The Student Room Group

IVF babies are synthetic?

So D&G designers said that IVF children were synthetic because they were made in a lab and thus they're products of chemistry more than real. They also went to say that such "chemical" families are not the real deal because the children are artificial.

Business partners Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, who are both gay and were a couple for 23 years until breaking up in 2005, have rejected same-sex marriage in the past.
But in an interview with Italian magazine Panorama this weekend they went further saying they also didn't agree with the idea of gay families.
"We oppose gay adoptions," they say, "The only family is the traditional one.
"No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed."
Domenico Dolce went on to say that having children should be an "act of love".


Do you agree?

I think that they have a point I mean why not adopt the thousands of orphan children instead of creating more children. Cate Blanchette adopted a baby girl recently I wish more people would follow in her steps and forgo IVF for kids that already exist that need loving homes.
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

But aren't they gay themselves?
Reply 2
The sperm and the egg which are used are not synthetic, they are natural from real people. I guess you could argue the "process" is synthetic, but that doesn't necessarily mean the product is as well. Babies from IVF are just as real as you and me.
The irony that they use 'synthetic' in a negative way yet are one of the world's biggest designers of synthetic products.

On top of that, they seem to be totally ignorant of the science behind IVF, it is as synthetic a process as selecting a range of antibiotics and choosing which ones to give to which person and for how long.
Reply 4
Those who argue it isn't and are comparing it to other things which are indeed synthetic are just hiding from the truth. The OP presents the facts perfectly.
Original post by Dylann
The sperm and the egg which are used are not synthetic, they are natural from real people. I guess you could argue the "process" is synthetic, but that doesn't necessarily mean the product is as well. Babies from IVF are just as real as you and me.


Well yes, I think they know that the baby is not a robot or a dummy... I think they just meant that IVF is artificial and like you the process is anything but natural as it's done in a lab so it is synthetic and what about immoral designer babies? Chemical and synthetic are accurate descriptions of such abominations.



Original post by queen-bee
But aren't they gay themselves?


Yep. This is why they refuse to use IVF instead they say they'll adopt which I think is the morally sensible choice here.
When it comes to gay couples with ivf produced children, I believe its insanely cruel to remove The child from its mother, I believe if a child is given a choice between its a mother and a random man... The child would choose the mother . A mother is irreplaceable and I cannot imagine my life with my mother . No man can replace that and have 2 men as parents just absolutely distorts the natural order of things , all for the gain and vanity of the gay couple

Posted from TSR Mobile
A baby is a biological "product" whether it is produce by in vitro or in vivo fertilisation. there is nothing synthetic about the child that is created. The only difference is that the egg was fertilised outside the woman's body...
Original post by NYU2012
Appeals to 'natural order' being 'good' or 'better' is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because it's natural, doesn't make it good. Please try a different line of argument, preferably one that isn't patently fallacious.

Secondly, research has demonstrated that children of same-sex parents are just as well-off, well-adjusted and happy as their opposite-sex counterparts. So, do point to the empirical evidence which supports your conclusion - otherwise your post is mere biased hogwash that is wholly unsubstantiated with any sort of non-fallacious and empirical research or reasoning.


Hold on... You said because it's natural doesnt mean it's good, so are you implying having a mother is not good ?

I did not say same sex couples are unable to care a child, I am sure they can, just like single parent fathers they are obviously able to care for the child. What I'm saying it is unfair to remove a Child from its birth mother, and a mother has a special place in a child's life. And don't ask for 'empirical evidence to show that a mother is special' because any person with a mother will tell you she is


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by The Zoologist
Well yes, I think they know that the baby is not a robot or a dummy... I think they just meant that IVF is artificial and like you the process is anything but natural as it's done in a lab so it is synthetic and what about immoral designer babies? Chemical and synthetic are accurate descriptions of such abominations.


I think many people have an unreasonable phobia of laboratories nowadays. It doesn't make something or someone an affront to nature that they were created in a lab. IVF is the artificial reenactment of a natural process. Biologically speaking, it's identical to what happens naturally.

In response to your knee-jerk "designer babies" comment: IVF and genetic modification are separate processes. The questionable ethics of designing children has no place in this discussion, because all current in-vitro fertilisation leaves the child's design to nature.

(A further complaint about your word choice: Even a designer baby wouldn't be any more "chemical" than the rest of us. We're all giant, self-replicating bundles of chemical reactions on legs, and in their basic biochemistry, a genetically modified human wouldn't differ from anyone else.)
Well what they say is blooming ridiculous, uneducated and ignorant. They are stereotyping why people may want to carry out IVF. It's not the first time the D&G company has said some nonsensical comment either.
Regarding your argument that adopting children should take precedence, since the vast majority of new children are not by IVF, shouldn't your message be aimed at everyone else? Also you can't say they have a point at all, because their arguments do not refer to adoption.

They're self hating and the joke is on them. Not worth flipping about.

Rented uterus though :lol:
I agree that the babies in care should be adopted, but not that there is anything synthetic about babies born via IVF and that traditional families should be the only families
They design OTT pieces of clothing. Who cares what they think?
Original post by G8D
Arguably the process is entirely artificial and would not have occurred naturally without intervention. By projection the baby is too, at the very least in its existence.

From your attitude in this thread I'm not sure I want to enter a discussion with you but if you wish to respond in a civilised manner I will entertain that.


Many people on earth probably wouldn't be alive without modern medical science - does that make them synthetic too?

The process is definitely synthetic, but the children aren't.
Original post by The Zoologist
Well yes, I think they know that the baby is not a robot or a dummy... I think they just meant that IVF is artificial and like you the process is anything but natural as it's done in a lab so it is synthetic and what about immoral designer babies? Chemical and synthetic are accurate descriptions of such abominations.





Yep. This is why they refuse to use IVF instead they say they'll adopt which I think is the morally sensible choice here.


They were just trying to seek attention - yet again.
Reply 16
Original post by qwertyking
They design OTT pieces of clothing. Who cares what they think?


Exactly. They are being elevated way above their importance level in society.
I grew up in my mothers womb....I'm just as chemical as any other baby!
In the future, those silly commentators will be the bum wipers of super-intelligent, genetically engineered IVF babies.
Original post by The Zoologist
So D&G designers said that IVF children were synthetic because they were made in a lab and thus they're products of chemistry more than real. They also went to say that such "chemical" families are not the real deal because the children are artificial.

Business partners Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, who are both gay and were a couple for 23 years until breaking up in 2005, have rejected same-sex marriage in the past.
But in an interview with Italian magazine Panorama this weekend they went further saying they also didn't agree with the idea of gay families.
"We oppose gay adoptions," they say, "The only family is the traditional one.
"No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed."
Domenico Dolce went on to say that having children should be an "act of love".


Do you agree?

I think that they have a point I mean why not adopt the thousands of orphan children instead of creating more children. Cate Blanchette adopted a baby girl recently I wish more people would follow in her steps and forgo IVF for kids that already exist that need loving homes.


Genetically speaking, IVF babies are perfectly normal human beings. These fashion designers that made these remarks are just backward and most likely religious. It is religion and religious concerns that always hold scientific progress back, which is frankly a disgrace.

Latest