Assisted Reproductive Technology

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 06:24 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: 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. 

I get that but hope isn't always a plan and we are still mixing natural with artificial when discussing the issue.

Mentally incapable people become pregnant too. Should we allow them access to ART? 


EDIT: Please understand that I am not suggesting that someone with a learning disability should not be allowed to raise a kid, 

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

It is kind of hard to imagine physically disabled people wanting to have a child not addressing their physical limitations, and doing what it takes to accommodate them well enough to believe that they should proceed. 

On the actual company providing ART, my first question is do they have counselors on staff to work with the applicants? I can see how this could get in the 'regulation' aspect, which I'm against. But to have something like this available just to serve as a buffer in case they saw a potential problem, which would allow all involved to discuss the consequences.

[*bfine32*]

(08-12-2016, 06:34 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: But to have something like this available just to serve as a buffer in case they sa a potential problem, which would allow all involved to discuss the consequences.

aka considered. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 06:06 PM)Benton Wrote: And Benton will take himself out of the thread.

That's too bad because I disagree with the accusation thrown out there. It's like someone was trying to cast you in a bad light.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 06:34 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: It is kind of hard to imagine physically disabled people wanting to have a child not addressing their physical limitations, and doing what it takes to accommodate them well enough to believe that they should proceed. 

On the actual company providing ART, my first question is do they have counselors on staff to work with the applicants? I can see how this could get in the 'regulation' aspect, which I'm against. But to have something like this available just to serve as a buffer in case they sa a potential problem, which would allow all involved to discuss the consequences.

Probably not on staff, but they can arrange consults with other specialists as needed.  Genetic testing and counseling is mandatory.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I get that but hope isn't always a plan and we are still mixing natural with artificial when discussing the issue.

Mentally incapable people become pregnant too. Should we allow them access to ART? 


EDIT: Please understand that I am not suggesting that someone with a learning disability should not be allowed to raise a kid, 

If they are "mentally incapable" they are most likely unable to provide informed consent.

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-12-2016, 06:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Probably not on staff, but they can arrange consults with other specialists as needed.  Genetic testing and counseling is mandatory.

Which is a good thing of course. At least my cynical imaginative side of someone strutting in, plopping their cash on the counter, and saying "Fire me up" doesn't hold water. Here I go hoping again, but I'd feel better about this if the service provider had the best interest in mind for the future life at stake here, and not just collecting their fee.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 06:54 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Which is a good thing of course. At least my cynical imaginative side of someone strutting in, plopping their cash on the counter, and saying "Fire me up" doesn't hold water. Here I go hoping again, but I'd feel better about this if the service provider had the best interest in mind for the future life at stake here, and not just collecting their fee.

I usually assume the medical provider has the best interests of the patient in mind, but my wife (an accountant and internal auditor) educated me on the amount of medical fraud committed in this country each year. 

I work in the medical field and the vast majority of medical professionals I know are doing the right things for the right reasons. That includes everyone involved when my wife and I did IVF. Unfortunately, I have also encountered two places which I thought were questionable. One of them was later censured for fraud. Neither of these two were involved with advanced reproductive techniques. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-12-2016, 06:34 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: It is kind of hard to imagine physically disabled people wanting to have a child not addressing their physical limitations, and doing what it takes to accommodate them well enough to believe that they should proceed. 

On the actual company providing ART, my first question is do they have counselors on staff to work with the applicants? I can see how this could get in the 'regulation' aspect, which I'm against. But to have something like this available just to serve as a buffer in case they saw a potential problem, which would allow all involved to discuss the consequences.

Like I asked before, which physical disabilities would disqualify a couple or individual from receiving ART?  What if only one one of the prospective parents is disabled?  What if they are disabled, but wealthy enough to afford to hire in home health care to aid in caring for a child?  What physical tasks are required to be a parent?  How will an ob/gyn surgeon specializing in ART determine a physically disabled person/couple can adequately care for a child physically?  Will they need to be referred for a Functional Capacity Exam?  What tests would need to be included in a FCE for parenting?  I've seen many individuals with a 100% disability rating from the VA who I know could raise a child. Would the government deny ART to them? Which genius government bureaucrat will determine all of this?  Will it be regulated nationally? Or will we have 50 different sets of standards that vary from state to state?


