Assisted Reproductive Technology

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-12-2016, 03:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

I don't see why not? Most will never use it, but at least have the option for those that would like it.

(08-12-2016, 04:04 PM)Benton Wrote: Wasn't Simone Biles (recent American Olympian) raised by her grandparents?

yes, her mom was a drug addict and I'm not even sure if they know who/where the dad is.

Back to the OP. I think BFine is just against older people having kids (artificially or naturally) because it goes against his morals.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 03:00 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oops, I forgot to mention you will most likely tell someone you never said something.

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

(06-06-2016, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Can I call it or can I call it.

[BmorePat87]

(08-12-2016, 04:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Maybe I misunderstood. I took



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

I'm pretty sure everyone else read it that way too.

If we're lucky, he'll pull a Trump and explain that he shouldn't be taken literally, he was only being sarcastic. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 04:08 PM)Benton Wrote: Maybe I misunderstood. I took



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

I don't know how you could get "the ability to rear a child should be considered when seeking artifical means of pregnancy" with "handicapped folks shouldn't be parents." Seems almost as if you are trying to paint the person that asserted such in a bad light; but we know you wouldn't do that.

So you are correct: Simple misunderstanding on your part.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 04:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm pretty sure everyone else read it that way too.

If we're lucky, he'll pull a Trump and explain that he shouldn't be taken literally, he was only being sarcastic. 

That was my take away from his comment, also. That's at least three people who apparently misunderstood his remark exactly the same.  What a coincidence.  But, if I understand his last comment correctly, Benton is stupid and trying to attack his character. Although bfine didn't say that either, he merely suggested it. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 04:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm pretty sure everyone else read it that way too.

If we're lucky, he'll pull a Trump and explain that he shouldn't be taken literally, he was only being sarcastic. 

I thought you of all people could identify a Straw man when you saw one.

Poster A: "I think physical ability to raise a child should be considered we considering ART"

Poster B: "I knew you thought handicapped people should not have children."

Hey but at least you are not alone in you inability to spot it. Personally, I didn't find it to be disguised much. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 04:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't know how you could get "the ability to rear a child should be considered when seeking artifical means of pregnancy" with "handicapped folks shouldn't be parents." Seems almost as if you are trying to paint the person that asserted such in a bad light; but we know you wouldn't do that.

So you are correct: Simple misunderstanding on your part.

Call me crazy, but I think he got that impression from you. 

(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. 

You stated physical disabilities should be a consideration in a conversation in which you support government limits on who can receive this type of care. 

Benton isn't tryin to portray you in a "bad light."  Nor is his reading comprehension the problem. You suggested at least some physically disabled couples shouldn't receive medical care IOT conceive a child. Period. 

This will be my last response to you in this thread because calling someone petty for correctly comprehending your statement is itself petty. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought you of all people could identify a Straw man when you saw one.

Poster A: "I think physical ability to raise a child should be considered we considering ART"

Poster B: "I knew you thought handicapped people should not have children."

Hey but at least you are not alone in you inability to spot it. Personally, I didn't find it to be disguised much. 

The ironic part is Benton didn't suggest B. 

Classic. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 05:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This will be my last response to you in this thread because calling someone petty for correctly comprehending your statement is itself petty. 

(08-12-2016, 05:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The ironic part is Benton didn't suggest B. 

Classic. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I didn't say that. 

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2016, 05:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Call me crazy, but I think he got that impression from you. 


You stated physical disabilities should be a consideration in a conversation in which you support government limits on who can receive this type of care. 

Benton isn't tryin to portray you in a "bad light."  Nor is his reading comprehension the problem. You suggested at least some physically disabled couples shouldn't receive medical care IOT conceive a child. Period. 

This will be my last response to you in this thread because calling someone petty for correctly comprehending your statement is itself petty. 

Double rep.

[*wildcats forever*]

Petty party over. Back to the subject at hand. Thank you.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/01/california.octuplets.doctor.revoked/

Octomom's surgeon had his medical license revoked because of poor judgment, not because he broke a law. There should be limits on this type of technology. Those limits need to be determined on a case by case basis between the patient, the patient's family members when applicable, and their physician. Those limits will vary based upon the situation and the people involved. The government shouldn't legislate who can or can't receive medical care to conceive any more than they should legislate who can or can't receive a ruptured bicep tendon repair.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 05:52 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Petty party over. Back to the subject at hand. Thank you.

Benton started it. 

He's on my side of the backseat, too 

[BmorePat87]

(08-12-2016, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought you of all people could identify a Straw man when you saw one.

