Assisted Reproductive Technology

[*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.