My Opinion

[anonymous bean]

I have been keeping up on the fertility thread. I believe that both sides have a very valid argument and it could continue probably forever, mostly because subject matters of this nature are going to produce opinions that are unchangeable on both sides of the board. My take on the situation is that both sides are correct in certain ways. For example a woman smoking and drinking a lot is going to lower her chances at conceiving, but at the same time she may be born with a stronger chance of fertility based upon genetics or lack of certain disorders as a possibility. Perhaps she has problems but her man has a high sperm count and she still gets pregnant. Maybe she is a perfect angel with great health but her husband is older, or maybe he is an alcoholic and has a lower sperm count which results in no conception. On another side maybe both parents to be are both perfectly healthy with no problematic habits and good genetics but can still not get pregnant. What this all boils down to is that there are so many variables that it comes to a point where there are no longer any valid arguments. However along the debate we can arrive at some conclusions that can help us to understand the infertility issue.

I can agree 100% that a lot of infertility problems root from a person’s habits. The number one cause just so happens to be age. The human body has a period of time when it is most fertile. This fertility time period is derived from a time long ago when humans were just another species trying to survive. The ideal time for a man and women to conceive is at an earlier age; if not for this an older subject either male or female would die before the child would be old enough to fend for itself. Remember that life expectancies were much shorter at this time. This may not be relevant during current times but genetics are deeply rooted and have not a care whether or not your life expectancy is longer than it used to be. This is something that may change over years especially if people keep living longer and try to conceive at older ages. That time is not now however. So why is there still great urge to have sex even at older ages? Maybe for the same reason there is a clitoris, pure pleasure. It may be because that you cannot turn off the “I need to reproduce to carry on human kind” function of the brain no matter what age you are, which is why your body would shut down the reproduction at a certain age to prevent problems in the survival of the children. In case I am not getting the point across at this point of my discussion, I am trying to say when you are born your body is born with a “blueprint” of what to do in life. Some can call it nature; I like to call it biology. Your body will not ignore this set function because you want to wait until you are well established to have kids. Your body is going to do what it is told to do by DNA and genetics that have been fine tuned since the dawn of mankind. As much as it makes sense to bring a baby into a high income family with great jobs and everything the child could want, your body is not going to agree with it because you want it to, although you are still going to have the urge to have children. Like I said this goes back to another part of genetics that tells you that kids are a must to carry on your bloodline and the human race, after all the future is in your hands. Your body however will not adjust itself to these needs unless the timing is right. Let’s think about long ago again. Would the child benefit more from the hunter and forager that is still young and can still go out and provide or from the older parent that is not getting around so well anymore. However the fact is that this is not the way things are now, so let’s look at it. At an older age you are going to most likely have a higher income and better education, as a result you are able to provide years of wisdom to a child and virtually anything the child may need to make it “happy”. This is all fine and good, what about when you are older and the child is a teenager and you are old enough that you cannot even relate as well to current times. Or perhaps you have developed an age related problem that causes you to not be able to provide for the child anymore. The child will not be able to have you around as long, may even end up with a damaged psyche from the large divergence developed by age differences or the loss of life and provider. So yeah the kid may be able to have the best, material wise. In the long run how well does the child fair? Of course it is a case by case circumstance. A younger conception however has lower chances of birth defects and more of an actual parenting relationship to be developed. I feel that it is almost selfish to live your life in full and then decide it is time to have children. I feel that children are far more important than my own life. At a younger age you may not be able to provide them with everything that will make them happy, but maybe we need to remember that happiness is not going to come from the parents’ financial status. Enough about the age though. I am sure that none of the older age members will agree with this in the least. However, my opinion is that it is selfish to wait till you are happy with how you have lived your life to have kids. The children I think will benefit the most from parents that can relate with them and be around for years to come. Even If you don’t agree with that, the genetic line of the human body isn’t going to change to fit your needs. After all the first men and women in the world did not wait to have children until they had a large stock of meat and berries, they just had sex with multiple partners and had kids and raised them until their bodies would not let them anymore. After all the meat and berries would spoil before the child could eat them anyway.

So now on to my next thought, given all the talk about your body, what about the non age related and the totally nothing to do with what have you done to your body cases? I mean how can a crack head in a poverty stricken neighborhood get pregnant anytime she has sex while a young couple with great lives, clean records and everything going for them not have kids? At this point I will bring up animals. In any species including humans there is a thing called a carrying capacity. This is the population requirement of a habit of any given species that can be supported. If a species goes over its carrying capacity it will destroy its habitat. Biology or “mother nature” controls this population through disease, homosexuality, sparring, and infertility. The population will “naturally” drop and rise in sometimes large numbers but the average is always right down the center. This average is the ideal number, the carrying capacity. This number is the perfect amount of population for the habitat. On the infertility side the species will have “natural” infertility as to where it no longer reproduces in the same numbers. Now granted some member of the species will still reproduce in normal numbers, if not for this the species will die off completely. Once the population is under control the reproduction numbers increase to maintain the carrying capacity. This is something that happens in nature and I can assure you that these animals are not smoking and drinking or what have you to cause the infertility, it just happens. If these animals were people they would label these cases of infertility with disorders and diseases. Which is what they are. Are these disorders and diseases induced? No, they happen as result of these “blueprints” for the body which are imbedded at birth. So why is it that in very overpopulated regions births are abound but here in the west they are not. The main reason for this is the poverty stricken, overpopulated areas are far behind us and do not employ as many birth control tactics as we do. If we were to do away with all contraceptives and birth control methods you would see a dramatic increase in births while the infertile remain infertile. These countries do have infertility problems the same as we do, but without the research and advancement in these areas no one tries to treat it so it is not publicized.

All in all, it is, I still believe that both sides are still correct in their current arguments. However we need to remember that “mother nature” and God are two separate entities. Biology comes into play in this more than anything else, and we need to remember that. Biology is Mother Nature’s religion.

[Tiggergirl0325]

We've already redirected this to the debate forum. http://www.mylittlebean.com/forums/s...revisited.html

[kellyk]

Dear Anonymous, did you read what you wrote? Do you research anything before you write? There are a lot of assumptions in your "theories" on biology that are just ridiculous.

Please, I strongly urge you to get some research and factual information before posting. This is pure bullshit. And that is just my opinion on your opinion.