millions of kids that need a good home, why not just adopt? Spreading your genes is important and all, but when the procedure can lead to multiple septuplets….thats just not natural. Those children could grow up with cerebral palsy all because of someones selfishness. If someone is unable to have kids they should just accept it and move on…not fiddle with nature when theres a perfectally adoptable kid out there begging for attention.

another insight to this dilema is the role of evolution in barren women. With in vitro as an available option, there are certain traits that are going to be perpetuated that never would have existed before the discovery of in vitro. Because there were no alternatives before the 1970s, certain traits have been stopped, but now, through a technological way around, the traits are perpetuated. Maybe barrenness is nature’s way of keeping certain traits at bay, and maybe( i’m being very hypothetical) we’ve just breached nature’s barrier.

I concur with Kaitlin in that the couples that opt for in vitro fertilization are also choosing to take all the consequences that come with it. The consequences that they face are just a somewhat extreme extension of what ‘naturally” fertilized mothers go through. It is possible to have many children with natural fertilization, however, the percentage of occurance just increases with in vitro mothers.

Because the choice to utilize in vitro was the mother’s, I think that she should…”roll with the punches” and give birth to all the children. However, there is her side of the story.

Although sacrificing the lives of a few for others for greater good is a novel idea. It is seemingly barbarous in practice. This is an issue that with shades of gray; no matter the “answer” that is approved, there will be a handfull of unhappy people that think that the decision is unethical.

Clearly the medical ethics of 39 years ago was less strict than those of today. Really, it was completely irresponsible of Steptoe and Edwards to express to the (hopefull) couple that this experimental procedure had not even been tested on humans before and thus was highly theoretic. If the in vitro went badly for the Browns in the way of unforeseen consequences, there would have been a large legal row.

I don’t think that invitro fertilization isn’t always bad. I think that the woman and her partner should choose carefully, though. I don’t think it’s responsible to have “litters” of children. I know several families with 5+ children, and the youngest are often raised by the eldest when neither parent is home. I think it does interrupt nature’s mechanism – if the woman isn’t fertile and doesn’t have a child, she doesn’t risk passing those genes on to her daughter. Is it cruel to have a child and deny them the right to have one as well? It isn’t fair to pick and choose fetuses – the person is trying to play God. If it were a few cells or something, it’d be alright. But a developed baby? No. It isn’t right.

I agree with what Isha said. this is just like what we discussed in our most recent lab. talking about how having twins affects the other child in the womb. we learned that the distribution is a vital factor that determines the size and weight of the babies. and wow to make a dicision like that to give of one of your babies i can’t even imagine and im not even a mother! Stephen Out

Personally I would rather be blessed with the happiness of life, even if it did mean risking birthing multiple children with health issues whether debilitating or not. I do believe that couples will continue to have litters of children. They are seeking treatment for their infirtility and I believe that most would rather prefer to have a “litter” rather than remain baron.

Last year for my IB english oral presentation, I cover infirtility and actually did a significant portion of my oral about the in vitro fertilization. I believe it to be an amazing scientific technique that proves just how advanced our field of medical practices have come.

I think the bigger dilema is the termination of the fetuses because of the ever-present controversial battle of life of the unborn. Although the entire reproduction process is not natural, I believe that nature is still taking its course.

In many cases choosing to select one child to live over another is unbelievably painful and a situation no mother would want to be put in. Think about it, 9 months of carrying these precious little gifts and having to decide that they’re not “up to par” on their development and have to be “let go” because they have acquired higher health risks. A surplus may be beneficial in some cases, but definitely not for a mother giving birth to sextuplets. Although, the uterus has the flexibility to enlarge to accommodate the baby, the uterus still has its own boundaries. Multiple-birth children are relatively smaller and many times have defects because of shared space and nutrients with other developing brothers or sisters. I suppose it’s up to the mother to decide (as of now) whether she’s willing to take that risk.