>It seems pretty simple to me: it's stupid to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least) to satisfy "their inherent wish to be 'normal'".
I have two issues with your attitude.
1) The 'waste' here is money spent on scientific progress. The most expensive part is probably caused by the leading word in the headline: 'First'. It's probably a safe bet that this will become cheaper with time.
2) You're again calling these people (I assume you target both the couple and the people that made this possible?) stupid because .. you seem to feel different?
>There are many couples who don't have any kids.
Those are obviously not related/not the couples I was referring to.
>This doesn't mean it's not OK to want to have children if you can't; it just demonstrates that it's probably pretty silly to waste a ton of (public?) money and risk your life just for the sake of having children, particularly when you can acquire them in other ways.
That just shows that you're talking about things you aren't familiar with (no offense: I used to be there right with you). Let's just ignore the part where you call others silly again or the part where you judge for others what is worth risking your very own health/body/life for: Getting kids 'one way or another' is not the same thing. It's not like a random gadget and whether you're soldering it at home or order it from Alibaba is really just the same (and .. people _will_ probably disagree with even that statement, deeply caring about some perceived difference in that case).
The mother in this case was able to carry a baby inside of her body for 32 weeks. I (father of two) cannot begin to imagine what that means to a woman and by your comments you're even further away from understanding any of this.
I guess it's fine if you "don't get it". But it seems you attack that report without any clue on that matter AND you seem to imply that this is a stupid thing in general, for everyone. That's the most arrogant thing I've read on this site for a while.
I have two issues with your attitude.
1) The 'waste' here is money spent on scientific progress. The most expensive part is probably caused by the leading word in the headline: 'First'. It's probably a safe bet that this will become cheaper with time.
2) You're again calling these people (I assume you target both the couple and the people that made this possible?) stupid because .. you seem to feel different?
>There are many couples who don't have any kids.
Those are obviously not related/not the couples I was referring to.
>This doesn't mean it's not OK to want to have children if you can't; it just demonstrates that it's probably pretty silly to waste a ton of (public?) money and risk your life just for the sake of having children, particularly when you can acquire them in other ways.
That just shows that you're talking about things you aren't familiar with (no offense: I used to be there right with you). Let's just ignore the part where you call others silly again or the part where you judge for others what is worth risking your very own health/body/life for: Getting kids 'one way or another' is not the same thing. It's not like a random gadget and whether you're soldering it at home or order it from Alibaba is really just the same (and .. people _will_ probably disagree with even that statement, deeply caring about some perceived difference in that case).
The mother in this case was able to carry a baby inside of her body for 32 weeks. I (father of two) cannot begin to imagine what that means to a woman and by your comments you're even further away from understanding any of this.
I guess it's fine if you "don't get it". But it seems you attack that report without any clue on that matter AND you seem to imply that this is a stupid thing in general, for everyone. That's the most arrogant thing I've read on this site for a while.