Comment by kurthr
7 years ago
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.
> IVF still applies to testicles. With frozen sperm you need it.
Pretend there's enough sperm you don't need IVF, or something. I'm pretty sure the thought experiment is about something that only affects the man, not the woman or child.