I’m confused why is this historic I’m positive this has happened before. Why would the sexual orientation have anything to do with whether or not IVF would work.
The article isn’t about a scientific advancement, but a discussion of the limits on human rights in South Korea. “While South Korea has not yet legalised same-sex marriage, and sperm banks in the country are only accessible to heterosexual married couples, the pair were able to tie the knot in New York in 2019, and receive IVF treatment in Europe.”
So what do you think they meant by the the them-problem? What point were they trying to make? Do you think the comment was in favour of helping people with biological reproduction even though their not interested in adoption? Please, help me learn nuance.
In my original comment. Because I don’t discriminate you’ll notice that I didn’t specify who should choose adoption, that means everyone should. I get that are you just being disingenuous because you’ve never seen someone with conviction of morals before, but please, try to catch up.
I want to moneyball that bitch. Get twenty kids whose expected value is higher than their sale value. While you yuppies will be bankrupt buying one genius kid I will have twenty smart kids for the same price turning out code and content.
Do you know how complicated and long an adoption process is? Sure, it would be awesome if people adopted kids instead of making more, but adoption will not be a viable option for most people until that mess is somved.
No, it was standard IVF by a sperm downer, the historic first referenced in the title is that they are the first married lesbian couple in South Korea to birth a child.
It’s probably a typo but I can’t stop imagining what a sperm downer would be.
Someone who hates sperm? Someone who brings down others with sperm? An slur for a lesbian? Someone who can’t stop guzzling cum? Someone with Down syndrome who can’t stop cumming?
Add comment