maybe now fertility clincs will think twice

[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.

[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.

[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_...ughout_history

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.

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.