Things you secretly oppose, but don't want other people to know:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Why, thank you, honey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Forgot: Immigration (illegal or otherwise).

You can't be serious. Unless you are a native American you better make plans to self-deport.

That comment is tired and has no bearing on our needs today. Too often, in our zeal to be a free and open society, we sacrifice US citizens for the comfort of (sometimes ungrateful) foreigners.

You know what, I never do this, anonymous or not, but just go fuck yourself, OP. You bigoted, ignorant, self-centered asshole.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moms who could easily afford to stay at home, but choose to work full time and pay someone else to do the mothering for them.

+1

But of course you wouldn't think to say the same for a dad, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's with all the hate for IVF? Because I can't get pregnant naturally I should just accept that? By that line of reasoning I should decline treatment for a cancer dx.

I realize that this may sound harsh, but a lot of people think of infertility as an evolutionary mechanism. I realize that isn't an emotionally acceptable idea for those struggling with infertility, but such evolutionary mechanisms are evident in all species.

Wow, what an idiot. Creationism?

Oh yes, because everyone who reproduces "naturally" is a genetic gem - a real gift to the species.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

I haven't been contributing to this conversation, but re: what you said about donor egg/sperm/uterus, yes, at that point, I think ART is going too far. At that point, it becomes manufacturing a specific child - why did you choose THOSE eggs and sperm? To get a baby that looked a particular way? (Obvious rhetorical question)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tattoos
Piercings other than single pierced ears
Anti-Semites
People who oppose circumcision
People who oppose Israel's existence
Fake liberals

See, and I really don't like Israeli boosterism. Make it a dual-religion state (since the chances of it becoming a state that sponsors no religion at all are roughly the chances of them resurrecting Jesus and appointing him Prime Minister) and work to create peace. I can't see that what they do honors the memory of their late ancestors at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

DH and I paid over $35K and two years trying to adopt an older special needs child and had NO luck - the country we were working with closed foreign adoptions shortly after our application was approved. You don't get a refund - all that money was lost not to mention the terrible sorrow of "losing" a child that we had grown deeply connected to. We then went the domestic adoption route, only to have the heartbreak of the birth mother deciding after the baby was born that she wanted to keep her child (a decision we understood, but deeply disappointing for us, nonetheless). We eventually went the IVF route because it was FREE (my insurance covered the procedure and the meds) and less than four months after starting the process I was pregnant with my daughter.

When I hear people bashing IVF and/or holding up adoption as a piece of cake I instantly recognize them as being ignorant as to what adoption really entails and/or really sheltered from the heatbreak that many of us face as part of the adoption process. I can't imagine why anyone would resent or judge another person for trying to build their family in whatever way they can and choose to follow. It's nothing short of twisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm anti IVF because I think it's wasteful to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting pregnant when there are already children here who need homes. But if you have the money, it's your body, your family, your life. Do what you want.

Alright, I have to stick up for the IVF crowd (and I didn't even do IVF, so I have no dog in this fight). For many fortunate people, their insurance pays for IVF or other fertility treatments, therefore they have very few costs to bear. Of course, there are some people who must pay out of pocket, and yes, that can cost a lot. Both domestic and international adoption is changing...the standard for a domestic one is open adoption (in whatever degree of openess) and the expectant mom picks the adoptive parents. Of course, because the baby isn't born and relinquished yet, making her an expectant mom and not a birth mom at that point, she has the right to change her mind and decide to parent. So btwn having an expectant mom pick you AND then have her actually decide to place...well, that can take a long time. People can wait years. With international adoption, many countries are closed or timelines, like Korea and China, are pretty slow. Again, it could take years. With either kind of adoption, it could take years or it could be quick. It's not as straightforward and reliable as it used to be.

We adopted internationally and it was the right choice for us- no doubt about it. However, I can completely understand why some people choose to pursue fertility treatments that could take less time and money than adoption. I also understand that some people want a bio connection to their kids- I bet the great majority of people do even fertile people. Otherwise, you as a fertile person would've adopted and not had bio children, no?? Also, depending on mental health or physical health (or income), some people don't qualify for an international adoption.

I do wish that more people would consider adoption, but all you can ask is that they genuinely consider it, and if they decide for whatever reason it's not right for them, then that's good they considered and decided against it. Personally, we did not pursue IVF for many reasons, but as long as people who do don't make derogatory remarks about adoption and adoptees, then I have no beef with IVF.

Signed, an adoptee and adoptive parent

I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

I haven't been contributing to this conversation, but re: what you said about donor egg/sperm/uterus, yes, at that point, I think ART is going too far. At that point, it becomes manufacturing a specific child - why did you choose THOSE eggs and sperm? To get a baby that looked a particular way? (Obvious rhetorical question)

You chose your spouse because, presumably, he or she looked a certan way and had certain characteristics.

But more importantly, it's obvsious you're totally ignorant about how IVF / ART works (not surprising, since most of the anti IVF people seem ignorant on many levels). Most people choose sperm and/or eggs that most closely resemble THEM so that they won't have to face the contant judgment from people like you when their child looks totally different than either their mom and/or dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who hate ALL organized religion because they choose to apply unfair sweeping assumptions that ALL organized religion is bad, woman-hating, patriarchal, Republican and backward.

Name one that isn't.

Unitarian Universalism

Ethical Culture

I'm not Christian but I think the United Church of Christ is pretty forward thinking.

