maybe now fertility clincs will think twice

[BlaqueKatt]

66 year old woman who gave birth after IVF dies at age 69-her twin boys are now orphans at age 2 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_oldest_mom)

quote from the woman after giving birth:
"I think everyone should become a mother at the right time for them," Bousada told the paper. "Often circumstances put you between a rock and a hard place, and maybe things shouldn't have been done in the way they were done, but that was the only way to achieve the thing I had always dreamed of, and I did it," she said.

She lied to the clinic about her age, and due to her selfishness, there is now no one to care for her children-she sold her house to pay for the IVF-so these kids have nothing now-how is that fair to them. She claimed that since her own mother lived to be 101, she would too.

supposedly she was diagnosed with cancer shortly after giving birth.

[Greenday]

Why would the fertility clinics think twice about it? They still got paid, didn't they?

[BroomJockey]

Most doctors have this thing called "ethics." Not necessarily because they want to, but because there's medical ethics review boards.

[DesignFox]

Well, I think in our other threads we covered how ethical many of these IVF doctors are....

Look at that doctor that implanted 8 embryoes for octo-mom.

It's not like a lack of ethics is limited to doctors in other parts of the world...

Oh, not to mention the people who think that reproducing is a "right" that everyone is entitled to...regardless of circumstance.

EDIT:

I happen to also LOOOVE the comment "...civil society will help these children." Gee. Thanks. Because of one person's irresponsibility, now I've got to foot the bill? Awesome. (of course, what choice does society have?)

Before anyone gets on my case- I know those kids didn't have a choice in the matter. Which is why society won't turn their backs on them. But I find it despicable that people take that attitude. "Oh, no problem. The rest of the world will take care of it for me!"

[BroomJockey]

Well, I think in our other threads we covered how ethical many of these IVF doctors are....

Look at that doctor that implanted 8 embryoes for octo-mom.


Which shows the medical community's internal oversight needs to take a look at this type of thing. After all, you don't see cosmetic surgeons doing things like giving lipo and boob jobs to 12 year olds, even though there'd be money in doing it. The medical community just has to look at the picture and say "The dangers of this situation are not worth it. Do it and you'll be blackballed."

[Greenday]

After all, you don't see cosmetic surgeons doing things like giving lipo and boob jobs to 12 year olds, even though there'd be money in doing it.

http://www.aboardcertifiedplasticsurgeonresource.com/breast_implants/teen.html

Really? Teens that aren't adults aren't getting implants? It's happening all the time (well, not all the time but you get my drift). I don't think it's quite ethical but it's definitely still happening.

[BroomJockey]

Teens that aren't adults aren't getting implants? I

Not seeing an age range in there. 12 is not 16. 16 IS under 18. I'd say a 16 year old is old enough.

[Greenday]

At 16 many girls are still developing. If they are ignoring this, than I don't think they really have the capability to make a solid decision.

[anriana]

Well, I think in our other threads we covered how ethical many of these IVF doctors are....

Look at that doctor that implanted 8 embryoes for octo-mom.

It's not like a lack of ethics is limited to doctors in other parts of the world...



From my understanding of that type of fertility treatment, everyone gets implanted with multiple embryoes because most don't take.

[Greenday]

From my understanding of that type of fertility treatment, everyone gets implanted with multiple embryoes because most don't take.

But not 8. The technology is getting so good that the probability of each one sticking has gotten much higher.

[BroomJockey]

At 16 many girls are still developing. If they are ignoring this, than I don't think they really have the capability to make a solid decision.

Legally, with their parents' consent, they can articulate the desire and the reasons behind it, so a doc is ethically clear in doing this. If you can show me a doc doing it for cosmetic reasons to a 12 year old, then I'll re-evaluate my position. And lose a lot of faith in humanity.

[DesignFox]

From my understanding of that type of fertility treatment, everyone gets implanted with multiple embryoes because most don't take.

She already had *SIX* kids. Not to mention the fact that she's on disability benefits and can barely afford to take care of the first six...

As for teen breast implants. I'm appalled. Unless there is a serious abnormality that causes the young person undue physical or emotional trauma, I don't agree with that at all. I remember reading one article in Teen magazine some 12 or so years ago about a young girl who had abnormal breast development that caused one breast to grow and appear normal, while the other one was basically just a nipple...In a severe case like that, I could see having augmentation as an option. Or the case of a friend of mine whose breasts were so large for her body type that she experienced serious back pain- she had reduction surgery (but I think she was 18 by then, she was either just about to graduate high school or early in her college years...I don't remember).

[linguist]

supposedly she was diagnosed with cancer shortly after giving birth.


the woman's age aside, this could happen to anyone. should the fertility clinic think twice about providing treatment if a 28-year-old is diagnosed with cancer shortly after giving birth?

[daleduke17]

And this is news why?

[BroomJockey]

the woman's age aside, this could happen to anyone. should the fertility clinic think twice about providing treatment if a 28-year-old is diagnosed with cancer shortly after giving birth?

Certain types of cancer are more likely in certain age brackets, and most of them have genetic markers indicating predisposition. I'd say that it would be irresponsible of them to do anything without those tests.

[Boozy]

And this is news why?

I've seen this response from you quite a bit.

What do you consider news? :p

[lovlybones]

Certain types of cancer are more likely in certain age brackets, and most of them have genetic markers indicating predisposition. I'd say that it would be irresponsible of them to do anything without those tests.

are you saying that they should base their decisions on if someone is more prone to cancer or not?

[BroomJockey]

are you saying that they should base their decisions on if someone is more prone to cancer or not?

I'm saying it's hardly responsible for a fertility clinic to waste resources and bring a kid in to the world in a situation where the parent is unlikely to be able too raise the child to the age of majority. If they're asking for medical intervention in conception, then they should make it a *completely* medical decision, right down to long term effects. After all, you can't adopt a kid if you're dying. Why should this be any different.

If someone can have a kid naturally, more power to them, no one can stop them. But if you're not able, then you should look to the long term consequences of your actions. Adopt, foster, IVF, do Big Brother Big Sister, etc. There's many options. If there's a strong possibility you're going to be DEAD in less than 19 years, some of those options are better than others.

[Flyndaran]

... After all, you can't adopt a kid if you're dying. Why should this be any different.
....

Adoption has very strict rules. Homeless people aren't barred from reproducing, while they would certainly be barred from adopting.
Mostly becuase of all the hooplah about eugenics, the right to spew babies is considered an assailable human right. You don't get to smash those without boat loads of reasons.

Making decisions based on the age of a patient is bigotted agism. Making a decision based on the health of a patient that might be vaguely related to age is ok.
Anyone could die tommorow. Should we bar military people from such operations because of their greatly increased risk of death? How about race car drivers, or crab fishermen?

[lovlybones]

If someone can have a kid naturally, more power to them, no one can stop them. But if you're not able, then you should look to the long term consequences of your actions. Adopt, foster, IVF, do Big Brother Big Sister, etc. There's many options. If there's a strong possibility you're going to be DEAD in less than 19 years, some of those options are better than others.

so what your saying is that its fair for someone who is completely healthy to use IVF to have a baby since they'll be here for the next 19 or so years, but if your not please choose one of the following options to fullfill your need for a family:
a) Adopt
b) Foster Parent
c) Big Brother/sister

but please don't reproduce any of your own dna...

[Flyndaran]

so what your saying is that its fair for someone who is completely healthy to use IVF to have a baby since they'll be here for the next 19 or so years, but if your not please choose one of the following options to fullfill your need for a family:
a) Adopt
b) Foster Parent
c) Big Brother/sister

but please don't reproduce any of your own dna...

Human right versus public interest priviledges. Big difference.

[BroomJockey]

so what your saying is

ooooo, close. No. Not quite though. What I'm saying, in fact, you're a prick if you knowingly have a family when you're gonna die. Adoption, IVF, or otherwise. Adoption allows you to get a child who's older, which is why it's a possible better option. If you're dying _soon_, go BBBS. I abhor it when people don't consider the consequences of their actions. That would include the certainty of leaving your child before they're old enough to care for themselves, or degenerating to such as state where you can't care for them. Having a child just so you can say you reproduced is damned selfish if you know there's a good or higher possibility of them being tossed to (or back to) the system because you're incapacitated. Or dead. If you *reaaaaaaaaaaaalllllly* wanna have your genetic material floating around, there are egg donor banks, similar to sperm donor banks. Go to one of those.

