Assisted Reproductive Technology

[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).