A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I'll be honest, I don't really see why this was needed atm, I think there are too many kids who need to be adopted before we try to focus on giving more people biological kids.
Reproduction is a highly personal choice. As an adopted person, adoption isn't a stray system, and some people should not adopt.
There are biochemical things that happen when you carry a baby to term and then immediately interact with it, for both the parent and the kid.
Adoption is better than many alternatives, but it's also not easy for everyone to learn to love a child that hormones aren't helping them love.
As an adopted person, adoption isn't a stray system, and some people should not adopt.
As a person who has parents who should have never had children, those same people shouldn’t have biological children either.
While you’re not wrong, “panel that gets to decide the criteria of who is allowed access to procreation” is a bit too “Third Reich” for me, thanks
But do you not see the issue with needing hormonal intervention in order to "learn to love" your child? The hormonal fluctuations people experience after childbird can also cause postpartum depression and cause parents to be apathetic or even resentful towards their children. It's not something that should be relied on or viewed as an indicator that someone will be a good parent or not. You shouldn't need hormones to love your kid, biological or not.
If more focus was put towards the foster system then effort could be put towards making sure the right people get to adopt the right kids more reliably. There are lots of bio parents who never should have had kids, so that is far from something exclusive to adoptive parents.
Do you say the same about IVF? Because your argument holds up equally well there.
Honestly, yeah, for the most part. I'm not going to tell anyone they aren't allowed to choose how they have a kid, and I'm not saying the people who go through so much effort to have a biological child are bad people or anything, but I wish more focus and funding was put on the foster system for kids who have already been born and need homes. I think adoption should be more normalized and adopted kids should be viewed as equal to biological children, rather than them being the second, less desirable choice for getting a kid. I think if less couples viewed biological children as the end-all-be-all then there wouldn't be as much pressure on parents to be fertile, resulting in less guilt if they don't happen to be fertile, and adopted kids wouldn't be viewed or treated like they're less important. The obsession with passing on a bloodline can create a very unhealthy mindset in people, and it often comes from the societal view that a biological kid is more your kid than an adopted one, and thus you should try to get a biological kid at any cost first before settling for an adopted one.
I'm not saying that nobody should ever have a biological kid or use IVF, I know there are lots of reasons to choose those options. I just think there should be equal focus and emphasis on supporting and normalizing adoption rather than putting so much more attention towards biological reproduction, which already gets all the attention, to the point of trying to achieve something that isn't particularly necessary. That's just my personal opinion on the topic at least.
Yeah I agree. I’m pleased to say I know a number of folks who’ve adopted. Some of them are gay men for whom biological children are much harder to come by.
As an aside, I think the appeal of biological children is partly “passing down the bloodline” and partly wanting to be there from the start, and know what genetic makeup your kid has to work with, and avoid potentially damaging early life trauma that may have left an adoptee without parents. But I think the adoption system does a pretty good job of informing parents of all that
There is also appeal in helping correct any early life trauma for someone and heal the world that little bit. And frankly with an adopted child you at least know you if they have major birth defects or diseases already, and you always take a risk with conception that your child might. I think there’s also appeal in skipping the body strain of pregnancy, and even the most difficult infant months, to be totally honest (having lived through them).
I didn’t adopt but my wife and I do support two overseas kids financially. It’s such a small and easy thing to do but it can make the difference between a kid getting a high school education and going straight to work at age 13.
I wonder how expensive it'll be.
Gotta make sure you have synthetic babies before the children in Burundi get clean food and water.
It's not like people would give more money to Burundi if synthetic babies didn't exist. But I do see the irony.
Yeah. I'm saying they shouldn't have this excess wealth to begin with so long as places like Burundi are still struggling to feed their children.
Very similar to all the expensive fertility treatments heterosexual couples get access to now. Unwanted children sit waiting for homes while wealthy westerners bend over backward to bring their own into the world.
Everyone is arguing about adoption and IVF while totally ignoring the most important thing. This is really going to piss off the right-wingers!
Yes, my thoughts exactly! I can't wait to see people have literal aneurysms when they hear about this with their bigot asses! 10 bucks says they are going to try and use their bullshit ass supreme Court to make even more miraculous medical technology illegal
Giving cancer to a kid isn't worth that.
Sad that I don't see anybody excited about this in the comments. This is obviously amazing and I will consider the world better for it.
I know more gay people who’ve adopted than straight people, so personally I’m inclined to give them a bit of a break here. And I know multiple straight couples who’ve undertaken incredibly expensive fertility treatments so they can spawn their own seed. I wonder if people complain about those equally? The technology there is ungodly expensive and quite a todo as well.
Hmm this may be a Elon style fundraiser strategy for said Biochemical company or an Elizabeth Holmes kind of fraud. Always take CEOs saying wonderful things about the future with a grain of salt.
A good thing to see for LGBTQ couples.
Amazing news!
This is so cool, both from a scientific viewpoint and of course for the couples that couldn't have a bio child otherwise.
Of course it's going to be expensive (at first?) , but prices might go down with technological progression and demand.
This sounds like a bloody disaster. There are all these genes that operate in various sequences from conception to death. Who is going to be held responsible when the vanity baby gets cancer?
You'll get warranty, and if that happens, just start an RMA. Simple as.
God the warranty process on a child would be a fucking nightmare. I struggle to get dell to honour their warranties on their laptops with any regularity and we pay for the sodding pro support agreement.
On the plus side you don't need rush shipping for a dead baby.
Ghoulish lol. What exactly is wrong with adoption?
Who's going to be held responsible for you being cancer?
No one, my parents are judgement proof.
Sorry your vanity baby idea is bad.
Oh nice having children will be classist for some people now.
It already was. Ivf isn't cheap.
That's really amazing. Hopefully it won't cost the couple's their souls.
How do you think the process would work to cause “soul loss?”
As in they'll have spend the rest of their lives paying the financial costs of what cis couples get for free.
Lol. I read this in an entirely different context, like you were implying that they'd go to hell for this.
Don't worry, no one is going to hell or heaven for that matter.
Phew.
Haha, sorry. There will 100% be someone right now thinking they are going to hell for multiple reasons, but wasn't what I was trying to say
lol this is a US company, no part of having a baby is anywhere near free for anyone here
Not all cis couples get it for free. IVF babies are pretty common.
some things to consider tho:
ethics (e.g. what other people and the article has said: stability/integrity of the DNA that will be used, also confidentiality)
money
how will this impact future generations