[Flyndaran]

ooooo, close. No. Not quite though. What I'm saying, in fact, you're a prick if you knowingly have a family when you're gonna die....

I doubt many would argue against that.
Most of us just don't want to make being a prick illegal. And demanding that only doctors not do it would effectively outlaw such actions.

[BroomJockey]

Most of us just don't want to make being a prick illegal. And demanding that only doctors not do it would effectively outlaw such actions.

*looks back*

*looks again*

Noooooooo... I don't SEE where I said illegal. Didn't even suggest it. Or hint. Even obliquely. What I suggested was that a person be tested for health factors before such a procedure is carried out, and then after the information is obtained, it becomes a medical decision. The patient is presented with all the information, and the doctor attempts to persuade the patient in the direction best for them. After all, people do things against medical advice all the time. I didn't even demand that doctors *not* do it. I said "make it a medical decision."

And anyone who goes against their doctor's advice in this matter is a prick.

[blas87]

I personally think it's selfish and disgusting, these women whose biological clocks are running on dead batteries, but they MUST oh so MUST have a baby.

[Flyndaran]

After all, people do things against medical advice all the time. I didn't even demand that doctors *not* do it. I said "make it a medical decision."

And anyone who goes against their doctor's advice in this matter is a prick.

Okay. I just thought you were using the term to suggest that doctors should or even must refuse to do it. Because of course a medical decision is a medical decision. You just seemed to use the term with some hidden meaning.

[BroomJockey]

You just seemed to use the term with some hidden meaning.

I don't really do hidden meaning. I tend to just say it. Which is why I giggle when I'm accused of mocking something. Trust me, when I mock it, I'll make it plain. :cool:

[Lace Neil Singer]

I personally think it's selfish and disgusting, these women whose biological clocks are running on dead batteries, but they MUST oh so MUST have a baby.

Yeah, the menopause is there for a reason; it's a clear indicator that you're TOO FUCKING OLD. Jeez. :rolleyes:

[BlaqueKatt]

Making decisions based on the age of a patient is bigotted agism.

not in this case-she was 15 years beyond the normal child bearing years-at 66 years old she was retired-how was she supporting this child? Not to mention she would be 84 when the child graduated high school, average life span is 77 years-in the best interest of the child-it should not have been done, and wouldn't have had she not lied to the medical staff about her age-IVF is not done after menopause-is that bigotted agism?

[Flyndaran]

Yeah, the menopause is there for a reason; it's a clear indicator that you're TOO FUCKING OLD. Jeez. :rolleyes:
There are only two types of animal in which the females regularly live past menopause. A type of whale and humans.
What about those teenagers that go through menopause? Are they too old? Age is not something to accept. Aging and its assorted problems should be fought tooth and nail. Do not go gently into that good night!


not in this case-she was 15 years beyond the normal child bearing years-at 66 years old she was retired-how was she supporting this child? Not to mention she would be 84 when the child graduated high school, average life span is 77 years-in the best interest of the child-it should not have been done, and wouldn't have had she not lied to the medical staff about her age-IVF is not done after menopause-is that bigotted agism?

Retired people probably have more money that the homeless, and we don't stop them from procreating.
77 is more like the life expectancy for a baby born now. Her life expectancy is quite a bit more given that she already made it to 66..
So what that she will likely die soon? My father died when I was 13. If my mom somehow knew this ahead of time, should she have been refused the right to pop me and my brothers out?
People with known genetic defects are allowed to procreate even though it would be very detrimental to any children produced.
It's simply a fact, whether we like it or not, that procreation is a protected human right, and not a priviledge that can or should be restricted by common sense.

[BroomJockey]

a priviledge that can or should be restricted by common sense.

Actually, common sense is exactly what it should be restricted by. No laws, just someone with a modicum of brain power saying to themselves "You know, there's a good chance I won't survive to see this child graduate. I probably shouldn't spend every dime I have on popping out a kid."

[Flyndaran]

Actually, common sense is exactly what it should be restricted by. No laws, just someone with a modicum of brain power saying to themselves "You know, there's a good chance I won't survive to see this child graduate. I probably shouldn't spend every dime I have on popping out a kid."

If we could really promote such a wonderful but nonexistant concept as common sense, then we could probably solve most of the world's problems.

[DesignFox]

I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I don't think procreating is a god-given right.

If you can't, there are a number of reasons for it. Depending on what those reasons are, I don't think you should.

If you've hit menopause, you shouldn't. Your body is telling you that you can't handle it, anymore.

If there is a severe genetic defect that you have that prevents you from having children, and you know this defect will be passed to your child, and you know it will cause complications during pregnancy for you or your child...you shouldn't have IVF just so you can give birth to one.

You don't have a job or means to support children? You shouldn't be actively trying to reproduce, let alone putting yourself in the poor house for IVF.

I don't think government should step in. Mostly because, unfortunately, there is no law against selfishness or stupidity. But these doctors should have some goddamn sense and deny treatment to these imbeciles.

You know what? I'm sorry if a person wants nothing more than to give birth to a baby. But life isn't fucking fair. We all have our problems. We all have things we want in life that we can't get. All of us to some degree or another have a personality problem or health problem we wish we didn't have to deal with.

You know what? Deal with it.

That being said, I have no problem with a couple wanting a baby that maybe has some slight trouble. Say, perfectly healthy and otherwise normal, but sperm can't get to the egg for some reason. Or, the couple or woman needs to enlist a sperm donor or egg donor. Or even if the couple wants to hire a surrogate. Or even if the person or couple is well off enough to afford IVF and afford the results of said treatment- assuming of course they aren't over child bearing age- and there is no serious risk of complication to the mother or child.

THOSE things I see reason for seeking treatment. They are easy enough for the woman and child to go through and don't have an above average risk of serious health complications or seek to put a strain on an already over burdened social assistance program.

But you know. Who cares. I can have a baby if I want. Fuck society. Fuck the kid if I die. Fuck the rest of my family. IT'S MY RIGHT!!!11!!! :mad:

Yes this angers me.

[BroomJockey]

If we could really promote such a wonderful but nonexistant concept as common sense.

I hear in strange lands, in times gone by, they've come up with a miraculous concept, called... edjamukacion. It's supposed to provide people with basic critical thinking skills, knowledge of cause and effect, and other information about basic structures and concepts.

[AdminAssistant]

I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I don't think procreating is a god-given right.

I totally agree, DesignFox.

I really, honestly, do not understand the urge to spread out your DNA. Having a baby? Yes. If you can't have one biologically, guess what? There are many babies out there that need good, loving homes that you can foster or adopt. If someone is deemed healthy enough to carry a carry a child to term and raise it to adulthood, weighing factors like age, lifestyle, income, etc., and can afford the IVF and fertility treatments, then groovy. But insurance shouldn't pay for it. And post-menopausal women shouldn't be having babies. I can't even imagine how much that would screw up your hormones.

Heck, I don't even want a baby, and if I did want a child, I would adopt one. Who wants to go through, *ick*, pregnancy? *shudder* No way in hell I'm putting my body through that.

[DesignFox]

I totally agree, DesignFox.

<snip>

Heck, I don't even want a baby, and if I did want a child, I would adopt one. Who wants to go through, *ick*, pregnancy? *shudder* No way in hell I'm putting my body through that.

Yay, someone understands and agrees with me!

Also, I really don't want to go through pregnancy either. Thought scares the hell outta me. My body has enough issues, I don't want to add the weight gain (shit it took a lot of work just to lose 15 lbs and feel comfortable in my skin again), organ squishing, nutrient leeching stress of bearing a child, thanks.

Then again, I also don't want children. I think if my mind goes crazy, I might prefer to adopt. But, I'm human and fickle. Who knows what I'll want in 5 years.

