What is Digg?5 Comments
- PuterPrsn, on 11/19/2008, -0/+8I can see the logic being used here, but I think there's really too small a population to really get good statistics on this.
- SQLDigger, on 11/19/2008, -1/+4I'm not sure that the possibility of birth defects is the only moral issue with in vitro. Since embryos are typically destroyed in the process, it puts it into the same ethical realm as embryonic stem cell research. Is it OK to fertilize and use multiple embryos to increase the likelihood of a viable fetus, even though some will most likely die? Or to freeze them for later use?
- txchica, on 11/20/2008, -0/+2I don't think I would want to undergo the procedure just to have a child, but I think it's up to each individual to make that decision for themselves. I'm personally all for adoption, there's over 100,000 children waiting to be adopted and I'm going through the process here in Texas to adopt a child that is in foster care. So no, I wouldn't do it, but that's just me, others can decide what's best for them.
- radiofrequency, on 11/20/2008, -0/+1I'm not familiar about the rate of birth defects in assisted reproductive techniques. The scariest thing, to me, about these methods is the number of twins, triplets, quadruples+ pregnancies that occur when couples use these methods. It's one thing to want a child, but it's a really big challenge to raise 3 or 4 simultaneously and I think only a very small number of people are really prepared for triplets or quadruplets when they're seeking just a single child.
These multiples are fairly common. Besides the moral issues as far as aborting some of the "unwanted" extra fetuses, it may not even be possible using current medical techniques without killing them all. - inactive, on 11/20/2008, -1/+1*It's above my pay grade* to say.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is