Story: Dr Shahla Gondal
The debate in the classroom had reached its peak. The students eagerly listened to the arguments from both teams. The topic was: “Is IVF (In-Vitro Fertilization) a social necessity or a violation of natural laws?” Both teams stood firm on their positions.
The debate began with the opposing team led by Samiya. Samiya started confidently: “Interfering with the laws of nature always leads to dangerous consequences. Nature has created a natural reproductive system with a purpose, and IVF disrupts this wisdom.” Samiya‘s team presented their arguments focusing on scientific, ethical, and social aspects.
Wagner argued that many embryos are discarded during the IVF process, which violates the sanctity of life. He stated: “Can we really accept life beginning only in laboratories? This diminishes the value of human existence.”
Elena raised an emotional point: “Is the inability to have children not a test from God? Perhaps it is divine wisdom, and we should accept our destiny with patience.” Her words created a solemn atmosphere in the room.
Edward highlighted the environmental perspective: “We must acknowledge that the world is already suffering from overpopulation and resource scarcity. Instead of spending huge amounts on IVF, we should focus on raising the children who already exist. Thousands of orphaned children need love and care. Isn’t adopting them a more humane solution?”
Nicholas pointed out economic disparity: “IVF is an expensive process that only the wealthy can afford. This creates social inequality, as those who are poor and lack resources remain deprived of this facility. Parenthood should not be a privilege based on wealth.”
Strengthening the discussion further, Samiya added: “IVF severely impacts women’s health. Hormonal injections, weight gain, and emotional strain harm their physical and mental well-being. After IVF failure, many women suffer from depression and anxiety. This is not just a physical battle but an emotional one as well. Isn’t this price far too high?”
On the other hand, Asha‘s team presented arguments in favour of IVF. Asha said: “IVF is a beacon of hope for couples who cannot have children naturally. Science is a blessing from God, and it should be used for the service of humanity.” Her arguments combined emotional and scientific perspectives.
Helen argued: “For parents who have longed for children for years, IVF brings happiness back into their lives. It gives them a renewed sense of hope.”
Oliver shed light on the scientific aspect: “IVF is a solution to problems that cannot be addressed naturally. If science exists to serve humanity, then IVF is part of that service.”
Asha added: “Couples who choose IVF make this decision with full awareness. They are ready to provide their child with a prosperous and secure life. These children are symbols of love and sacrifice.”
Catherine stated: “If we have been given scientific knowledge, it is a gift from God. We must use it to help those who cannot experience the blessing of parenthood.”
Samiya‘s team re-emphasized their points: “We understand that the desire to become parents is natural, but compromising women’s health and interfering with natural systems is not justified. Questions also arise about the genetic quality of IVF-born children, as it weakens the process of natural selection. This can have negative effects on future generations.”
Edward concluded: “Our decisions should benefit humanity as a whole. The money spent on IVF could be better invested in the health, education, and nourishment of orphaned children who already exist. This would be the true service to humanity.”
The debate concluded, and the audience was deeply moved by the arguments from both teams. However, Samiya‘s team’s arguments proved to be stronger. They skillfully highlighted critical issues such as nature, environmental concerns, human health, and social justice.
The judges carefully evaluated the arguments presented by both teams. Asha‘s team advocated for IVF with emotional and scientific reasoning, emphasizing the desire for parenthood, scientific advancements, and hope. Their arguments effectively highlighted the struggles of parents and the joy IVF brings to their lives.
On the other hand, Samiya‘s team focused on natural principles, human health, social justice, and environmental concerns. Their arguments highlighted the physical and mental health risks IVF poses to women, interference with genetic evolution, and the growing socioeconomic divide. They also convincingly argued that resources spent on IVF could be redirected towards the welfare, education, and care of orphaned children—presenting a more humane and practical solution.
According to the judges, Samiya’s team presented logical, balanced, and socially thoughtful arguments. Their discussion prompted the audience to think deeply about the issues. By emphasizing nature, health, and social responsibility, they emerged victorious in the debate.
The faculty and rector appreciated both teams for their hard work, as they conducted a reasoned and thought-provoking discussion on an important and sensitive topic, giving the audience an opportunity to consider the issue from multiple perspectives.
