08-12-2016, 05:36 PM
(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.
