maybe now fertility clincs will think twice

[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?

<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.