Though truth be told, I think I'll still only want what I want now...horsies! :D

[Cat]

Agreed...I dislike fertility treatments greatly (then again, I am biased...I am adopted! :) )


As ya'll know, I'm one of those gals who doesn't wants kids.....pregnancy kinda freaks me out (plus I don't want to give up booze, caffeine, or fish)

[DesignFox]

Agreed...I dislike fertility treatments greatly (then again, I am biased...I am adopted! :) )

<snip>

One of my good friends throughout High School and college was adopted, as was his sister. I never knew why his parents did not have children of their own (by choice, fertility issues, no clue) But I always thought it was cool that they took two kids who were (in their cases, anyway) unwanted by their biological parents, and gave them a loving home. :)

[Cat]

Yup, my worthless (thats for another thread) brother and I are both adopted (and not biologically related!!)

But then again, I have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do to their own bodies....but one would *hope* common sense would factor in.....

[joe hx]

I really, honestly, do not understand the urge to spread out your DNA.

some say it gives people a sense of immortality.

it also seems that the point of life is to create more life. i'm not talking philosophical here. all life reproduces, all species seem to have an innate desire to reproduce.

[BlaqueKatt]

Also, I really don't want to go through pregnancy either. Thought scares the hell outta me. My body has enough issues, I don't want to add the weight gain (shit it took a lot of work just to lose 15 lbs and feel comfortable in my skin again), organ squishing, nutrient leeching stress of bearing a child, thanks.

forget that-think of the midnight feedings, diaper changes, potty training-I've been through all that-if I ever want another kid it will be adoption and a kid over the age of 4.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I realize that this is probably not the norm, and a lot of women have problems, but I felt like a goddess when I was pregnant.

That's not to say I was completely comfortable. I wasn't, it was a hot summer. But overall, for the most part, I kind of dug it. And I liked my body. I felt beautiful.

So, DesignFox, it's not an automatic sentence of physical horror. :) I mean, everyone's different, but I guess some women at least don't find it so bad.

[LeChatNoir]

Heck, I don't even want a baby, and if I did want a child, I would adopt one. Who wants to go through, *ick*, pregnancy? *shudder* No way in hell I'm putting my body through that.


I'm 12 weeks pregnant...and I totally agree. It sucks. Don't get me wrong, I want the child I'm having (unplanned though it is), but pregnancy blows. At least so far. I'm still waiting for the magic glowy part of it.

Anyway, I feel so bad for those little twins. That woman was not in her right mind, imo...if she couldn't think past her own desire to be a mother, to what would be best for any children she might have. And to commit fraud in order to become a mother? That seems to cheapen the whole thing. 66 year old women don't need to be giving birth. Adoption is there for a reason. Fostering is there for a reason.

Guh, the whole thing just pisses me off.

[Cat]

I do feel bad for those twins, wonder if we'll keep hearing about them as the years progress

[Boozy]

If someone were to ask those twins in twenty years, "Did your mother make the right decision in having IVF at that age?", I suspect they'd be fully in support of it.

That doesn't mean everyone everywhere should start having babies, but when it comes to human lives and the ability to procreate, nothing is black-and-white.

[BroomJockey]

If someone were to ask those twins in twenty years, "Did your mother make the right decision in having IVF at that age?", I suspect they'd be fully in support of it.


I'd be highly disturbed if they weren't. Anyone who says "I shouldn't have been born, and my parents did wrong in having me" probably has mental issues.

[DesignFox]

I<snip>

So, DesignFox, it's not an automatic sentence of physical horror. :) I mean, everyone's different, but I guess some women at least don't find it so bad.

This is good to hear. I know one or two women who had "glowing" pregnancies. But I also know quite a few who developed all sorts of fun issues during/afterward.

I will say that I don't know a single mother who didn't want their child, though. Even if the pregnancy wasn't all roses and sunshine, she was happy to have children.

At this stage of my life I prefer not to (and I'm no where near in a position to consider it, anyway.) So I don't want to risk going through the nightmare pregnancy, either. I have plenty of other reasons why I prefer not to go through it, too. But I'll leave it alone for now.

I do hope those twins end up alright...I wouldn't expect them to not want to have been born, but perhaps in twenty years if you asked them how they felt about what their mother did, they may have mixed feelings (like, I wish she had done this when she was younger...etc.). We won't know unless things go well and someone decides to eventually ask that question. ;)

[Boozy]

I'd be highly disturbed if they weren't. Anyone who says "I shouldn't have been born, and my parents did wrong in having me" probably has mental issues.

Yes, that was my point. There's always a case to be made that creating human life in any situation has value.

[BroomJockey]

There's always a case to be made that creating human life in any situation has value.

To the person making it, to the person being made, yes. But to society, in any situation, no.

I can understand the desire to have kids that are, in that ineffable way, "yours," and I'd like to have kids myself, but if I make it to 60, married, and don't have kids by that point, I don't think it's a great idea to have them then. The physical requirements of waking up at all hours, chasing them once they begin locomotioning, are things that at that age I'm less likely to be able to deal with. The life created in that situation has value, but am I honestly doing anyone a favour by creating that life? I'd be less effective as a parent at that age than I'd have been when I was say, 30.

Or the parents whose children are starving, and they have no income. And then they have another kid. The life created has value, but in that situation, it was a valueless decision.

There's a difference between the process of deciding, and the results of that decision. And this was a decision. It's not like she accidentally wandered in to a fertility clinic and was implanted when someone else was supposed to be in for the procedure. It in no way is equivalent to someone having an unplanned pregnancy. If she'd actually valued the life she was deciding to create, she'd have contemplated the factors limiting her ability to protect, nurture, and assist that life. Thus she wasn't placing sufficient value on THAT life, compared to her own and the process of deciding.

[Flyndaran]

Interesting how most people that want to limit other's reproduction rights are the ones that don't want kids of their own.
Evolution made our instinct to reproduce, and those without it that don't reproduce will get left by the wayside genetically.
The supreme court of the U.S. and most human rights organizations deem reproduction a human right.
Honestly, what is more innately human than the ability to pass on to the next generation their heritage?

[Lace Neil Singer]

This isn't natural reproduction tho, this is basically implanting embryos into someone who's reproductive life is over. Just cuz we can, does not mean that we should.

Reproduction is a right only as long as nature allows it; if you are a sixty nine year old woman and you are telling LIES to get yourself impregnated for no other reason than your own selfish desires, then that is the height of selfishness. If she'd wanted something to cuddle and that would give her unconditional love, she should have gotten a puppy or kitten. That could have been fairly easily rehomed after she died.

There is also the fact that the cancer could have well been prevented... by her putting her selfish feelings aside and not telling fibs to get herself fertility treatment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1199866/Worlds-oldest-mother-dies-cancer-just-years-giving-birth-twin-boys.html
As for Miss Bousada's cancer, it is understood that the former shop worker had been told that the drugs used during her fertility treatment may have hastened the advance of the disease.

It is known that some types of cancer are sensitive to hormones associated with both pregnancy and fertility treatment. Miss Bousada told doctors in Los Angeles that she was 55 when she travelled there to undergo IVF treatment.

[DesignFox]

This isn't natural reproduction tho, this is basically implanting embryos into someone who's reproductive life is over. Just cuz we can, does not mean that we should.

Reproduction is a right only as long as nature allows it; <snip>

Bingo.

I'm not saying that we need to take perfectly healthy people and sterilize them. I'm not even saying that we should prevent people from having children who can't afford them- so long as they do it naturally and don't pay THOUSANDS of dollars to have a kid they can't afford!

You don't go into debt just to get something that is going to put you more into debt (oh, wait, I live in America...)

If you're biological clock ticked it's last tock, don't have a kid for god's sake.

[daleduke17]

I've seen this response from you quite a bit.

What do you consider news? :p

This is not news that a lady died and orphaned her kids. The fact she was north of 60 when she had the kids isn't noteworthy, either. This just gives pro-adoption fanatics more fuel to chastise regular folks who want to give birth.

This story (and related ones) gave the old kook exactly what she wanted: attention.

[BlaqueKatt]

Honestly, what is more innately human than the ability to pass on to the next generation their heritage?

This is not about that-besides this woman was past menopause=no eggs left-she was not "passing on her genetics" in any manner-I had my kid, and due to my genetics I will not be passing on any further-how do you feel knowing that because I exercised my "basic human right" your tax dollars will be paying to care for my son-he's autistic-to the point where he doesn't even speak, will never be able to live a fully productive life-heck he's 8 years old and just got out of diapers. Should I have a ton more kids to feel "fulfilled", nope I plan on adopting in a few years, I am not selfish enough to have the desire to pass on my very defective DNA.

