It was a bit of a dry joke. So it goes.Actually, never heard of it before you mentioned it.
But women dying in childbirth is a good thing because it eliminates their inferior genes. Natural selection and all that. the child dying is a bonus because they obviously come from inferior genes if the mom died.Again, why are you only concerned about these unknown genetic defects that causes a need for IVF vs the ones that caused the need for C-Sections? Do you understand before C-sections many babies and women died during childbirth due to not being able to be born naturally? Obviously this would've removed those genes from further procreation....
The point you continually miss is that your argument against IVF could be used against any piece of technology or medicine that helps someone survive long enough to reproduce who otherwise wouldn't have made it. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a long time.The desperation of your argument is you continue to interweave the inability to conceive naturally with c-sections. There are half a million unnecessary c-sections in the US every year... perhaps the doctor didn't want to miss his tee time.
C-section Rates Are Way Too High. We Need to Hold Doctors and Hospitals Accountable
Around half a million excess cesarean births occur every year in the U.S., putting mothers’ lives at riskwww.scientificamerican.com
And with "for"profit healthcare, a c-section is more profitable than a normal delivery.
Why the C-Section Rate Is So High
A doctor and an economist note that doctors are generally paid quite a bit more for a C-section than for a vaginal birth.www.theatlantic.com
It’s literally an argument against glasses.The point you continually miss is that your argument against IVF could be used against any piece of technology or medicine that helps someone survive long enough to reproduce who otherwise wouldn't have made it. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a long time.
Not to be too pedantic about a very Swiftian satire as it is, but it takes more food to make a baby than it provides. It'd be more efficient to just kill woman of child rearing age who don't want children and eat them.If the Republicans want to force girls to give birth, then we should feed the babies to the hungry, and kind of solve two problems in one go. I mean all they are is pro birth, they do nothing pro life so they actually do not give an honest shit about the life of the baby, just that the woman is forced to term. Solve world hunger, feed the hungry babies.
And for humans, especially, it isn't just old survive long enough to reproduce, but also to survive long enough so that your offspring reproduce. Give birth to a baby doesn't do anything to spread your genes if the parents die a week later, at least without other civilization based interventions like adoption.The point you continually miss is that your argument against IVF could be used against any piece of technology or medicine that helps someone survive long enough to reproduce who otherwise wouldn't have made it. This is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen in a long time.
Well in the Navy, the standard issues glasses are referred to as Birth Control glasses. So there may be something to this.It’s literally an argument against glasses.
My Navy issue skivvies were boxers.Well in the Navy, the standard issues glasses are referred to as Birth Control glasses. So there may be something to this.
Tough crowd. Nothin.Well in the Navy, the standard issues glasses are referred to as Birth Control glasses. So there may be something to this.