Comment by kurthr
7 years ago
Well, yes I'm shocked that someone would go to great expense, risk their life, and use scarce research resources in a completely unnatural effort to do something "naturally"... but I shouldn't be.
Because rule 34... someone will get off on it.
It's not about "someone getting off on it". Having a "natural" pregnancy leads to way less issues:
Surrogate mothers have to have artificial insemination/IVF. So would the hypothetical mother in this case. These eggs don't all stick to the uterus, so the procedure normally involves sticking 3-4 fertilized eggs inside the embryo.
So if you want one kid, you need to plan to have up to 4. That's a concern.
Then there's the chance of having a chimera, where the baby uptakes the surrogate's DNA. This can cause complications (I know with a transplant this is still the case). There's also the whole "mother not carrying the baby" thing.
This isn't as crazy as it sounds.
This was about testicles not pregnancy, if you look up post.
Ignoring that (and "not as crazy as it seems" is a pretty straw argument), I'd say that the risks to mother and child of such an extreme surgery and long term use of anti-rejection drugs during child bearing raises it's own ethical issues. Adoption seems to be completely inconsidered.
That you want to argue that many people's insemination choices are driven primarily by logic seems odd to me. I think they get off on their idea of what sex, pregnancy, and childbirth are supposed to be like based on what they hear from their friends, family, and media, along with how they want to be perceived. Only a tiny portion of that is related to rational decisions to provide societal or even individual good to their child.
IVF still applies to testicles. With frozen sperm you need it.
Logic was applied because you need to think about actually having up to 4 kids at once. That's still entirely necessary.
The "whole not carrying a baby" thing attempted to cover the idea of carrying your own flesh. I just didn't go into detail on that because I thought it was obvious. So no, I'm not arguing about logic.
Finally, "not as crazy as it seems" was a conclusion to the three of my points - not a strawman.
1 reply →
Implanting 3-4 3-day embryos is quite rare these days. Most doctors now do 5-day blastocysts, and insert only 1-2 (many insurance companies will only cover 1 at a time). The "4 babies at a time" concern is now very rare.
- Guy who has done IVF before