[BroomJockey]

regular folks who want to give birth.


She was hardly regular. Regular people don't get to spend tens of thousands of dollars to cheat nature's decision about who gets to have kids.

[Flyndaran]

This is not about that-besides this woman was past menopause=no eggs left-she was not "passing on her genetics" in any manner-I had my kid, and due to my genetics I will not be passing on any further-how do you feel knowing that because I exercised my "basic human right" your tax dollars will be paying to care for my son-he's autistic-to the point where he doesn't even speak, will never be able to live a fully productive life-heck he's 8 years old and just got out of diapers. Should I have a ton more kids to feel "fulfilled", nope I plan on adopting in a few years, I am not selfish enough to have the desire to pass on my very defective DNA.

Menopause has nothing to do with number of viable eggs left. That's a common misconception. Hormones can cause a post-menopausal woman to produce more viable eggs.

Even if that wasn't the case here, it still all falls down to making medical decisions by congress. I refuse to give them that power, and I doubt most others would either except on personally chosen issues.

As to nature versus technology, that decision was already made by our primate ancestors millions of years ago. Nature is something to be controlled and fought til our dying breaths.

No one has the right to say that I shouldn't do what I want because it isn't natural. Just because you might pay for it in some way, does not give you the right to chip away at my human rights. Or do you really believe that everyone doing things that might impinge you and your tax dollars shouldn't get medical technology?

If you do, then I certainly don't want to live in your ultimately totalitarian state. Any personal choice that might lead to advanced technology when they "didn't have to make that choice", shouldn't get it? Obese needing heart surgery, then to bad. Smoker needing lung surgery, then to bad? etc.

[BroomJockey]

If you do, then I certainly don't want to live in your ultimately totalitarian state. Any personal choice that might lead to advanced technology when they "didn't have to make that choice", shouldn't get it? Obese needing heart surgery, then to bad. Smoker needing lung surgery, then to bad? etc.

And I don't want to live in your anarchic state where your whims get to ride rough-shod over my rights. As for your examples, they're specious at best, unless by "surgery" you meant "transplants." And smokers don't get lung transplants, and obese people don't get heart transplants. For "surgery" to work, there'd have to be a limited number of total surgeries available. After all, there's a limited number of foster homes and people doing adoptions, and space in children's homes.

[BlaqueKatt]

Menopause has nothing to do with number of viable eggs left. That's a common misconception. Hormones can cause a post-menopausal woman to produce more viable eggs.

you had better let the medical community know that-they're under the impression that menopause is when the ovaries are totally depleted of eggs.

Menopause (http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/menopause/hic_menopause_basics.aspx)

"What causes menopause?

A woman is born with a finite number of eggs, which are stored in the ovaries. The ovaries also produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which regulate menstruation and ovulation. Menopause occurs when the ovaries are totally depleted of eggs and no amount of stimulation from the regulating hormones can force them to work. "


again typing "what causes menopause" into google led to this after 5 seconds-stop posting your opinions as fact without checking them-really it takes under 10 seconds.

[Flyndaran]

And I don't want to live in your anarchic state where your whims get to ride rough-shod over my rights. As for your examples, they're specious at best, unless by "surgery" you meant "transplants." And smokers don't get lung transplants, and obese people don't get heart transplants. For "surgery" to work, there'd have to be a limited number of total surgeries available. After all, there's a limited number of foster homes and people doing adoptions, and space in children's homes.

Famous alcoholics get transplants here in the U.S. And smokers get them if they pretend to quite for a while.
I guess that transplant teams are far more totalitarian than most of the U.S.
Usually the organ goes to whoever is closest and the best match. I wouldn't want any other considerations to be taken.
How many heart transplant patients aren't obese? Not being able to get up to move seems like a great pusher towards obesity.
Adoption criteria are much much much stricter than fostering is here in the U.S. It's still the same kid. Ever hear of how it's legal for gays to foster kids, but not adopt them in florida?

I believe in personal freedoms trumping everything butothers' rights when verifiablly proven and only when it isn't against fundamental human rights to life, reproduction, marriage, etc.
My right to eat trumps your right to never get fallen on by a fat guy.
My right to needlessly endanger my life should trump your right to get hit by a flying fat guy.

[BroomJockey]

Famous alcoholics get transplants here in the U.S. And smokers get them if they pretend to quite for a while.


And we could debate all day about famous people receiving preferential treatment, I'm sure.

http://www.jhltonline.org/article/PIIS1053249806004608/fulltext#sec1.4.1 Obese patients are to lose weight or suffer an "adverse outcome of transplantation" (doctor-speak for fukkin' ded).

I believe in personal freedoms trumping everything butothers' rights when verifiablly proven and only when it isn't against fundamental human rights to life, reproduction, marriage, etc.

And you are not entitled to any of my money to support your progeny when you kick off 'cause your dumb arse had kids when you were physically unfit to do so, and it's my personal freedom to have fewer unhoused rugrats running around because some fucking idiot put her desire to shoot living beings from her crotch instead of using her brain. This woman in absolutely no way was fit to be a parent, either physically (dying proved that), or mentally (bankrupting herself proved that). If she'd managed to have a kid just by fucking every sailor in port, then I'd hail a medical miracle of natural conception so late in life, then call her an idiot still for having kids so late in life. But at least she'd have had money to look after them, instead of creating a burden on an already stressed social-safety net.

[Flyndaran]

you had better let the medical community know that-they're under the impression that menopause is when the ovaries are totally depleted of eggs.

Menopause (http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/menopause/hic_menopause_basics.aspx)

"What causes menopause?

A woman is born with a finite number of eggs, which are stored in the ovaries. The ovaries also produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which regulate menstruation and ovulation. Menopause occurs when the ovaries are totally depleted of eggs and no amount of stimulation from the regulating hormones can force them to work. "
....

That's not what causes menopause. Menopause may cause that.
Menopause is caused hormonally. You don't have that limited number of eggs. Also, woman continue to produce eggs after birth unlike what so many were taught.
So google isn't always right.


...
And you are not entitled to any of my money to support your progeny when you kick off 'cause your dumb arse had kids when you were physically unfit to do so, and it's my personal freedom to have fewer unhoused rugrats running around because some fucking idiot put her desire to shoot living beings from her crotch instead of using her brain. This woman in absolutely no way was fit to be a parent, either physically (dying proved that), or mentally (bankrupting herself proved that). If she'd managed to have a kid just by fucking every sailor in port, then I'd hail a medical miracle of natural conception so late in life, then call her an idiot still for having kids so late in life. But at least she'd have had money to look after them, instead of creating a burden on an already stressed social-safety net.

Did dying prove my father was unfit? No.
I still say that reproduction is a human right. You see it as a priviledge to be limited as you so wish. I don't see any line of technology before which is okahy no matter what, and after is a horrible no no.
Technology is just as much part of humanity as inheritable genetics.
Even in a socialized healthy care society you are forced to pay for others bad decisions. Do you not give emergency treatment to drunk drivers? Do you not allow birth control, because they would otherwise make the bad decision to have sex anyway? I doubt it.
Either way, I doubt any of us are willing to change what appear to be fundamental frames of reference.

[BlaqueKatt]

wrong thread somehow

[BlaqueKatt]

That's not what causes menopause. Menopause may cause that.
Menopause is caused hormonally. You don't have that limited number of eggs. Also, woman continue to produce eggs after birth unlike what so many were taught.
So google isn't always right.

lol what

webmd (http://www.webmd.com/menopause/guide/menopause-basics)
What Causes Menopause?

A woman is born with a finite number of eggs, which are stored in the ovaries. The ovaries also produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone, which regulate menstruation and ovulation. Menopause occurs when the ovaries no longer produce an egg every month and menstruation stops.

