Assisted Reproductive Technology

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2016, 02:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

I'm confused. How are we forcing anyone to get pregnant? Or to get "artificially" pregnant?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why do you have a problem with people getting pregnant "artificially"?

What is the harm?

I can see this is taking the familar trend of you just asking questions.

I do not have a problem with people getting pregnant artifically. I think there should be limits and I started the thread to see if anyone else thought there should be and why or why not.

I have shared the "harm". Who pays for the child when the parent can no longer work. Like I mentioned older people tend to leave the workforce and not always by choice.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

No! SS disbursements are not based on number of dependents. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'm confused. How are we forcing anyone to get pregnant? Or to get "artificially" pregnant?

Because that is the subject of the getting pregnant by artifically means and by forcing I did not mean against the person's will. The person is "forcing" the pregnancy.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 02:55 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: No! SS disbursements are not based on number of dependents. 

I realize SS is based on high 30. I just mentioned because many elderly are forced to leave the workforce.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can see this is taking the familar trend of you just asking questions.

I do not have a problem with people getting pregnant artifically. I think there should be limits and I started the thread to see if anyone else thought there should be and why or why not.

I have shared the "harm". Who pays for the child when the parent can no longer work. Like I mentioned older people tend to leave the workforce and not always by choice.

Here we go again. You started a thread by asking a series of questions and now you're complaining about people asking you questions. Again. It is only a matter of time before you complain someone isn't answering one of your questions. Or patting yourself on the back because you called it. Oops, I forgot to mention you will most likely tell someone you never said something. Followed by arguing about the definition of a word which you never do.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2016, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can see this is taking the familar trend of you just asking questions.

I do not have a problem with people getting pregnant artifically. I think there should be limits and I started the thread to see if anyone else thought there should be and why or why not.

I have shared the "harm". Who pays for the child when the parent can no longer work. Like I mentioned older people tend to leave the workforce and not always by choice.

I think it gets wonky when we talk about adding limits.  While I personally agree that at a certain age having children is foolish due to an inability to care for or provide for them it's not my choice to make for someone else.

I agree with other that the OP is more an example of bad people than bad people who had children through other means than naturally.

I only know one couple that had artificial insemination.  The insurance fight was crazy and they are a couple with good to great incomes and responsible adults.  The basically had one shot at it.  I don't know how many eggs were used but they ended up with a wonderful pair of twin girls.

Back to the limits:  If we can impose limits on this why not on everyone who wants to have children and may not be able to provide for them?

I know plenty of people who had children the natural way that would have been better off just raising dogs and cats.  Maybe.  they probably would have been bad role models for the animals too and still wouldn't have provided financially or morally any more than they did with their kids.

For me this falls in line with the abortion issue.  I am not in favor of the choice being made but I am not the one making the choice and I do not like the idea of "someone" deciding what limits there are to our choices.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2016, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because that is the subject of the getting pregnant by artifically means and by forcing I did not mean against the person's will. The person is "forcing" the pregnancy.

Hey, trust me. I see so many bad parents that it almost makes me in favor of the government making one have to get a license before they can get pregnant. Almost.

With that said, I am NOT in favor of telling anyone who can or can't get pregnant. While I think one can be too old (even if physically capable) and certainly too young plus you should be financially able to rear a child, it is still your decision if you want to get pregnant or not. Even if the only way for you to do so is through artificial means.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 02:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I realize SS is based on high 30. I just mentioned because many elderly are forced to leave the workforce.

Your point is well made, but the economy in recent years has caused other age groups to suffer job loss as well. And not to be overlooked is how the quality of life has increased for those entering the later years of life. I understand you are addressing the higher percentages here, but age-limiting flies in the face of basic rights as protected by law. 

The possibility for a couple in their 60's raising a child successfully definitely exists. Chances are that people of that age have carefully planned for the pitfalls such a thing might bring before they even decided to bring another being into the world. Chances are also there just aren't that many people who would even want to be parents at that age. No one gets to decide that for them. Their decision and choice alone.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:02 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Hey, trust me. I see so many bad parents that it almost makes me in favor of the government making one have to get a license before they can get pregnant. Almost.

With that said, I am NOT in favor of telling anyone who can or can't get pregnant. While I think one can be too old (even if physically capable) and certainly too young plus you should be financially able to rear a child, it is still your decision if you want to get pregnant or not. Even if the only way for you to do so is through artificial means.