Poster A: "I think physical ability to raise a child should be considered we considering ART"

Poster B: "I knew you thought handicapped people should not have children."

Hey but at least you are not alone in you inability to spot it. Personally, I didn't find it to be disguised much. 

You said "I would definately hope physical capabilty (hadicapped) is considered when we talk about pregnancy by artifical means"

Benton said "I took [that] to mean you thought people that are handicapped shouldn't be able to have kids artificially." 

Considering that this is a thread about your thoughts on when to limit people from having kids artificially and that you were responding to someone questioning if you would support a law preventing handicapped people from having kids artificially, a number of us took those comments as meaning you think that, like age, physical handicaps would be something you think should disqualify people from having kids artificially. 

Edit: We're being asked to get back on topic, so sorry for this response. To get back on topic, does anyone think that being handicapped should be a metric used to prevent people from having kids artificially if they are able to consent to it? I can only see legitimate concerns with those with cognitive disabilities (or to use a term we do not use anymore: mental retardation).

[Benton]

(08-12-2016, 05:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Benton started it. 

He's on my side of the backseat, too 

And Benton will take himself out of the thread. As wildcats said, the thread needs to get back on track.

It's actually a pretty interesting topic to discuss as there's some aspects here about both the law, social perception and moral gray areas. If my participation cloudies the legitimate discussion, then I'll just sit back and enjoy what other people throw out there.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 06:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You said "I would definately hope physical capabilty (hadicapped) is considered when we talk about pregnancy by artifical means"

Benton said "I took [that] to mean you thought people that are handicapped shouldn't be able to have kids artificially." 

Considering that this is a thread about your thoughts on when to limit people from having kids artificially and that you were responding to someone questioning if you would support a law preventing handicapped people from having kids artificially, a number of us took those comments as meaning you think that, like age, physical handicaps would be something you think should disqualify people from having kids artificially. 

I get that and he freely admitted he misunderstood my message. Why do you think he changes "physically capable" to "all appendages not working"? (I realize he had a typo before someone wants to point out what he actually typed). I know, he knows, and I'm pretty sure you know. 

But the make my position clear as I can see there is some honest confusion: When I say Physical capability to raise a kid should be considered when we talk about ART, I mean Physical capability to raise a kid should be considered when we talk about ART. I do not mean someone with a disability should not be able to have a child naturally or otherwise. 

But like Wildcat said: Back to the topic. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that and he freely admitted he misunderstood my message. Why do you think he changes "physically capable" to "all appendages not working"? I know, he knows, and I'm pretty sure you know. 

But the make my position clear as I can see there is some honest confusion: When I say Physical capability to raise a kid should be considered when we talk about ART, I mean Physical capability to raise a kid should be considered when we talk about ART. I do not mean someone with a disability should not be able to have a child naturally or otherwise. 

But like Wildcat said: Back to the topic. 

Except when their disability affects their physical capabity to raise a kid. We understand. 

So which disabilities which affects a prospective parent's physical capability to raise a kid are disqualifying?

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 06:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Edit: We're being asked to get back on topic, so sorry for this response. To get back on topic, does anyone think that being handicapped should be a metric used to prevent people from having kids artificially if they are able to consent to it? I can only see legitimate concerns with those with cognitive disabilities (or to use a term we do not use anymore: mental retardation).

This is why I tried to further explain handicapped when I stated physical capability should be considered; as handicapped it a pretty broad brush. I t is also why I said parentS. I should have probably extended that to caregiver. If their is no one in the household physical capable of raising a child then that should be considered when discussing ART. Also why I mentioned limitations in the OP . 

You do bring up a good point that mental capacity should be considered. 

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that and he freely admitted he misunderstood my message. Why do you think he changes "physically capable" to "all appendages not working"? (I realize he had a typo before someone wants to point out what  he actually typed). I know, he knows, and I'm pretty sure you know. 

But the make my position clear as I can see there is some honest confusion: When I say Physical capability to raise a kid should be considered when we talk about ART, I mean Physical capability to raise a kid should be considered when we talk about ART. I do not mean someone with a disability should not be able to have a child naturally or otherwise. 

But like Wildcat said: Back to the topic. 

However  a physically impaired individual gets  pregnant, it seems that person would take all factors involved before moving forward with a decision to proceed. I would certainly hope so anyway. Hopefully the people who want to be parents aren't so blinded by this desire to overlook all the needs of their child. We (society) have to rely on basic human nature (regarding making responsible decisions) when it comes to acting on the desire of becoming parents, especially in the somewhat unique scenario being discussed here.

Regulating the ART industry seems moralistic, which is not something want my government doing, generally speaking.