Mayo clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menopause/DS00119/DSECTION=causes)
Menopause begins naturally when your ovaries start making less estrogen and progesterone, the hormones that regulate menstruation. The process gets under way in your late 30s. By that time, fewer potential eggs are ripening in your ovaries each month, and ovulation is less predictable. Also, the post-ovulation surge in progesterone — the hormone that prepares your body for pregnancy — becomes less dramatic. Your fertility declines, perhaps partially due to these hormonal effects.

so you're saying the mayo clinic and about 50 other medical references are wrong-but you have nothing to back it up-yeah I'll believe that-especially since I'm currently in perimenopause myself.

[Flyndaran]

...
so you're saying the mayo clinic and about 50 other medical references are wrong-but you have nothing to back it up-yeah I'll believe that-especially since I'm currently in perimenopause myself.

They disagree with the more modern real world studies I've read and seen.
No tissue is truly limited in number. Even brain cells reproduce slowly when they were thought limited after childhood.
I suck at research skill.

http://www.livescience.com/health/051227_neuron_growth.html
http://www.physorg.com/news154020997.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16931-egg-stem-cells-could-revolutionise-fertility-treatment.html
This suggests that it's something other than having an empty egg carton that leads to menopause.

[BroomJockey]

No tissue is truly limited in number.

I believe that ovaries are different in that the eggs are already there from birth, the body just ripens and prepares one each month. They're never actually produced once the ovaries are finished growing.

[Flyndaran]

I believe that ovaries are different in that the eggs are already there from birth, the body just ripens and prepares one each month. They're never actually produced once the ovaries are finished growing.

I could have sworn I heard of a study that suggested they did. But since I can't find the darn thing, I'll have to just suffer your disbelief.

[Pedersen]

Just because you might pay for it in some way, does not give you the right to chip away at my human rights.

I believe in personal freedoms trumping everything butothers' rights when verifiablly proven and only when it isn't against fundamental human rights to life, reproduction, marriage, etc.

It's always amusing when somebody manages to make two contradictory statements in a public forum. It's more amusing when those posts are so very close together. The only way it would have been more amusing is for them to be one after the other in the same post.

So, let's see: We have the individual freedoms to do something with your life, to be successful, to pull yourself to the top of the heap and actually enjoy the fruits of your labors. Unless someone else needs the fruits of your labors, in which case, tough shit, your rights to those fruits is taken away to give someone else the basic human rights that you thought you had.

Bravo, Flyn. Bravo. What's next, tea and no tea (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=29864) simultaneously?

[BroomJockey]

I could have sworn I heard of a study that suggested they did. But since I can't find the darn thing,

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/11/ovaries_replenish_eggs_study_suggests/

Five years ago, someone found out that mice keep growing new eggs. Still no evidence that human women do.

[the_std]

I believe that ovaries are different in that the eggs are already there from birth, the body just ripens and prepares one each month. They're never actually produced once the ovaries are finished growing.

This is true. Females actually have all the eggs they will ever produce in their bodies before they're born.

[Flyndaran]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/11/ovaries_replenish_eggs_study_suggests/

Five years ago, someone found out that mice keep growing new eggs. Still no evidence that human women do.

In other cases it's normally assumed that experiments on non-humans apply to humans UNTIL they are proven not to apply.
Though I would be more sure if the study was done on primates.
But evolutionarily it would make more sense for humans to have this ability than mice not less.

[Nyoibo]

I know this is an unpopular viewpoint, but I don't think procreating is a god-given right.

I see it as a God given right, and if you can't have a kid, God has spoken damn it "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". :p

[BroomJockey]

In other cases it's normally assumed that experiments on non-humans apply to humans UNTIL they are proven not to apply.

Noooo... that's only if it's a new theory, not disproving a standard already accepted.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, let's look at it this way. If you shuffle off your mortal coil while your children are minors, then the state has to pay to house them and find them new homes. Therefore, the state has the right to have some say in who goes to ridiculous extremes to reproduce.

Y'know, it reminds me of the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition when a family had four kids with a chronic genetic condition. I don't remember what it was, but it was pretty rare and very expensive to treat. My question....if you had one child with a severe genetic condition, wouldn't you stop having kids? I can't even begin to understand the logic. One of my friends actually wants to have a kid after she finishes her dissertation, and her husband does, too, but he's absolutely terrified that he'll pass on the cleft lip he had as a child. (It was pretty severe, and the scar is still very noticable).

[Boozy]

I could have sworn I heard of a study that suggested they did. But since I can't find the darn thing, I'll have to just suffer your disbelief.

Flyndaran may be correct. Very recent studies indicate that women might produce more eggs throughout their adult lives.

http://jezebel.com/5209853/research-suggests-women-may-produce-eggs-as-adults

However, these findings have yet to be proven.

The generally accepted theory has always been that women are born with a finite number of eggs in their ovaries and once they run out, they hit menopause. At the very least, the studies show that this theory is a little too pat.

[Flyndaran]

I see it as a God given right, and if you can't have a kid, God has spoken damn it "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". :p

Even jokingly, I don't appreciate the inclusion of religion into a potentially legal thread.

Well, let's look at it this way. If you shuffle off your mortal coil while your children are minors, then the state has to pay to house them and find them new homes. Therefore, the state has the right to have some say in who goes to ridiculous extremes to reproduce.
No it doesn't. It doesn't get to dictate human rights. Procreation is a human right. I accept that advanced technology is not a human right. I suppose if she could pay for it, then I woudn't have even a slight problem with her, in my opinion bad, decision.


Y'know, it reminds me of the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition when a family had four kids with a chronic genetic condition. I don't remember what it was, but it was pretty rare and very expensive to treat. My question....if you had one child with a severe genetic condition, wouldn't you stop having kids? I can't even begin to understand the logic. One of my friends actually wants to have a kid after she finishes her dissertation, and her husband does, too, but he's absolutely terrified that he'll pass on the cleft lip he had as a child. (It was pretty severe, and the scar is still very noticable).

I don't believe cleft palates are genetic. They are a devolopmental hiccough.
Intentionally having deformed children is a horribly bad decision. But it's their decision to make. Fighting that right/urge will always be a losing battle. Evolution will always win out.

[DesignFox]

<snip> because some fucking idiot put her desire to shoot living beings from her crotch instead of using her brain. <snip>

Where's the spewing smiley? :p

<snip> Procreation is a human right. I accept that advanced technology is not a human right. <snip>

To me, if you REQUIRE advanced technology in order to procreate, then this is not a basic human right.

Hell, if it were up to me, each of these inept doctors that performed these procedures would have to pay for the raising of these children.

If a woman A) can barely afford the treatment because she is already on government assistance B) is post-menopausal and therefore at a higher than average health risk to herself or the baby C) some other crazy irrational medical risk D) a combination of these factors then the procedure should not be performed.

Granted, I don't see any real way to involve the government. Not in any way that's good anyhow. I just think the doctors should take more responsibility and deny this procedure based on certain medical criteria. It angers me that myself and the other responsible people in the world have to pay for the actions of the selfish.

Maybe you can't legislate against stupidity, selfishness, rudeness, and downright disgraceful behavior, but it's well within my right to be disgusted and aggravated by it.

Perhaps the social pressure of the disgusted majority will make some of these selfish people have more thought.

There are more than enough unwanted or tragically orphaned children in the world. Why do we need more ways to create more?

Impregnating a 60 year old single woman is a very close to sure fire way to create an orphan.

[Flyndaran]

...
If a woman A) can barely afford the treatment because she is already on government assistance B) is post-menopausal and therefore at a higher than average health risk to herself or the baby C) some other crazy irrational medical risk D) a combination of these factors then the procedure should not be performed.

Granted, I don't see any real way to involve the government. Not in any way that's good anyhow. I just think the doctors should take more responsibility and deny this procedure based on certain medical criteria. It angers me that myself and the other responsible people in the world have to pay for the actions of the selfish.
....

That's the concept of society in a nutshell, sensible people paying for the actions of the selfish and unlucky. The thing we must always remember is that every one of us will be that selfish or unlucky person at least once in our lifetimes.
I don't like the idea of doctors basing their decisions on things that aren't medically relevant now.
Possibly dying later is not medically relevant now. A woman's health at present is what's relevant. I don't like agism.

[BroomJockey]

That's the concept of society in a nutshell, sensible people paying for the actions of the selfish and unlucky.
<snip>
Possibly dying later is not medically relevant now. A woman's health at present is what's relevant. I don't like agism.