Fair stance and it reminds me of the should parents be required in immunize their children or take them to the doctor when ill.

I didn't start the thread with an answer in mind; just thought I'd start something a little different.

I still hold there should be age limits when we talk about artifical methods. If a 13 year is physically capable and the parents consent (want to be young Grandparents) is your stance unchanged?

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can see this is taking the familar trend of you just asking questions.

I do not have a problem with people getting pregnant artifically. I think there should be limits and I started the thread to see if anyone else thought there should be and why or why not.

I have shared the "harm". Who pays for the child when the parent can no longer work. Like I mentioned older people tend to leave the workforce and not always by choice.

I don't see how we can put limits on a person getting pregnant "artificially" without putting those same limits on people who get pregnant "naturally".  A 60 year old man can get a woman pregnant without any assistant from a doctor.  Should we make a law against that?

And the average person is much more wealthy at age 55 than age 20.  Are we going to make laws that require young people to have a certain amount of money before they can have kids?  How about handicapped people?  Are we going to make it against the law for them to have children?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:08 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Your point is well made, but the economy in recent years has caused other age groups to suffer job loss as well. And not to be overlooked is how the quality of life has increased for those entering the later years of life. I understand you are addressing the higher percentages here, but age-limiting flies in the face of basic rights as protected by law. 

The possibility for a couple in their 60's raising a child successfully definitely exists. Chances are that people of that age have carefully planned for the pitfalls such a thing might bring before they even decided to bring another being into the world. Chances are also there just aren't that many people who would even want to be parents at that age. No one gets to decide that for them. Their decision and choice alone.

And this is why I asked should there be restrictions. You are the second person that has pointed at financial.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  

I still hold there should be age limits when we talk about artifical methods. 

I don't see how we can tell a woman it is against the law to get pregnant at 60, but it is legal for a man to do it.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how we can put limits on a person getting pregnant "artificially" without putting those same limits on people who get pregnant "naturally".  A 60 year old man can get a woman pregnant without any assistant from a doctor.  Should we make a law against that?

And the average person is much more wealthy at age 55 than age 20.  Are we going to make laws that require young people to have a certain amount of money before they can have kids?  How about handicapped people?  Are we going to make it against the law for them to have children?

You don't think we should put age limits on certain medical proceedures?

I would definately hope physical capabilty (hadicapped) is considered when we talk about pregnancy by artifical means. If the parents are unable to care for the child I would hope it would be considered.

As far as 55 or 20 that has merit unless we consider who has the most future earning potential. BTW you are the 3rd to suggest financial restriction; I think we're getting somewhere.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how we can tell a woman it is against the law to get pregnant at 60, but it is legal for a man to do it.

I'm against a man getting artificially pregnant at 60 as well.

[BmorePat87]

This thread is slowly drifting towards a flirtation with eugenics.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 03:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And this is why I asked should there be restrictions. You are the second person that has pointed at financial.

But that wasn't my only point, and I see that I wasn't very clear about that. An elderly couple will (most likely) have the maturity to consider all consequences of their decision, including physical ability (endurance among other things), social understanding of what the child will experience by having such 'older' parents (multi-generational gap etc) as well as being able to match the kind of money that younger working parents do provide. It's the combination of all things, as I'm sure you have already considered when raising such questions. 

Regarding your question of should there be an age restriction for artificial assistance? I'd only say yes to a minor seeking such, for the same reasons minors are denied access to other things requiring 'maturity' before making a decision of this magnitude.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2016, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't think we should put age limits on certain medical proceedures?

Cancer treatments? Death panels?

(08-12-2016, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would definately hope physical capabilty (hadicapped) is considered when we talk about pregnancy by artifical means. If the parents are unable to care for the child I would hope it would be considered.

(08-12-2016, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As far as 55 or 20 that has merit unless we consider who has the most future earning potential. BTW you are the 3rd to suggest financial restriction; I think we're getting somewhere.

Raising a child is about more than money.

This thread and the views being expressed are definitely eye opening though.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm against a man getting artificially pregnant at 60 as well.

But you are not opposed to a 60 year old man getting a woman pregnant?

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would definately hope physical capabilty (hadicapped) is considered when we talk about pregnancy by artifical means.

What about by natural means?  Would you make a law against that?

I don't see how you can make a law against "artificial" pregnancies without make a law against the same type of "natural" pregnancies.