These are people who just don't have the balls to be atheists. I have never heard of the other two.

Religion is antiquated. I have no idea why people still do it. It is like they cannot deal with the fact that there is no meaning to life, no one is in charge, and there is no reward for being a good person or no punishment for being a bad person. All religion is full of hatred for women. All!

You know not that of which you speak. My reason for being a UU is that I suspect there is a higher power, I just don't pretend that I *know* anything about it. I'm not an atheist. I'm a hopeful agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'll bite:

Black people who think they are the only ones who have ever been oppressed.

Black people who actively oppress gay people -- voting against gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.

Black people who recite examples of historical oppression that have long been outlawed, while supporting the continued legal oppression of gay people here, now, today.

Black people who fail to realize there are gay black people.

So what you are saying is that you are secretly opposed to black people. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who hate ALL organized religion because they choose to apply unfair sweeping assumptions that ALL organized religion is bad, woman-hating, patriarchal, Republican and backward.

Name one that isn't.

Unitarian Universalism

Ethical Culture

I'm not Christian but I think the United Church of Christ is pretty forward thinking.

These are people who just don't have the balls to be atheists. I have never heard of the other two.

Religion is antiquated. I have no idea why people still do it. It is like they cannot deal with the fact that there is no meaning to life, no one is in charge, and there is no reward for being a good person or no punishment for being a bad person. All religion is full of hatred for women. All!

You know not that of which you speak. My reason for being a UU is that I suspect there is a higher power, I just don't pretend that I *know* anything about it. I'm not an atheist. I'm a hopeful agnostic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious why so many people are opposed to veganism and not vegetarianism. Do you find that vegans tend to be more self-righteous about their views?

I do find that many Vegans tend to be more self righteous and vocal about all of their opinions.

"Of COURSE we didn't vaccinate or circumcise Micah and we don't do screen time and he only plays with wood toys..."

I find that Veganism is a very socially isolating choice and for a certain type of person a petulant brand of attention seeking. Think of a 16 year old girl saying, "I will ONLY wear pleather because cows DIED to make those shoes" or "I don't eat anything with a FACE!" (and posting this on instagram with an accompanying lamb picture).

I also have known many eating disordered women that hide out in Veganism and then obsessively quiz the waiter at the restaurant "Are you sure there is absoloutely no butter in the sautéed kale platter?

I just find it kind exhausting to spend time with someone who must devote so much energy to controlling their intake. Meanwhile, they go home and eat an entire tub of soy ice cream later.

Because most of the ones I know have multiple children and drive SUVs on long commutes, and yet feel quite free to lecture me about my love of butter. And because I just don't see anything really wrong (on the scale of having children, driving SUVs, taking vacations that require an airplane ride, living in the suburbs instead of in an urban area, etc etc) with keeping a few chickens and eating their unfertilized eggs. Or drinking the milk of a cow that is living on a nice farm eating grass. There are so many sins. Eating butter from happy cows and eating eggs from happy chickens just does not make the list. I can understanding being against cutting the throats of cows and watching their blood drain from them (although I myself eat beef), but being against milking a cow seems like something that a person should keep to themselves unless they have given up the bigger sins listed above as well (I can take a lecture from a Saint.)

To sum it up, I guess it is because they seem penny-wise, pound-foolish, hypocritical kill-joys to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moms who could easily afford to stay at home, but choose to work full time and pay someone else to do the mothering for them.

+1

But of course you wouldn't think to say the same for a dad, right?

And of course she knows everyone's finances so she knows they can afford it. Right.
I have to say, this comment about staying home really projects your insecurities. Oh, you and your +1 here will deny it. But you need to take a good look at yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP you quoted. I haven't previously been bashing IVF and I don't have any weird ideas that women who can't get pregnant shouldn't because of evolution. I agree with you that adoption comes with its own issues and that it is not for everyone. What about people who buy a donor egg, donor sperm, and hire a surrogate? At that point, wouldn't it be better to just adopt a kid?

I haven't been contributing to this conversation, but re: what you said about donor egg/sperm/uterus, yes, at that point, I think ART is going too far. At that point, it becomes manufacturing a specific child - why did you choose THOSE eggs and sperm? To get a baby that looked a particular way? (Obvious rhetorical question)

You chose your spouse because, presumably, he or she looked a certan way and had certain characteristics.

But more importantly, it's obvsious you're totally ignorant about how IVF / ART works (not surprising, since most of the anti IVF people seem ignorant on many levels). Most people choose sperm and/or eggs that most closely resemble THEM so that they won't have to face the contant judgment from people like you when their child looks totally different than either their mom and/or dad.

I'm actually not totally ignorant of how it works, and am perfectly aware that people choose characteristics that look like them/that they find desirable. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with that. I also think it's totally fine if you need a little bit of help from science at some point during the process, in the same way I think it's totally fine if you need a little help from science to give birth to a baby or feed a baby or whatever else. The part where I become judgy is when you need a lot of help from science with the whole process. If you're not using your or your partner's eggs, your or your partner's sperm or your or your partner's body to grow the child in question, why not just adopt? I'm happy for anyone who gets to raise a child they want, but I would imagine the "but sometimes ART is much cheaper than adoption" argument falls a bit flat when you're talking about donor eggs/sperm/uterus.

I'm genuinely curious why you think that it's a good idea to use donor sperm AND eggs AND a surrogate.