No, the concept of society is pooling labour to produce greater gains than a person would be able to achieve individually. Everyone contributes in some fashion, or everyone fails. The only people society should be supporting are those physically/mentally unable to be productive. It used to be, in smaller societies, that selfish people would be kicked to the curb, as they were detrimental.

And I'd have to disagree that possibly dying later isn't medically relevant now. It's used to determine primacy on transplant lists. And those are a hell of a lot more necessary than baby-making if you wanna continue life. It's a matter of determining just how likely and close that "later" is. Again, spending thousands of dollars on this is not a necessity, it is not a right. There should be guidelines about who can and cannot receive the treatment, for the patient's health, the welfare of the potential child, and the good of society as a whole. After all, if we're stuck caring for the orphaned offspring of all the people too stupid to realize they're gonna croak before the kid's self-reliant, then you don't get any support to keep you off the streets. After all, "kids are our future, and need our support." In a choice between someone who can't leave their house, and some kids, the kids are going to win 99.9% of the time.

[Flyndaran]

No, the concept of society is pooling labour to produce greater gains than a person would be able to achieve individually. Everyone contributes in some fashion, or everyone fails. The only people society should be supporting are those physically/mentally unable to be productive. It used to be, in smaller societies, that selfish people would be kicked to the curb, as they were detrimental.
To avoid devovling into a linguistic dispute, I'll accept your definition as a valid one.
And I'd have to disagree that possibly dying later isn't medically relevant now. It's used to determine primacy on transplant lists. And those are a hell of a lot more necessary than baby-making if you wanna continue life. It's a matter of determining just how likely and close that "later" is. Again, spending thousands of dollars on this is not a necessity, it is not a right. There should be guidelines about who can and cannot receive the treatment, for the patient's health, the welfare of the potential child, and the good of society as a whole. After all, if we're stuck caring for the orphaned offspring of all the people too stupid to realize they're gonna croak before the kid's self-reliant, then you don't get any support to keep you off the streets. After all, "kids are our future, and need our support." In a choice between someone who can't leave their house, and some kids, the kids are going to win 99.9% of the time.

I suppose I have to agree with you on living later being a valid medical opinion on some cases. I just don't see having children as one of them.

I don't believe a human's value decreases as one ages. I loathe agism. A human life is a human life.

[BroomJockey]

I don't believe a human's value decreases as one ages.

So the ability to have children is a measure of a human's worth?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Plus, these weren't her children; donor eggs were used. So she wasn't passing on DNA of her own.

Also, throwing agism into this debate is pretty much a strawman; it's like saying, "Why couldn't a paralysed man be a fireman? That's prejudiced against disabled people!"

IVF is fine if you're talking about say, a 20 year old woman who went into early menopause. However, this is a woman who's in her sixties, who is single, and who only wanted children to fufil her own selfish desires. Now those babies are orphans, and for what? Besides, this world is overpopulated enough without pandering to OAPs who want to go against nature and pop out babies.

[Boozy]

So the ability to have children is a measure of a human's worth?

No. But we're making value judgements when we say "This person can have children" and "This person can not." If the only difference between those two people is age, then that's ageism.

[BroomJockey]

If the only difference between those two people is age, then that's ageism.

No, the difference is expectation of quality/length of life. I did say that anyone should be tested for cancer markers and genetic diseases. Besides, people of different ages are not equal. You have more life experience and potentially more knowledge, but you have less stamina and strength as you age. Given the choice between a 30 year old firefighter, and a 60 year old firefighter, I'll take the 30-year-old. I don't think that's ageism.

[Flyndaran]

Plus, these weren't her children; donor eggs were used. So she wasn't passing on DNA of her own.
Reason matter not to evolutionary instincts.


Also, throwing agism into this debate is pretty much a strawman; it's like saying, "Why couldn't a paralysed man be a fireman? That's prejudiced against disabled people!"
I don't see that simile. An old woman can have children healthily. A paralyzed man can't perform basic firefighting procedures.
If the woman is healthy enough so that just that aspect wouldn't be enough to bar a younger woman from proceeding then that is agism. I believe there is a strong movement to legally bar that form of descrimination.

IVF is fine if you're talking about say, a 20 year old woman who went into early menopause. However, this is a woman who's in her sixties, who is single, and who only wanted children to fufil her own selfish desires. Now those babies are orphans, and for what? Besides, this world is overpopulated enough without pandering to OAPs who want to go against nature and pop out babies.

All desire to have children is in some way selfish. That's a non-issue. Young people die all the time. My father died when I was 13, so that is overruled.
You don't have a conceptual problem with overturning menopause, so that is overturned.
My gread grandmother had children well into her fifties. Would you argue with her choice too? You're left with pure agism, so don't be surprised when alot of us disagree with you.

[Nyoibo]

An old woman can have children healthily. A paralyzed man can't perform basic firefighting procedures.
If the woman is healthy enough so that just that aspect wouldn't be enough to bar a younger woman from proceeding then that is agism.


My gread grandmother had children well into her fifties. Would you argue with her choice too? You're left with pure agism, so don't be surprised when alot of us disagree with you.

Did your great grandmother use IVF? What people here are saying is that when your body says "You can't have kids anymore" then you stop having kids, before IVF it wasn't considered ageism to say "you can't have kids anymore, you're too old" but now that we have IVF it is? I call bullshit on that arguement.

[Flyndaran]

Did your great grandmother use IVF? What people here are saying is that when your body says "You can't have kids anymore" then you stop having kids, before IVF it wasn't considered ageism to say "you can't have kids anymore, you're too old" but now that we have IVF it is? I call bullshit on that arguement.

And I'm saying that biology hasn't stopped us before. Letting nature take its course has always been B.S. It's not human nature to simply accept one's position in life.

[Nyoibo]

And I'm saying that biology hasn't stopped us before. Letting nature take its course has always been B.S. It's not human nature to simply accept one's position in life.

Bull, Biology and nature has stopped us for more of human history than it hasn't, it's only recently that we've had technology to be able to ignore it.

[BroomJockey]

Reason matter not to evolutionary instincts.

You know, I'd like a list of instincts which you feel are fine to overcome, and ones you don't. It'd make it a lot easier to keep track. Sex drive can't be overcome, anger can, having children - even if not passing on DNA - can't, according to you. What else can and can't? Just for consistency's sake.

[the_std]

I'd say that one's responsibility to one's children, ensuring that you increase their odds for a safe and happy life as much as possible, make it the ideal instinct to overcome. This includes people without the financial capacity to care for children, people who are likely to pass on diseases and disorders, and people who have a high likelihood of not surviving to see their children to the age of majority. Just because it is instinct does not mean it's right.

[Flyndaran]

Bull, Biology and nature has stopped us for more of human history than it hasn't, it's only recently that we've had technology to be able to ignore it.
Fighting nature is what lead us to technology in the first place. It's human nature to develop ways to ignore it.

You know, I'd like a list of instincts which you feel are fine to overcome, and ones you don't. It'd make it a lot easier to keep track. Sex drive can't be overcome, anger can, having children - even if not passing on DNA - can't, according to you. What else can and can't? Just for consistency's sake.
I never said that anger itself could be overcome. Besides instincts are different than emotions.

The instinct for procreation can't be overcome in any real sense, because those that do overcome it will naturally have fewer children than those that don't. They will get bred out of the population or at least become the minority. That's natural selection.
I don't get the animosity others are aiming at me. I believe that reproduction is a human right, and the supreme court has agreed with me on previous occasions. It's not that unusual of a belief.

[Lace Neil Singer]

You're left with pure agism, so don't be surprised when alot of us disagree with you.

It's only you who's disagreeing with me, that I can see; and all you're doing is seemingly taking a devil's advocate stand for no good reason.

If your grandmother conceived naturally without the benefit of expensive fertility treatment, then she doesn't come into this argument. Strawman.

[BroomJockey]

I never said that anger itself could be overcome. Besides instincts are different than emotions.


Sorry, you said aggression could be overcome, back in my thread about violent media. That IS an instinct. And you said that sexual urges couldn't. Multiple times, but most recently to anriana when she said her religion tries to move past the need for sex. My point still stands. List please?

