If you believe in what Charles Darwin said, and that natural selection brought about not only man, but also the other species that inhabit the planet today, then isn’t IVF messing with this ?
There is huge debate about the cloning of humans and all the ethical and moral implications, but IVF is almost a procedure warranting little or no conversation. It’s commonplace.
Yet if natural selection determines the progress of homo sapiens, and that means that only the fittest produce (define your own version of fittest in this age of technology and capitalism), then surely IVF goes completely against this? If your genetic make-up means that you are unable to produce children, or fate (if you believe in that too) has conspired to leave you unable to produce children, then in some ways, that should be accepted should it not ?

And all this technology, all these processes, all this work, had yet to help a man. It’s all about eggs, not sperm. Why ?
And if cloning means the ability to create sperm for a man who otherwise is unable to do so, then why all the fuss ? Surely that’s just levelling the playing field ?

Since when was being able to bear a child a right ?

(note: I have not said what I actually believe in here…..)

12 thoughts on “Thoughts

  1. tricky one i guess… even if you believe in the theory of natural selection, try telling it to a couple who desperately want children… it might be a theory that applies to the human race (and animal species too of course) but it’s difficult to accept something of this magnitude when it means it has a devastating effect on your own life… *shrug*. I do feel a bit funny about the whole IVF thing too sometimes though… Maybe ppl should have to score high on an IQ test before being allowed to proceed with IVF ;) Ummm… joke. I dont know what I think of this one either, Mark, I’m just blathering :D

  2. careful how you define ‘fittest’ and ‘survive’ this is genetics, not family lines. if you die to save three sibling, or a certain number of cousins who go on to reproduce, then you still managed to get a wacking great % of your DNA down the line. fittest includes brains, if you can manipulate your surroundings then that’s not a bad thing all the time. if you pass on a few sucky genes, who cares. the next 20 generations might die off, or evolve somewhere better. there’s loads of examples of bad “fitness” in nature. (the windpipe crossing the swallowing pipe, that i can’t spell, in humans. things sneak through. other times perfect people get hit by a rock. evolution takes squillions of years.. and has loads of runs at the same ideas. politics doesn’t figure much in *that* grand plan.


  3. Isn’t the whole survival of the fittest being buggered up by Trisha viewers lying around popping out sprogs from the age of 14, while those who have something to contribute are waiting until their careers are established before trying for kids. The later they leave it, the more likely they are to have problems, so I have no porblem with usefull members of society having IVF, but not the pikey scum.

  4. I think people are evolving in different ways to other animals. We evolved at first though necessity, modern man differed to Neanderthals because we had the ability to adapt to our environment, when the Ice Age hit the Neanderthals where not able to do this and died out… The drive to improve the quality of life for people has meant that we have developed industry and science that perverts what nature might have intended.

    If you believe that only the strongest are to survive then you are writing of people with (what society has defined) disabilities. Why should doctors try to save children conceived naturally (and the moms for that matter) if there are problems in child birth? Going to the extremes you could argue that C-sections should be outlawed because they are not natural.

    As far as getting pregnant goes, the traditional way, biologically I think it is defiantly a case of the strongest survive. I think I read some where that it is best, biologically speaking, for a girl to get pregnant younger and men hit there sexual peek at 18 odd.

    That is not to say that those young people are better to raise or care for a child, in fact looking around Hemel Hempstead (and as fnook said, Trisha) I would hazard a guess that kids born to the very young are at a disadvantage to those who have older parents. Maybe not.. Starting to loose the plot hear!

    Anyway. We have done so much ‘tinkering’ with nature to help people, why not IVF. I don’t think those people who go for it are any less deserving of a child than the young and viral. In fact, I would suggest that the dedication, desire and what they are willing to go though to have a child could make them better candidates for parents than some others. Or possibly not… But I don’t feel that the decision should be taken away from the individual. We have the technology, why not use it?

    If you belive that only the strongest are to survive then you are writing of people with (what sociaty calls, or make) disabilitys.

  5. “fittest” is a combination of loads of factors not “the strongest” or the “fastest” or the person who pops the most spogs. modern history is a *sneeze* in evolutionary terms. in the entire realm of scientific and industrial history we have evolved almost nothing.

Comments are closed.