Another Invitro Nightmare

Here we go folks, another reason why it's not a good idea to screw around with Mother Nature. But NO, that couple just HAD to have a BAYBEE. Well, now they've got one. Complete with an upcoming plethora of mental and physical handicaps. Way to go, assholes.

Note at the bottom of the article it says how the BAYBEE was conceived via in-vitro.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17237979/

I know a couple who had premature twins - not IVF, just your normal, run-of-the-mill twin set. But good lord - their hospital bills have now run well into the millions of dollars. Those two babies were in the hospital, hooked up to ventilators and feeding tubes, for nearly three months. Now they are nearly a year old and appear to have normal health, but for a while no one in the family could even touch them without first having showered, because their immune systems were still at risk.

Any guess as to why health care costs are so high? Well, this couple ran out of insurance a long time ago, and they're not millions of dollars in debt, so ... I guess you andI are paying for it somehow. Not so many years ago, the two kids would have died, the parents would have grieved, then moved on and tried again. I know it sounds harsh, but really - this is exactly the kind of stuff we need to think about when we talk about socialized medicine.

That's why there are too many people on Earth, because "everyone has the right to live". In the old days, it was survival of the fittest, and Nature kind of controlled the population. I'm not saying the progress of medicine is bad, but some people are simply put a burden.

It's just ridiculous the lengths that medicine will go to to save a child that nature never meant to live. It seems like society treats the death of a child as being the most horrible loss imaginable. But if it's so bad, how did my great-grandmother manage to survive the loss of FIFTEEN OF HER TWENTY CHILDREN!?! This was not an uncommon thing in Europe a hundred years ago.

Kinda puts it into perspective, doesn't it?

Mrs. Ogre wrote:

"In the old days, it was survival of the fittest, and Nature kind of controlled the population. I'm not saying the progress of medicine is bad, but some people are simply put a burden."

The thing is, "survival of the fittest" can be kind of cruel. I have no problem with Social Security disability or welfare when someone is genuinely sick or unable to work. Same with assisting seniors. The premise is that they are older and are unable to work.

So I understand why we, as a society, have a duty to help those who need help. Particularly disabled people, people who didn't ask to be disabled.

So I have no problem with taking care of people who are ALREADY HERE. I have a HUGE problem with spending money and resources for MAKING MORE PEOPLE, and assisting people like this couple. NATURE WAS ALREADY TELLING THEM THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A CHYYYYYLD.

But no, they have to spend thousands on ART so they can produce this sickly loaf, because, doncha know they just had to propagate THEIR DNA. (Major eyeroll here.) I noticed the article didn't mention how old these assholes are.

I'm sure the cost to care for this "mirakul baybee" was over a million dollars, easily.

Is it any wonder why healthcare costs are skyrocketing and why people can't afford insurance?