[Cats]

When it comes to procreating, there is more than just a ME factor involved. You are creating another human life (and sometimes more). The potential desires and well-being of that (potential) life need to be taken into consideration.

How is a young kid going to feel about the possibility of their senior-age mother dying of old age before they finish high school (speaking for any cases like this one)? Who's the backup guardian who's going to provide for them? A parent's job is to make sure their children are provided for. It's a fact of life...we ALL will die eventually, sooner or later. The older you are, the closer sooner gets to be. I don't think it's ageist to take that into account, seeing how it's not just THEM that's being affected by that inevitability. I think EVERY parent, regardless of age, should have a backup plan, just in case.

Procreation is only a necessity for the survival of the SPECIES, not the individual. The human race isn't dying out anytime soon, and if we all end up blowing ourselves up or whatever instead, no amount of overpopulation is going to make a difference. I think it's a slightly unfair statement to make that the desire to breed in general is selfish (though I do think it's okay to be a little selfish), since someone has to, and there is a natural desire for it. What I DO think is selfish though, is trying to force it when nature is telling you no, to the point of spending several thousand dollars on a procedure that may not even work and where there are more potential risks involed.

No one is genetically perfect. While I don't agree with just letting people die without a possibly second chance, I also don't think Darwin was full of crap with the whole survival of the fittest thing either. Some people are just genetically compatable because nature just said so. Why some people and not others? Mystery of life; everyone has their shortcommings.

I don't understand why people can just go "I WANT BABIES" and some doctors will do everything to let them have them, regardless of the price paid in the end. If I went to a doc and said "I want to be a foot taller", they'd laugh in my face. Hey, they can do that, and I am below standard deviation and went to a specialist for years. Or hey, let me binge drink myself to death and demand a new liver! Where is the line? Why are there lower standards for the creation of an entirely new life rather than the pre-existing? Babies that don't even exist yet in any form are valued more? I'm sorry, is there some sort of logic I am missing here, because I don't get it.

Growing up, I never really had any sort of desire to have children, but I was open to change since that tends to happen with time. It's crap like this that completely seals the deal for me.

[Flyndaran]

Sorry, you said aggression could be overcome, back in my thread about violent media. That IS an instinct. And you said that sexual urges couldn't. Multiple times, but most recently to anriana when she said her religion tries to move past the need for sex. My point still stands. List please?
Aggression is a behavior: aggressiveness or anger is an emotion.
That's the only clarification you seem to need.

When it comes to procreating, there is more than just a ME factor involved. You are creating another human life (and sometimes more). The potential desires and well-being of that (potential) life need to be taken into consideration.

How is a young kid going to feel about the possibility of their senior-age mother dying of old age before they finish high school (speaking for any cases like this one)? Who's the backup guardian who's going to provide for them? A parent's job is to make sure their children are provided for. It's a fact of life...we ALL will die eventually, sooner or later. The older you are, the closer sooner gets to be. I don't think it's ageist to take that into account, seeing how it's not just THEM that's being affected by that inevitability. I think EVERY parent, regardless of age, should have a backup plan, just in case.

Procreation is only a necessity for the survival of the SPECIES, not the individual. The human race isn't dying out anytime soon, and if we all end up blowing ourselves up or whatever instead, no amount of overpopulation is going to make a difference. I think it's a slightly unfair statement to make that the desire to breed in general is selfish (though I do think it's okay to be a little selfish), since someone has to, and there is a natural desire for it. What I DO think is selfish though, is trying to force it when nature is telling you no, to the point of spending several thousand dollars on a procedure that may not even work and where there are more potential risks involed.

No one is genetically perfect. While I don't agree with just letting people die without a possibly second chance, I also don't think Darwin was full of crap with the whole survival of the fittest thing either. Some people are just genetically compatable because nature just said so. Why some people and not others? Mystery of life; everyone has their shortcommings.

I don't understand why people can just go "I WANT BABIES" and some doctors will do everything to let them have them, regardless of the price paid in the end. If I went to a doc and said "I want to be a foot taller", they'd laugh in my face. Hey, they can do that, and I am below standard deviation and went to a specialist for years. Or hey, let me binge drink myself to death and demand a new liver! Where is the line? Why are there lower standards for the creation of an entirely new life rather than the pre-existing? Babies that don't even exist yet in any form are valued more? I'm sorry, is there some sort of logic I am missing here, because I don't get it.
...

I don't have that strong of a desire for children either. But I don't believe that my preference is the norm or even advisable for most.
I believe that the desires of a pregnant woman trumps those of the fetus, so I sure as hell believe a woman's desires trumps those of a non-existant baby.
You seem to be saying that they don't. I hope you can see why I might disagree.

As to your weird non sequitor about height. There is a costly painful process of bone lengthening that some dwarfs undergo. I bet you could find a doctor somewhere to perform the procedures. As always there are organizations that think it's going against nature even in cases where it is medically advisable due to inabilities to walk unaided or balance issues.

You seem to imply that a person's medical ailments are intentional. No one wants to be an alcoholic. It is a form of mental disease. I don't believe in letting people die just, because they have a disease.

You are suggesting an instituted agism. Don't shy away from it. Your reasons have nothing to do with anything medical. They have to do with a non-existant child's rights overruling a real woman's rights.
Doctors are often wrong on how long they think you will live. Yes, even by decades. I don't want their prejudice to take away someone's inalienable right to reproduction.

Oddly enough and probably better suited to a different thread, I may agree with you in principle more than you might think. I believe that the government should practice eugenics. That people should not be allowed to reproduce without adequate education. People that refuse or are unable to act responsibly should either be sterilized or evicted from the nation. Those with severe deformities caused by known single genes should be also be sterilized.

I just don't like things going half-assed. Either it's an uassailable right, or we get down and dirty and do it right.

[BroomJockey]

Aggression is a behavior: aggressiveness or anger is an emotion.
That's the only clarification you seem to need.



No, that's the only one you're prepared to give. Aggressive behaviour is an instinct, it's how one secured resources when they were scarce. I note that since you "overcame" aggression, that's fine, but since you don't have a problem with sex, that's fine to give in to. That's fine, just own up to the unequal treatment.

[Flyndaran]

No, that's the only one you're prepared to give. Aggressive behaviour is an instinct, it's how one secured resources when they were scarce. I note that since you "overcame" aggression, that's fine, but since you don't have a problem with sex, that's fine to give in to. That's fine, just own up to the unequal treatment.

Ooh, unintentional slam? I'm not sure.
I don't mention sex, because I have no sex drive due to generic Paxil. I just recognize it as a fundamental aspect of humanity in the raw.
There is a fine distincition in my beliefs. You don't have to agree with me, but it would be nice if you didn't belittle them. I don't believe that I've ever belittled you.
This is now degrading into a linguistic pissing match. Bye on this thread.

[DesignFox]

Ok. I guess let me rephrase this.

Everyone has a "right" to reproduce. Not everyone has the "right" to seek fertility treatments.

It's not a black and white issue. Which is why it can't and shouldn't be regulated by the government.

I think if we made these fertility doctors pay out the ass for every kid left orphaned or popped out and stuck on welfare, they'd be a bit more picky about who their patients are. Alas, too much gray area to mandate that, too.

And Flyn, you aren't the only person to lose a parent at an early age. My mother died at the age of 37, when I was 13 and my brother was just 2. When she was pregnant with my brother, she thought she was perfectly healthy. Then she found a lump in her breast. She may not have noticed it so soon had she not been pregnant- as it was, that caused her to pay a lot closer attention to her health. At any rate, despite a lot of crap, brother was born healthy, we thought Mom was cured. In reality, within a year, the cancer came back two billion fold and killed her.

But, unlike this 66 year old loony bin, my mother's pregnancy was 100% natural and my mother wasn't single. She knew that my father, myself, and other members of our family would be around to take care of him if or when it came down to her dying. And she fought with her every last breath to beat the cancer so we wouldn't be burdened.

So I know shit happens. I know that despite a doctor's research, hard work, and even taking into consideration the best interest of the baby, people die.

But any human being with any sense of responsibility will not pay thousands of dollars to have a baby when their body won't do it on its own. And no self respecting doctor should put the burden on the rest of society because he/she didn't have the balls to turn somebody who was high risk down for the procedure.

[BroomJockey]

I just recognize it as a fundamental aspect of humanity in the raw.
There is a fine distincition in my beliefs. You don't have to agree with me, but it would be nice if you didn't belittle them.

A distinction you seem unwilling to actually clarify beyond "I use different words to describe them," thus it comes off as nothing more than "I have no problem with this, it's fine, I'm better than this, so it's not." If trying to get an actual explanation for seeming inconsistencies is belittling beliefs, you might not wanna post in religious threads anymore, either, since that's a common factor.

[McDreidel09]

I totally agree, DesignFox.

I really, honestly, do not understand the urge to spread out your DNA.

Well,biologically, we are supposed to. If we were to be all natural, no medical technology and the like, there wouldn't be as many people, so we are wired to spread our genes to ensure the survival of our species. Through all these medical breakthroughs to help people live longer, we don't NEED to, but our biological clocks tell us we do.

Since we do have longer life spans,due to these scientific and medical discoveries, you would think that people would use their minds to override the natural instinct, but they don't.

BTW, if anyone here wants a child and raise it from a baby, but don't want to go through pregnancy or can't due to sperm or egg issues not caused by age, I would be more than willing to lend you a hand. I wouldn't mind going through the pregnancy stage and helping someone with that. :D

[Boozy]

Well,biologically, we are supposed to. If we were to be all natural, no medical technology and the like, there wouldn't be as many people, so we are wired to spread our genes to ensure the survival of our species. Through all these medical breakthroughs to help people live longer, we don't NEED to, but our biological clocks tell us we do.

People still need to procreate for the species to survive. There's no medical breakthrough that cures our inevitable death.

You are right that we are still very much hardwired to procreate. In some people, it only manifests itself in their sex drives. Others are fully conscious of a strong desire to have children. In my experience (no, I don't have statistics) many people in their teens and early twenties don't get it because they haven't come close to reaching menopause/the end of their ability to have children. Then the biological clock kicks in.

We're also hardwired to desire children once we've reached a point in our lives where we ourselves are not in mortal danger. In earlier times, that meant being fed and warm and not being hunted by predators. Mortal danger has come to mean something else in modern society. Once a couple feels secure in themselves, each other, and their financial future, it's common for them to have the urge to raise a family, even if they didn't before.

Again, this is my personal experience only. But as someone with many friends in their early thirties (myself being of that age), I've seen so many of my friends who swore they'd never settle down and have kids doing exactly that. They've reached the point in their lives where they can't ignore that biological urge anymore, and their lives have become settled to the point where it feels "safe" to do so.

[McDreidel09]

Oh, I may have worded some of that wrong Boozy. I didn't mean that we DON'T need to procreate, but not as much as Octomom, for instance. :o

[Boozy]

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, medical breakthroughs in western society definitely mean that we don't all need to have 10 kids in hopes of two surviving to adulthood.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Back in ye olden times, the infant mortality rate was super high; a lot of the time, a woman could birth five kids and have four die before they even reached the age of five.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Infant_mortality_throughout_histo ry
During ancient times and the Middle Ages, the infant mortality rate was about 200 deaths per 1,000 live births and the under-5 mortality rate was about 300 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Like Boozy said, this is no longer the case. Nor do we need to breed children in order to work on the farm, or put out to service. Then again, back in ye olden times, someone like Octomom who wasn't able to financially care for her children would have just been shoved in the workhouse and her children with her. O.o

[Flyndaran]

Ok. I guess let me rephrase this.

Everyone has a "right" to reproduce. Not everyone has the "right" to seek fertility treatments.

It's not a black and white issue. Which is why it can't and shouldn't be regulated by the government.
...
And Flyn, you aren't the only person to lose a parent at an early age. My mother died at the age of 37, when I was 13 and my brother was just 2. ...

Why shouldn't everyone have the right to seek elective medical treatment? Nearly all elective surgeries are not really needed and therefore increase thier risk of death or disease. Nearly all issues have shades of grey. Just because I feel completely on the far side here, doesn't mean that I don't understand such positions.


A distinction you seem unwilling to actually clarify beyond "I use different words to describe them," thus it comes off as nothing more than "I have no problem with this, it's fine, I'm better than this, so it's not." If trying to get an actual explanation for seeming inconsistencies is belittling beliefs, you might not wanna post in religious threads anymore, either, since that's a common factor.

I'm not better than anything or anyone. I'm trying to say that emotions are not within our complete control. Only our actions can be controlled. I'm sorry that I can properly convey that to your satisfaction.

Well,biologically, we are supposed to. If we were to be all natural, no medical technology and the like, there wouldn't be as many people, so we are wired to spread our genes to ensure the survival of our species. Through all these medical breakthroughs to help people live longer, we don't NEED to, but our biological clocks tell us we do.

Since we do have longer life spans,due to these scientific and medical discoveries, you would think that people would use their minds to override the natural instinct, but they don't.

BTW, if anyone here wants a child and raise it from a baby, but don't want to go through pregnancy or can't due to sperm or egg issues not caused by age, I would be more than willing to lend you a hand. I wouldn't mind going through the pregnancy stage and helping someone with that. :D
It's hard enough to reist our baser urgers. But when the only objections are based on the non-existant rights of potential fetuses... I don't consider it a failing to make such a personal choice. It's a little too close to an ad hominem for my tastes.
My mother was like you in liking pregnancy. She never had morning sickness or that modern opinion that pregnancy equals being an invalid.


...
Again, this is my personal experience only. But as someone with many friends in their early thirties (myself being of that age), I've seen so many of my friends who swore they'd never settle down and have kids doing exactly that. They've reached the point in their lives where they can't ignore that biological urge anymore, and their lives have become settled to the point where it feels "safe" to do so.
I felt a sort of urge to procreate in my early twenties. It was minor, but real.

...
Like Boozy said, this is no longer the case. Nor do we need to breed children in order to work on the farm, or put out to service. Then again, back in ye olden times, someone like Octomom who wasn't able to financially care for her children would have just been shoved in the workhouse and her children with her. O.o

She wouldn't have happened as fertility drugs weren't around back then.

[Lace Neil Singer]

She would, as contreception wasn't around either and she'd already produced six kids without the benefit of fertility drugs.

[BroomJockey]

I'm not better than anything or anyone. I'm trying to say that emotions are not within our complete control. Only our actions can be controlled. I'm sorry that I can properly convey that to your satisfaction.


It's hard enough to reist our baser urgers. But when the only objections are based on the non-existant rights of potential fetuses... I don't consider it a failing to make such a personal choice. It's a little too close to an ad hominem for my tastes.


Ad hominem? Are you sure you're using that correctly? Because that really only counts if you're using it against an individual.

Further, if our actions can be controlled, then the urge to procreate can be completely controlled, and there's no excuse for doing so to a person's own detriment. So again, I ask, why is this so okay with you to NOT control?

Lastly, did you just like, completely miss the rest of my arguments? The rights of a non-existent person didn't even figure in to what I was saying, so it's not the only objection. The arguments were: someone bankrupting themselves to do it, someone doing it when they're in poor health and putting her life at risk, and society having to take care of any potential kids. The kid's rights don't really enter in to that.

[DesignFox]

Why shouldn't everyone have the right to seek elective medical treatment? Nearly all elective surgeries are not really needed and therefore increase thier risk of death or disease. <snip>

But other elective surgeries don't necessarily negatively impact the lives of others.

Getting a boob job doesn't create a new life while at the same time creating the risk of that life being abandoned to the rest of society.

If a woman on welfare has no children, but scrapes her nickles and dimes together for a nose job, I wouldn't say that's right because she's still impacting the rest of us she's sponging off of...but at least she isn't denying a baby her care because she's too old to raise it properly, or can't afford to feed it because she went into debt just to give birth.

People can do whatever they want when it comes down to it. But people like me are tired of having to clean up the messes they create when they only think of themselves and not the life or lives they are recklessly creating.

I'm only asking people to use their common sense and have a sense of courtesy for their fellow human beings.

The "oh well, society will take care of it!" attitude kills me.