Assisted Reproductive Technology

[*bfine32*]

This is a subject we haven't discussed much here. I thought about this earlier in the week when I read something about Octomom's 9th (?) Anniversary. She's been in and out of the spotlight since then and was sued for Welfare fraud because she didn't claim the money she made from making a Porn Movie.

Now I just read this article with made me absolutely sick to my stomach:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mother-charged-son-beats-newborn-sister-death-103458533.html

Quote:A 62-year-old Florida woman is charged with aggravated manslaughter after authorities said her 6-year-old son beat his newborn sister to death while the children and their 3-year-old brother were left alone in the family's minivan

What are our thoughts on these proceedures?

Should they be allowed?
Should there be limits and if so, what?
Should insurance cover?
ect..

In the case of the Octomom, if memory serves, she already had 6 kids (also through in Vetro) as a single mom and was implanted with 12 ferlitzed eggs, of which 8 were carried to term.

In the case of Steele, she is a 62 year old single mother that was artifically inseminated with her dead husband's sperm.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Yes, they should be allowed. Yes, there should be limits. Yes, insurance should cover these procedures.

In the case of Octomom, I believe that doctor had his medical license revoked.  Rightfully so. 

[Benton]

That's a horrible story, but I don't see the connection to assisted reproductive technology. That's a case of horrible people.

The answer to that isn't to take away someone's choice to have kids, it's to increase social service's and the court's ability to determine horrible people who shouldn't get to keep — or have more — kids.

So, yeah, the procedures should be allowed, yes there should be limits (for me, a lot of that comes monetarily), and insurance should in some cases. But, personally, I'd like to see people thinking of going this route talk to someone about adoption. It wouldn't be fair to force someone to talk to someone about adoption, but it would be nice if there was a bigger attempt to connect foster kids/kids in need of adoption, with people trying to conceive.

[Beaker]

Maybe people should have to take a parenting/intelligence test before being fertilized....artificially or not.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 01:41 PM)Benton Wrote: That's a horrible story, but I don't see the connection to assisted reproductive technology.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

Bad parents come in all ages.

[fredtoast]

Sarah was 90 when god helped her get pregnant.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Ideally, there should be limits, but once we start down that path, it becomes a very slippery slope allowing the government to dictate people's personal affairs. If no laws are being broken, then the Gov should stay out.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sarah was 90 when god helped her get pregnant.

Ah, the Ultimate Assist! It seems that it would take an act of God for a 90 year old to get pregnant.  But for some reason, it doesn't seem consistent with the topic here. Could just be me, though ......

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 01:41 PM)Benton Wrote: That's a horrible story, but I don't see the connection to assisted reproductive technology. That's a case of horrible people.

You don't have an issue with a 62 year old getting artifically inseminated? I pretty sure Grandparents are out of the picture. By the time this kid would have been ready to Graduate mom would be 80.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sarah was 90 when god helped her get pregnant.

Let's not sidetrack.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2016, 01:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sarah was 90 when god helped her get pregnant.

And her husband heard voices in his head and tried to kill his son.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-12-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't have an issue with a 62 year old getting artifically inseminated? I pretty sure Grandparents are out of the picture. By the time this kid would have been ready to Graduate mom would be 80.

Were any Laws broken? If not, then what business is that of yours? I hope I'm still capable of getting someone pregnant when I'm 90. Will it be hard for the mother and my child? Yes, but that's not your decision to make.

[Benton]

(08-12-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't have an issue with a 62 year old getting artifically inseminated? I pretty sure Grandparents are out of the picture. By the time this kid would have been ready to Graduate mom would be 80.

I'm thinking more legally. Legally, we have no law against a 16 getting knocked up (that I know of, some states may vary), and  I don't see why we would pass one saying someone older (and hopefully wiser and more financially secure) can't.

And if we did, where do we set the date? You can get pregnant between 18-42? 16-36?

We don't need more laws telling people how to live their life. But we could use more of the people who keep abuses from happening (teachers, social services, the courts, cops, foster parents). That's part of my issue when (and I'm getting a little strayed here) politicians come in and make moronic statements that they're going to make the world a better place by slashing X% across the board. We need more teachers, and better paid ones. We need to lower social service case loads so they can spend more time investigating, which means more case managers. We need to expand foster parent networks. All those things will reduce the chances of stories like this happening... not less funding and more ridiculous, unenforceable, unethical, unconstitutional laws.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Were any Laws broken? If not, then what business is that of yours? I hope I'm still capable of getting someone pregnant when I'm 90. Will it be hard for the mother and my child? Yes, but that's not your decision to make.

Your potency at 90 aside; the issue becomes when you can longer do it naturally. Sometimes when dealing with medical proceedures the welfare of the child has to be weighed against the want of the parent.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:29 PM)Benton Wrote: And if we did, where do we set the date? You can get pregnant between 18-42? 16-36?

Once again the issue is with getting pregnant artifically. No one is saying old folks can't knock boots.

As to an age. I'd say as long as the child hits 18 before the parent is entitled to Social Security.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't have an issue with a 62 year old getting artifically inseminated?

No.  Why should I?

It seemed to me that you were trying to use one example of a bad parent to argue that older people should not have children.  I was just pointing out how silly that was.  Bad parents come in all ages.  This one story you posted proves nothing.

Whaty exactly is your issue with letting older people have kids?  What is the harm?

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2016, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again the issue is with getting pregnant artifically. No one is saying old folks can't knock boots.

As to an age. I'd say as long as the child hits 18 before the parent is entitled to Social Security.

Are you against Grandparents raising their grandkids? I assume not. What's the difference between a 60 year-old grandmother raising their child's newborn or older child versus a 60 year-old woman giving birth and raising her own child? In terms of child-rearing, I don't see a difference.

Now, I don't know if I want my tax dollars going towards 60-year-old (and older) women having help making babies, but if they can pay their own way, then I don't see the issue.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  Why should I?

It seemed to me that you were trying to use one example of a bad parent to argue that older people should not have children.  I was just pointing out how silly that was.  Bad parents come in all ages.  This one story you posted proves nothing.

Whaty exactly is your issue with letting older people have kids?  What is the harm?

I get that you dig pointing out the silly. I'm not saying you should have a problem, just asking. My issue is that unfortunaely older people tend to die. I don't see the rationale by artifically impregnanting someone at an advanced age.

Should the person get additional Social Security to pay for his or her child?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Are you against Grandparents raising their grandkids? I assume not. What's the difference between a 60 year-old grandmother raising their child's newborn or older child versus a 60 year-old woman giving birth and raising her own child? In terms of child-rearing, I don't see a difference.

Now, I don't know if I want my tax dollars going towards 60-year-old (and older) women having help making babies, but if they can pay their own way, then I don't see the issue.

I am not against Grandparents raising children, but my first choice would be to have the parent do it. I realize sometimes this is not the best option. Once again you are mixing something that may happen with something we are forcing to happen.

So you are saying your restriction would be financial security? Now we're getting somewhere.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again the issue is with getting pregnant artifically.

Why do you have a problem with people getting pregnant "artificially"?

What is the harm?