Assisted Reproductive Technology

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:32 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: 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.

And I think this is where a lot of people get "stuck". Most everyone has hinted at there should be a consideration of finances; but fear stating so. I feel that a doctor that artifically impregnanted a 62 year old single woman that already had a 3 year old and a 6 year old should not be allowed to do so. I realize I am in the minority here.

[Benton]

(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.

I don't see where artificial or natural makes  any difference. And artificial covers a lot of ground depending on who you talk to, everything from the rhythm method to in vitro, with drugs, surgeries and donors in between. Whether the couples used a turkey baster or a six pack of Miller Lite to facilitate the pregnancy, it doesn't matter.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Nope no law against natural means. I'm placing an age limit on a medical proceedure.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:44 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't see where artificial or natural makes  any difference. And artificial covers a lot of ground depending on who you talk to, everything from the rhythm method to in vitro, with drugs, surgeries and donors in between. Whether the couples used a turkey baster or a six pack of Miller Lite to facilitate the pregnancy, it doesn't matter.

Are you really suggesting that the rhythm methos is equivilant to articial insemination. So to avoid any confusion I am talk about sanctioned medical proceedures.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Most everyone has hinted at there should be a consideration of finances; but fear stating so.

Actually you have no clue what we are saying.

I am saying there should not be an financial restrictions on the right to have a child.  If you can afford to pay for the procedure to have a child then you should be entitled to have the child.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope no law against natural means. I'm placing an age limit on a medical proceedure.

But what is the purpose on this limit?  Why are you in favor of this limit?

Why make a difference between "artificial" and "natural" under the law?  You should either be in favor of both or against both.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you have no clue what we are saying.

I am saying there should not be an financial restrictions on the right to have a child.  If you can afford to pay for the procedure to have a child then you should be entitled to have the child.

So it shouldn't be covered under insurance plans?

But thanks for being Fred.

[Benton]

(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.
 

Love, security, morals, self confidence, an education. Kids need a lot of things, but a parent with all their appendages in working order isn't on the list. And it's sure not the government's place to tell that parent they're doing a poor job because they have a handicap.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2016, 03:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And I think this is where a lot of people get "stuck". Most everyone has hinted at there should be a consideration of finances; but fear stating so. I feel that a doctor that artifically impregnanted a 62 year old single woman that already had a 3 year old and a 6 year old should not be allowed to do so. I realize I am in the minority here.

That's not a "fear" of saying so...it's saying it's none of our business.

I'm sure plenty of people want to control what other people do to their own body...fortunately that doesn't happen.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So it shouldn't be covered under insurance plans?

But thanks for being Fred.

Isn't it already treated exactly like all other "elective procedures" by insurance companies?

You want the government to tell private insurance companies how they should run their own business?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But what is the purpose on this limit?  Why are you in favor of this limit?

Why make a difference between "artificial" and "natural" under the law?  You should either be in favor of both or against both.

I have no idea how I can better explain the difference between artificial and natural.

I'm not in "favor" of 62 year olds getting pregnant; however, we cannot legislate what they do in their bedroom. When can legislate what elective surgical proceedures they qualify for.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 03:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Cancer treatments?  Death panels?





Raising a child is about more than money.

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

Indeed. Raising a child is not as age dependent as some might believe. We are products of our environment, meaning the love and care we receive from day one is what shapes us, not the age of those giving us such things. And it's not even dependent on who we receive this from, or how long we receive from a certain person. I dislike cliches as much as the next guy, I have to say this: it takes a village to raise a child . Mom and Dad just don't do it in a bubble.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Isn't it already treated exactly like all other "elective procedures" by insurance companies?

I suppose it varies by your plan.

Let's see if I can ask it differently:

Do you think these proceedures should be covered under medical insurance?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 03:50 PM)Benton Wrote: Love, security, morals, self confidence, an education. Kids need a lot of things, but a parent with all their appendages in working order isn't on the list. And it's sure not the government's place to tell that parent they're doing a poor job because they have a handicap.

Where the hell did I say any of that?

I'm done. When the mods turn petty; it's time to stop.

Just trying to generate conversation.

[Benton]

(08-12-2016, 03:54 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Indeed. Raising a child is not as age dependent as some might believe. We are products of our environment, meaning the love and care we receive from day one is what shapes us, not the age of those giving us such things. And it's not even dependent on who we receive this from, or how long we receive from a certain person. I dislike cliches as much as the next guy, I have to say this: it takes a village to raise a child . Mom and Dad just don't do it in a bubble.

Wasn't Simone Biles (recent American Olympian) raised by her grandparents?

[Benton]

(08-12-2016, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where the hell did I say any of that?

I'm done. When the mods turn petty; it's time to stop.

Just trying to generate conversation.

Maybe I misunderstood. I took

Quote:I would definately hope physical capabilty (hadicapped) is considered when we talk about pregnancy by artifical means.

to mean you thought people that are handicapped shouldn't be able to have kids artificially.

[Mike M (the other one)]

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

A minor? LOL one end of the spectrum to the opposite.
Minimum Age 18, but that's because of the legality involved, and the protecting of Minors who might feel pressured to do such a thing, not because they can/can't carry the baby to term.

Why do you insist on trying to make this about money? There is so many scenario's that could be in play, you will never win this argument unless you give a very very specific example.

[GMDino]

(08-12-2016, 03:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no idea how I can better explain the difference between artificial and natural.

I'm not in "favor" of 62 year olds getting pregnant; however, we cannot legislate what they do in their bedroom. When can legislate what elective surgical proceedures they qualify for.

When we have single payer, government issued health care.

Otherwise it will be up to private companies to decide if they will cover it (some of it really) or not.

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not in "favor" of 62 year olds getting pregnant; however, we cannot legislate what they do in their bedroom. When can legislate what elective surgical proceedures they qualify for.

Why can we legislate what medical decisions they make about their own bodies?

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you think these proceedures should be covered under medical insurance?

I think they should be treated like other elective procedures.  That is to say it is up to the discretion of insurance companies.