I'm in agreement with you the government shouldn't be involved. 

[xxlt]

(08-12-2016, 01:47 PM)Beaker Wrote: Maybe people should have to take a parenting/intelligence test before being fertilized....artificially or not.

Yeah, this is a comment that has gotten me the stink-eye for decades, but I agree. You need a license to drive a car, but any maroon can have a baby. Sounds harsh, seems to qualify a "natural right," but the village is impacted every time someone has a kid (or a baker's dozen) so having some minimum standard - such as you are literate and possess the ability to care for yourself - seems reasonable with regard to parenting. Of course, those who hate the gub'mint will call it communism, paternalism, anathema, armageddon, and another reason we should have martial law, but in the end it just makes sense. 

[xxlt]

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

Sarah also laughed. 

[xxlt]

(08-12-2016, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

But there are those between 18 and 35  (presumably somewhere along the lines of what you consider "prime time") who can't do it naturally (erectile dysfunction being one obvious reason why) but would otherwise make marvelous parents. I have no problems with Dr. Science helping them out. (Remember, he's not a real Doctor - "I have a Masters Degree!" - in science!     :heart: Who Dey  :heart: to all who get the Dr. Science reference.)

[xxlt]

(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.

Well, we have legislated what people do in their bedrooms from day one in this country. There have been laws restricting birth control, interracial marriage, sodomy, homosexual sex, etc. in every glorious second of the USA. Some of those laws still exist, or are dying a slow and agonizing death. 

[xxlt]

(08-12-2016, 06:54 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: Which is a good thing of course. At least my cynical imaginative side of someone strutting in, plopping their cash on the counter, and saying "Fire me up" doesn't hold water. Here I go hoping again, but I'd feel better about this if the service provider had the best interest in mind for the future life at stake here, and not just collecting their fee.

The second I finished reading this ^ I realized how well it would work as a response in a thread about legalizing weed. Channeling Lebowski. Maybe Wildcats was too.  

[*bfine32*]

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

Do we allow minors to have abortions?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-15-2016, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do we allow minors to have abortions?

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

Please, no questions. Bfine doesn't like questions. 

[fredtoast]

This thread is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of some people who call themselves "conservatives".

"We can't have the nanny-state government telling everyone what to do except when it is to support my moral/religious beliefs."

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-15-2016, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This thread is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of some people who call themselves "conservatives".

"We can't have the nanny-state government telling everyone what to do except when it is to support my moral/religious beliefs."

ooooooook,
The only parameter the Government should have any say about, is that all parties involved are 18+ and mentally competent. If both of those matters are met, then that's the end of the Government involvement (unless there is some type of laws being violated, such as malpractice etc).

The counseling is a good idea as well as the Dr.'s giving their advice.

After that, it's up to the individual/couple if they wish to continue.

And like anything in life, someone will find a way to abuse it and cause extra parameters to become necessary.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-15-2016, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This thread is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of some people who call themselves "conservatives".

"We can't have the nanny-state government telling everyone what to do except when it is to support my moral/religious beliefs."

Now, I could be wrong, but isn't the standard position of the average "conservative" about LESS government and not ZERO government?

So for those conservatives in this thread that would like the government to step in and prevent certain behaviors, are they regularly advocating against having absolutely NO government? If so, then by all means, continue to point out their hypocrisy. If not, then maybe try refuting the positions taken that you disagree with instead of resorting to generalised ad hominems and name calling.

Just a thought.

[GMDino]

(08-15-2016, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Do we allow minors to have abortions?

Yes.

And the requirements vary by state.

https://www.verywell.com/abortion-laws-for-teens-by-state-2611267