The Gaming Den

Psychic Robot wrote:good work leftists

good work which ever tard decided that pregnancy should be available for purchase.

Wait... Why the fuck are you against fertility shit?

You really think people who can't have kids shouldn't be able to do something to get kids?

In cases like this I am often reminded of the non-logic Spock one used to confuse two androids.

Spock to android 1: "I like you."
Spock to android 2: "I hate you."
Andriod 2: "But I am identical to andriod 1 in every way."
Spock: "That is why I hate you."

It sends the same message to that child. Right before he/she was born there was a 50/50 chance that he/she could have been the one to get killed; from the person he/she trusted the most. People then get surprized that later on this child might develop homocidial or fanatical tendences.

good work which ever tard decided that pregnancy should be available for purchase.

actually you do raise a valid point

Kaelik wrote:Wait... Why the fuck are you against fertility shit?

You really think people who can't have kids shouldn't be able to do something to get kids?

the issue is with:
- the methodology: "hey, let's mega-fertilize and hope something happens"
- distribution: the fact that we live in a world where the octo-mom can happen means that we really need to rethink how/what we're doing.

the problem is less with IVF and more with the fact that these [EDITED] decided to get IVF and then abort the fetuses once they had deliberately become pregnant. sort of takes the wind out of the pro-choice movement's sails when women are purposely conceiving and then aborting fetuses, as even the pro-choicers can recognize the disgusting immorality of the situation

wotmaniac wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Wait... Why the fuck are you against fertility shit?

You really think people who can't have kids shouldn't be able to do something to get kids?

the issue is with:
- the methodology: "hey, let's mega-fertilize and hope something happens"
- distribution: the fact that we live in a world where the octo-mom can happen means that we really need to rethink how/what we're doing.

Given that the doctors are unable to come up with a better process, I'm fine with the process. There is a simple solution to freaking out the surviving kid(s) problems - don't tell the kid(s)! I only found out that my mother had a miscarriage before me when I was in my 20s.

Most truely freaky multiple births happen due to a medical fuckup - generally they only use a couple of embryos.

My dad's cousin did this and ended up with six(!) kids. Two of them are completely unable to take care of themselves. So far as I know, the other four are okay.

I understand what a hard choice it could be to make, but it seems like it comes more out of selfishness than anything else. It seems that if you really want to have kids and don't want to have (or risk) abortion, then maybe you should adopt.

Or maybe you should just stay out of other people's lives. There are people who spend 10+ years doing IVF, don't conceive and then go the abortion route. I'd rather have a parent who went through 10 years of IVF than one who got knocked up in the back of her boyfriend's pinto.

But either way, it's none of your goddamn business.

sabs wrote:But either way, it's none of your goddamn business.

... except when it's my tax dollars that are being used to help pay for it.

While there may be some (small and rather petulant) argument about the sheer expense of IVF, there isn't that much room for any other criticism of it.

But really "your" tax dollas?

1) Who says it's tax dollars? A lot of people personally pay a large amount themselves for these kinds of treatments. VERY large amounts on a personal level. Themselves.
2) "Your" tax dollars. Sorry, you don't OWN tax. Fuck you and your stupid greedy attitude.
3) "Your" tax dollars are used for a lot of things. Letting some people have the kids they really really want with IVF is hardly pricey, unworthy or evil in comparison to the OTHER things "your" tax dollars are used for. Go wring your hands about those things for a while.

But anyway. Nice reminder that IVF involves abortions, and not JUST the "tragic" totally unremarkable type in that stupid ass article. There is the whole thing with you know much larger numbers of conceived but not implanted embryos.

So. To bring things back to on topic. Anyone who gets IVF treatments has just killed a small bus load of human babies according to Tzor.

What's the punishment for that?

I bet they get their library card revoked.

Your tax dollars?
My tax dollars get used to kill children in war torn countries.
My tax dollars get used to allow the looting of museums with priceless artifacts.
My tax dollars assassinate democratically elected Prime Ministers BP finds 'uncooperative'.
My tax dollars prop up Dictatorships.
My tax dollars give GM 5 Billion dollars a year in tax refunds.

So you can take your tax dollar whining and go to hell.

sabs wrote:Or maybe you should just stay out of other people's lives. There are people who spend 10+ years doing IVF, don't conceive and then go the abortion route. I'd rather have a parent who went through 10 years of IVF than one who got knocked up in the back of her boyfriend's pinto.

But either way, it's none of your goddamn business.

Well, it isn't my business, but I question the judgment of someone who'd willfully risk having several children die or have serious complications and quality of life issues (which at least two did!) versus either being willing to abort if six fucking successfully implant, or not take the risk in the first place.

On a positive note: I buffered that link into my twitter feed. I got 1576 clicks on that link! (Considering I only have about 429 followers that's impressive!)

sabs wrote:Your tax dollars?
My tax dollars get used to kill children in war torn countries.
My tax dollars get used to allow the looting of museums with priceless artifacts.
My tax dollars assassinate democratically elected Prime Ministers BP finds 'uncooperative'.
My tax dollars prop up Dictatorships.
My tax dollars give GM 5 Billion dollars a year in tax refunds.

So you can take your tax dollar whining and go to hell.

that would be a legitimate argument against me, only if I were in support of all of those things (or even any of them) -- which I'm not.
so you have no point; other than the fact that the gov't has over-stretched its bounds (which I agree with).

