olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?
Should that apply to fertile couple too? If not, why not?
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
Nope.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
I wouldn't ban it.. if you can afford it, go nuts.

But I wouldn't fund it either.. having a baby is not a right and the lack of a baby isn't a medical problem, I don't see a reason why it should be funded on the NHS.

I can see the counter argument being that if you consider a women with fertility problems to be 'disabled then the NHS does serve to help normalize life for disabled people and help the function in a positive way.. but its not an argument I can agree with, given that the difference between fertility and disability is that one has a net-positive effect on society (increasing the number of functional citizens, and decreasing the number of dependents) whereas one has a much more mixed effect on society (increasing the number of people in an already over-crowded country).
3
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem.
Why not ban cancer treatment?
2
reply
SteveyStack
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?
Most of the population crisis is in East Asia and Africa. If you look at this country our birth rate is actually resulting in less than 1 person being born to everyone that does. IVF is helping to keep our population stable
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?
Interesting, but then poor infertile people wont be able to reproduce. That would be unfair.
0
reply
Country Roads
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
Ban anything that preserves or extends life then. We have an ageing population.
1
reply
naem071
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
The world isn't overpopulated, that myth has been perpetuated for decades and is usually accompanied with apocalyptic predictions that never come to fruition (Paul Ehrlich being a notable example). The issue is sustainability, the global north lead the most unsustainable lives despite a lower birth rate and population than the global south. Emissions, waste and consumption are all higher in the highest income countries.

The suggestion that to become more sustainable we need to reduce the population whilst retaining consumption per person is a ludicrous argument, because when selecting the population to reduce a form of racist thinking usually emerges where folk want to curtail the reproductive rights of those in the developing world rather than the developed. On a national scale, who do you think those in power are going to target? It will be the poorer people, who lead far more sustainable lives than the wealthiest, who will be targeted for population reduction.

The choice to not have a child should be respected with the choice to have a child. You either lack empathy or are totally ignorant of the plight of many infertile couples who long to have a child of their own, yes they could adopt, but that doesn't remove the pain of not being able to carry a child yourself or the grief that they go through. IVF has allowed thousands of couples to have a family of their own, if you remove that you're denying them the right to family life.
3
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Interesting, but then poor infertile people wont be able to reproduce. That would be unfair.
That is why I said adopt. I don’t see the appeal of having children if you already live in poverty anyway. I think it’s a selfish ****ty thing to do
1
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#11
(Original post by the beer)
Why not ban cancer treatment?
Pre existing humans have a right to life. They are relied on by god knows how many other people. Potential foetuses have no impact on society if they are never born
1
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#12
(Original post by SteveyStack)
Most of the population crisis is in East Asia and Africa. If you look at this country our birth rate is actually resulting in less than 1 person being born to everyone that does. IVF is helping to keep our population stable
That is why we need to fix our immigration policies. That is the most logical solution to our ageing population
Last edited by olivia.francesca; 4 months ago
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
That is why I said adopt. I don’t see the appeal of having children if you already live in poverty anyway. I think it’s a selfish ****ty thing to do
Adoption is expensive. Also, were would the children come from, if there are restrictions?
0
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#14
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Should that apply to fertile couple too? If not, why not?
I mean yeah I do believe that fertile couples should adopt instead of having biological children but it’s a lot harder to control the fertility rate of majority of the country than to ban treatments
0
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Adoption is expensive. Also, were would the children come from, if there are restrictions?
If you think adoption is expensive you should reconsider whether you can afford having kids. There are millions of kids in the care system worldwide, around 73,000 in England alone. Once this number severely decreases, then the ban should be lifted
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Pre existing humans have a right to life. They are relied on by god knows how many other people. Potential foetuses have no impact on society if they are never born
And they've had a life, they don't have a right to be cancer free. What if they don't have anyone relying on them, what if they're a menace to society?
1
reply
olivia.francesca
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#17
(Original post by the beer)
And they've had a life, they don't have a right to be cancer free. What if they don't have anyone relying on them, what if they're a menace to society?
Letting people die and preventing more people from ever being born are wildly different ethical concepts
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 months ago
#18
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
If you think adoption is expensive you should reconsider whether you can afford having kids. There are millions of kids in the care system worldwide, around 73,000 in England alone. Once this number severely decreases, then the ban should be lifted
Fair enough. Temporary ban.
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 months ago
#19
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Letting people die and preventing more people from ever being born are wildly different ethical concepts
Would you also ban treatment of any health problems that can lead to infertility as long as it's not life threatening then?
0
reply
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 months ago
#20
(Original post by olivia.francesca)
Opinion: as a stepping stone to solving the worlds overpopulation problem, I think that fertility treatments such as ivf should be banned for the foreseeable future. If people want kids that badly they should adopt. Thoughts?
The overpopulation problem is a over-exagerrated issue that has led people and governments to take extreme/unessecary measures to 'solve it' despite the fact that it is quite apparent that we are capable of feeding the worlds population. This is a good documentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XOF3SOu8I

Banning IVF is unessecary as the birth rate in the UK is already at a stable 1.8 per woman. Considering that the vast majority of births are done without ivf it is reasonable to assume that banning it will make a small difference in the birth rate, thus it will probably not solve this 'problem'.
Last edited by stoyfan; 4 months ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why do you want to do a masters?

Great for my career (78)
37.5%
I really love the subject (53)
25.48%
I don't know what else to do (26)
12.5%
I can't get a job (15)
7.21%
My parents want me to (5)
2.4%
I don't know... I just do (31)
14.9%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise