General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
|
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
Originally posted by rah
I'm sure the explanation will be enlightening. ![]() and it was. (xpost) and for those having problems with simple math. 1 > 0 1.0000000000001 > 1 What about 0.999 repeating? |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
Simple math. If one couple is successful, the birthrate goes up. It may be .00000001 but it goes up.
But as always, my initial post didn't mention birthrate. It mentioned more children(people) which IVF will do. You choose to argue birthrate for whatever reason. And after realizing how silly your statement was that it decreased it, you changed your arguement again and focused on the other half. But it does increase the birthrate (however small) so what are you going to argue next. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
I have to admit, I'm struggling with this one. You place greater emphasis on reproducing than marriage, and if enough people do this, the birth rate drops? It's all about the numbers. IVF is expensive.
Say you get married and have 2-3 kiddos. Say you have IVF instead of getting married and have 1 kiddo. This is how IVF can actually reduce the birthrate, especially in areas where the marriage rate is very high. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
BEN
Again, that's just plain silly. And more importantly it has nothing to do with the current discussion. The article says using IVF for infertile women. They're not going to have ANY children without it, Married or not. GEEZE. AND they're talking about subsidizing it down to a couple of hundred dollars. Please read the material and discuss something pertinent. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
Again, that's just plain silly. And more importantly it has nothing to do with the current discussion. Reread the article again. Where does it say that it is going to be restricted only to infertile married women? You are making assumptions.
The article says using IVF for infertile women. They're not going to have ANY children without it, Married or not. GEEZE. AND they're talking about subsidizing it down to a couple of hundred dollars. Please read the material and discuss something pertinent. I did. It is pertinent. The article says nothing about it being restricted to infertile people. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Reread the article again. Where does it say that it is going to be restricted only to infertile married women? You are making assumptions. I did. It is pertinent. The article says nothing about it being restricted to infertile people. Ordinary Africans will just do it the natural way if that works out fine for them. Why would they pay for it, especially if they're very poor. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
Why would you have IVF if you can have 2-3 kids without it? If you are a single woman? Your choices are to sleep with a guy that you really don't want to spend the rest of your life with, or wait for the guy and maybe not have kids at all.
Does marriage automatically make you fertile? Yeah, it does actually. You are more likely to have kids when you are married then if you are single. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
Ordinary Africans will just do it the natural way if that works out fine for them. Why would they pay for it, especially if they're very poor. The question you should be asking is why are they being burdened with a method that is both expensive and ineffective given superior alternatives.
Why is the west using more sexual imperialism to impose their ways on the rest of the world? |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The question you should be asking is why are they being burdened with a method that is both expensive and ineffective given superior alternatives. Why is the west using more sexual imperialism to impose their ways on the rest of the world? ![]() |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|