maybe now fertility clincs will think twice

[Boozy]

And this is news why?

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

What do you consider news?

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.