Fair enough. I was merely trying to point out that there are options other than IVF. I would assume if one was desperate for one of those babies needing to be adopted that there is some sort of waiting list, right? So it is still possible to do?

I don't know what the answer is. The ice caps are even smaller this year. Record breaking smaller. Do you think another American will help? Should we just let everyone reproduce constantly until they are dead and as long as their are enough animals left to eat?

I'm a step-parent only, no children of my own. And I very much try to use less resources, thanks for asking.

I'm sure you're right about adoption. But surely IVF allows people who biology would have stopped from having children to have them, that's the whole point. So to say it won't create more parents is a bit absurd.

"A woman's right to her own body is a large, mixed up bag full of a lot of personal experiences, choices and sometimes force."

Maybe I just don't get it. I don't get not adopting when there are tens of thousands of kids waiting for adoption when you've already resigned yourself to the fact that the kid won't be genetically related to you at all anyway, although it will to your partner.

But some women don't decide they want children until after the biological clock has run out. If we push back when the clock runs out more of the ones who decide late don't have to worry about the biological barrier.

Oh good... let us not have biology stop our reproductive desires. 8 billion people any day now. People in Western democracies (the ones who will be using this procedure) are sucking up and depleting the resources of the planet at a remarkable speed. But we must make more babies, otherwise someone may feel incomplete.…

They aren't women? They aren't being mistreated by having photos of themselves posted on the internet that they do not want to be there? Ok. I said I understood what you're saying. Some women need protection, some women can be abused. It is clear what your argument is: if you say it it is true. You said it, so it is…

Right... it is OK to abuse women who are public figures. Gotcha.

Since he's posting pictures of naked women against their will, or "creepshots" if you will, why isn't Jezebel talking about him?

With These New Bottomless Paparazzi Shots We’ve Basically Seen Kate Middleton Nude [NSFW] - Max Reed. http://gawker.com/5947268/here-are-the-new-bottomless-kate-middleton-paparazzi-shots-[nsfw]

...political nonentity (That we can't ever seem to stop talking about, every time she opens her mouth we post about it as though we're obsessed with tracking her every move) Sarah Palin...

Gawker posting Creepshots of Kate Middleton = supercool!

And why do they have that right? They don't NEED to have a child in any sense. Women don't have a right to bear children that is encoded anywhere. So why would they have a right to decide something for which they have no right? Why would they have a right to fertility treatment in order to bear children they have no…

My argument makes perfect sense. Why should we protect the right to fertility treatments? One thing one might wonder is if such a right even exists. The mere fact of people trying to tell you you can't get fertility treatments does not entail that you have a right to them. So riddle me this: Women have a right to…

They they should edit out the "affordable, and readily accessible" part. That's the part that makes it seem like they want others to ensure it is cheap and down the block.

But we shouldn't be talking about giving people rights just because they are things the "other side" says we shouldn't have. That someone told me I couldn't tie my shoes a certain way because it offended their god is not a good reason to argue for my right to tie my shoes that way. Is there some other reason for…

I guess I am. Normally Jezebel is too. These women don't like being told how to parent. I guess it's OK when it's other people's kids.

Apparently it was all a joke and we're taking any implied advice or "ethos" too seriously. Haha?