Yeah, I have noticed the creditability of Kenny, he has been arguing against total “free speech” in another forum, but he labelled me a "hippy", when he doesn't even know me.

Melinda could have chosen many controversial areas of IVF to write about, but she didn't, just called men "wankers". That type of joke is no longer being accepted by a lot of men now in several countries

I am certain that Timithy is a well adjusted individual who just cares too much sometimes. I also agree with Timithy’s reading of the article, and believe these wholesale attacks on males are unwarranted, discriminatory, and in bad taste. Melinda relies upon our contempt for politicians to write a “satirical” piece, and therefore get away with it – but this can only be interpreted as an attack on the sperm donor gender.

In truth, Timithy would probably put on his humanist hat if this article was disparaging women who were donating their eggs. Such an article however, could not be published as we all know that women would be doing it out of altruism and for reasons beyond reproach (it would just not be funny, right?).

Is there really a shortage of sperm for IVF? How could such promotions possibly assist?

Who killed Kenny? (before he could donate)

Yes Seeker, I have often wondered what would happen if people such as feminists moved towards becoming humanist.

However one of the things Melinda Tankard Reist forgot to mention in her article, (probably slipped her mind because of all the profanity and vilification she wanted to write), is that the entire IVF industry is most likely driven by women and their desire to become pregnant.

It is drawing a long bow to say that the husband or male partner always forces the woman to have IVF treatment, as the sperm may not be his. Also there appears to be a large % of single females as clients in some IVF clinics. It becomes the female desire to be pregnant that is mainly driving the entire industry.

I have read of couples spending years and up to $40,000 for the woman to become pregnant. Yet there are countless numbers of orphaned children living in impoverished conditions in various countries that could be adopted. Why then IVF, why not adopt? This then introduces a highly ethical issue.

The woman wants some type of ownership of the child by becoming pregnant. She will go through the IVF treatment for this, and she will even put this ahead of adoption of an orphan.

Of course if she undergoes IVF and a baby is born, it will be quite dependent on the parents for at least the next 15 yrs, and this is when the real parenting and nurturing has to take place.

I think the mother's desire for ownership of the child is a very important issue, particularly if adoption was available.

Timithy and Seeker, you are quite a team, swarming any article site that presumes to mention women's business, and regaling the rest of us with your poisonous chatter on how women are destroying life as you know it. What on earth happened to you two? Did your mothers run away from you? Do your daughters loathe you? Have you got any sisters? Were you abandoned by wives who found you just too awful to live with? Or have you not had sex with a woman yet? Perhaps you are really men who want to be women?

Hi Grace,
I do not care for your implications regards myself. I thought the subject was IVF, but the article by the author has been degraded and stained somewhat by her mocking of males.

So now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of why does society need IVF. There is no shortage of children in the world, and there are many orphans. So why do women choose IVF over adoption.

Grace this is all getting too petty for me .It's about time you just, well;grew up!We are all human and all have our foibles.I've yet to meet the perfect male or female.We shouldn't have children at all costs.It is they who have to live with natures glitches, not us.