Now that you mention it, I'm surprised that grocers haven't cut the packages to ten or even eight eggs.
Gee, you articulated your point so indecisively... been taking debating cues from maga republicans. I get that you disagree, and that is fine, but you haven't articulated it well.You stepped on my toes with your ridiculous, logically inconsistent arguments.
Yea, not like they can change from 16 oz to 15.1 on a can.Now that you mention it, I'm surprised that grocers haven't cut the packages to ten or even eight eggs.
Sometimes it’s best for you to put the shovel down.Gee, you articulated your point so indecisively... been taking debating cues from maga republicans. I get that you disagree, and that is fine, but you haven't articulated it well.
The longer-term effects of IVF on offspring from childhood to adolescence
It is well established that there are increased pregnancy-related complications for a woman who conceives through assisted reproductive treatment (ART). Furthermore, it is known that the risk to the child born is greater, believed to be related to prematurity ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
He can’t. He wants to find that China White of moral superiority in the guise of “science” babble.Sometimes it’s best for you to put the shovel down.
Is that actually true? Until recently we crapped out at about 30-35Didn't Hawkin procreate after becoming wheelchair bound?
Further, if @MtnMan knew anything about human evolution, the "fittest" that survive depending on having functioning and healthy parents and grandparents. Parents can't die immediately after procreating and win the evolutionary roulette. This is why humans naturally live for so long, especially for women after not being able to procreate any longer.
He clearly has a 7th grade biology understanding of evolution.
How do you feel about C-sections?Gee, you articulated your point so indecisively... been taking debating cues from maga republicans. I get that you disagree, and that is fine, but you haven't articulated it well.
The longer-term effects of IVF on offspring from childhood to adolescence
It is well established that there are increased pregnancy-related complications for a woman who conceives through assisted reproductive treatment (ART). Furthermore, it is known that the risk to the child born is greater, believed to be related to prematurity ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
No we didn't. Life expectancy numbers have gone up almost exclusively due to reduction in childhood deaths. People that made it into adulthood had pretty similar life expectancy as today.Is that actually true? Until recently we crapped out at about 30-35
I meant with regards to it's effect of evolution. Before C-Sections most of those babies would've died and many of the mothers as well. By @MtnMan's argument against IVF, those babies and women should be allowed to die, otherwise we are propagating genes that prevent women from giving birth without medical assistance, just like IVF.Well
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093169/
Or maybe
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10831-y
It's a pickle.
I will have to re-read the thread, cause I totally missed where he said that.I meant with regards to it's effect of evolution. Before C-Sections most of those babies would've died and many of the mothers as well. By @MtnMan's argument against IVF, those babies and women should be allowed to die, otherwise we are propagating genes that prevent women from giving birth without medical assistance, just like IVF.
There are real issues with the widespread use of C-Sections when not required.
True. Lets hope there is not a temporary setback in availability of advanced technology though. *cough* Russia *cough*.Any arguments that IVF is harming the evolution of humanity is disregarding the fact that humans have been using technology and intelligence to negate evolutionary pressure on them since they first picked up a pointy stick and threw it at something they wanted to eat or wanted to eat them.
I'll ask the question I have asked you before, and you ignored. WTF does this have to do with IVF?How do you feel about C-sections?
You might want to reread the thread. That was already answered.I'll ask the question I have asked you before, and you ignored. WTF does this have to do with IVF?
If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?
In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.
Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.
See response below.I'll ask the question I have asked you before, and you ignored. WTF does this have to do with IVF?
How is allowing one set (a much bigger one at that) of women to have "unnatural" births not "hurting the gene pool" while allowing another set of women to have "unnatural" births does "hurt the gene pool?"I meant with regards to it's effect of evolution. Before C-Sections most of those babies would've died and many of the mothers as well. By @MtnMan's argument against IVF, those babies and women should be allowed to die, otherwise we are propagating genes that prevent women from giving birth without medical assistance, just like IVF.
There are real issues with the widespread use of C-Sections when not required.
Ok fair enough, I dont read that literally though(mother nature aint saying shit, so it's gotta be metaphorically right) - but that's just as likely optimistic me trying interpret a positive narrative.@cytg111 read the quote here.
MtnMan said:
If science is helping people that are unable to conceive, are we no longer following "survival of the fittest", and in fact weakening the gene pool?
In virtually every species, only the strongest that can reproduce to carry on the species. This was also true for humans until fertility treatments were developed, and in our (human) timeline that is a very recent event.
Many, many healthy babies are now being born from parents that were unable to conceive. Perhaps mother nature was saying, "have fun, but we don't need 'your' DNA in the gene pool". And now with IVF, man is unknowingly polluting the gene pool with less than optimal DNA.
Well, more of tap dancing around it than answering. You understand (I hope) that if a couple cannot conceive, the threat of the woman dying during childbirth because she cannot deliver naturally is zero. Seems you were somehow trying to equate the intervention of IVF with C-sections.@cytg111 read the quote here.
See response below.
How is allowing one set (a much bigger one at that) of women to have "unnatural" births not "hurting the gene pool" while allowing another set of women to have "unnatural" births does "hurt the gene pool?"
...and did you go 'neener neener neener' to all the sperm that didn't get to the ovum first?Of course, life begins at conception. I remember the moment well:
There! I see the ovum! That's a beauty! Hey, all you other sperms get the hell out of my way, I'm not fooling around, she's mine... you, die, and you, outta my way. Ah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've asked you repeatedly why you consider one de-evolution when you don't consider all other interventions de-evolution. The inconsistency just makes it seem like you have some issues specifically with IVF that has nothing to do with the evolution of humans.Well, more of tap dancing around it than answering. You understand (I hope) that if a couple cannot conceive, the threat of the woman dying during childbirth because she cannot deliver naturally is zero. Seems you were somehow trying to equate the intervention of IVF with C-sections.
I have supported my stance with links to people/groups that are much more versed in this than you or I. Did you even read them? I have also noted that absence of any links to support your stance.