1) Who says it's tax dollars? A lot of people personally pay a large amount themselves for these kinds of treatments. VERY large amounts on a personal level. Themselves.
2) "Your" tax dollars. Sorry, you don't OWN tax. Fuck you and your stupid greedy attitude.
3) "Your" tax dollars are used for a lot of things. Letting some people have the kids they really really want with IVF is hardly pricey, unworthy or evil in comparison to the OTHER things "your" tax dollars are used for. Go wring your hands about those things for a while.

ahahaha a liberal calling a conservative greedy. the hypocrisy. GIVE THE GOVERNMENT YOUR MONEY I NEED MY WELFARE YOU GREEDY ASSHOLE

wotmaniac wrote:- distribution: the fact that we live in a world where the octo-mom can happen means that we really need to rethink how/what we're doing.

"That woman has eight kids, so you shouldn't have any. It balances things out."

wotmaniac wrote:- the methodology: "hey, let's mega-fertilize and hope something happens"

That's called ejaculation, where you fire off millions of sperm blindly. What's the meaningful difference between implanting pre-fertilized but completely and utterly undeveloped embryos one at a time in the hope they will survive compared to destroying millions of individual sperm to get one fetus?

PR wrote:ahahaha a [EDITED] liberal calling a conservative greedy. the hypocrisy. GIVE THE GOVERNMENT YOUR MONEY I NEED MY WELFARE YOU GREEDY ASSHOLE

Yeah, those fucking greedy welfare assholes, with their bare minimum living. What a bunch of greedy, greedy fucks. No way I'm contributing my pocket change to their stupid, unnecessary wants, like eating. Psh.

DSMatticus wrote:That's called ejaculation, where you fire off millions of sperm blindly. What's the meaningful difference between implanting pre-fertilized but completely and utterly undeveloped embryos one at a time in the hope they will survive compared to destroying millions of individual sperm to get one fetus?

That's a very oversimplified view of the role of sperm. Some of them are specifically created to deter "other" sperm from making progress. (A monogamous relationship might be a good thing, but the human male is designed to "compete" among his peers by any means necessary.)

tzor wrote:That's a very oversimplified view of the role of sperm.

And that's an irrelevant response. Average sperm content is 60 million per milliliter or something ridiculous like that. What percentage are impregnating sperm? 1%? (I have no idea, I'm picking a small number because it doesn't matter.) Then you've still got 600,000 impregnating sperm per milliliter being destroyed. .1%? .01%? The percent has to be unrealistically small before ejaculation is less "mega-fertilization" than artificial fertilization. So this doesn't change anything.

It's worth pointing out, there's generally only one available egg in most circumstances, so that the number of sperm is utterly irrelevant, there's only going to be one possible candidate.

"Mega-fertilizing" refers to putting multiple fertilized eggs in at a time, vastly increasing the chances of multiple live births.

DSMatticus wrote:And that's an irrelevant response.

You think? Because I thought your response was irrelevant and required an equally irrelevant response in return.

DSMatticus wrote:

wotmaniac wrote:- distribution: the fact that we live in a world where the octo-mom can happen means that we really need to rethink how/what we're doing.

"That woman has eight kids, so you shouldn't have any. It balances things out."

I think you miss my point.
In a world that makes any kind of sense at all, octo-mom would have never happened.
priorities are fucked.

wotmaniac wrote:- the methodology: "hey, let's mega-fertilize and hope something happens"

That's called ejaculation, where you fire off millions of sperm blindly. What's the meaningful difference between implanting pre-fertilized but completely and utterly undeveloped embryos one at a time in the hope they will survive compared to destroying millions of individual sperm to get one fetus?

yeah -- Doom already beat me to it (so I'll not be redundant)

Doom wrote:It's worth pointing out, there's generally only one available egg in most circumstances, so that the number of sperm is utterly irrelevant, there's only going to be one possible candidate.

"Mega-fertilizing" refers to putting multiple fertilized eggs in at a time, vastly increasing the chances of multiple live births.

(Talking mostly to wotmaniac here, since he referred to you, Doom: I don't know if you hold his position or are just trying to help explain, so this isn't directed at you.)

Yes, but why do we care? The woman is murdering eggs monthly. The man is murdering sperm daily. If insemination is successful but implanting is not, the couple is killing fertilized eggs routinely.

But even more importantly, if you have a problem with 'mega-fertilization/mega-implantation' because it kills fertilized eggs, you have a problem with single-fertilization/single-implantation because it'll kill those same eggs one at a time. But the real kicker is that natural fertilization and implantation has a non-zero failure rate, which means if artificial fertilization techniques are bad becaues they kill fertilized eggs, natural fertilization techniques are bad because they do the same exact thing. If your position is that "we can't do things that could kill fertilized eggs," you're making a moral argument against procreation, and that's hilarious.

wotmaniac wrote:In a world that makes any kind of sense at all, octo-mom would have never happened.
priorities are fucked.

So you're saying that preventing artificial fertilization is an acceptable strategy for solving the octo-mom problem, whatever the hell kind of problem that is, since you should probably understand the octo-mom is a meaningless statistical outlier and the demographic the octo-mom belongs to actually isn't even breeding at replacement rate. I'm not even sure what sense octo-mom can be conceived as of a problem beyond "that bitch is crazy," and stopping someone completely unrelated to the octo-mom from having kids does not make the octo-mom any less insane.

I think that you are trying to argue simply for the sake of conflict. which makes you a sad individual.
Are you intentionally trying to invent things over which to combat me?
My issue is with the welfare system that enables stupid dumb shit. I brought up that dumb bitch because she is basically the poster-child for stupid dumb shit.
And just what demographics are you talking about? the poor and uneducated are the only ones that actually are reproducing at/beyond replacement rates.

MASTURBATING IS ABORTING MILLIONS OF BABIES ROFL