Not that there's any real chance of this passing, but the idea that they're trying scares me.
[Edit: Content of comments below article may include some material inappropriate for children. Maybe adults. And definitely Hatrack. --PJ]
[ October 05, 2005, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
John Stuart Mill is rolling in his grave right now.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
That's so stupid.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It hurts my brain when people say things that dumb out loud.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
(Oops, sorry Papa, I didn't even notice there were comments)
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
That is so blantently, obviously inappropriate and illegal I don't even know why anyone would propose such a thing.
(not to mention the appalling fact that since someone DID propose it, someone out there wants it to happen. I think I've read this dystopia a couple times...)
Seriously... what do they want with this? Do they think they will garner approval?
God, what if they *do* garner significant approval?
Basically, this just scares me to death for so many reasons. I (and of course many others) treasure the lifestyle that is free from both coat hangers AND diapers.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What she said.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I know my local state senator is apposed to this, absolutely furious! I really am moving out of this state so fast.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I understand the sentiment behind it. I think children ought to be born into stable, two-parent households. I recognize this is an effort to make this happen more of the time.
But to legislate something like that seems scary and wrong to me.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Further, the "gestational certificate" will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.
The elitist part of me thinks this is a brilliant idea that should be implemented worldwide for the betterment of mankind*, but the Libertarian part of me tells the elitist part to kill itself.
*Assuming (incorrectly) that "marriage" includes formalized union between homosexual couples, thereby discriminating only on the basis of parenting ability, not sexuality.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
we do not have any sort of formalized union between homosexual couples in Indiana.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
The only thing dumber than dumb people saying dumb things is the dumber things that dumber people say in reply to those dumb people.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:we do not have any sort of formalized union between homosexual couples in Indiana.
I know, hence the "(incorrectly)."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...So, of course they're going to fund DNA testing to hunt down and prosecute the men responsible for children being born outside of marriage, too, right? RIGHT!?
...
...Backward, bone-headed, retrograde, pond-scum sucking <disintegrates into Yosimite Sam style swearing>...
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
This scares me so much.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I don't get it. What are they gonna do to unmarried women who get pregnant? How on earth would they enforce this without getting really, really scary?
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Doesn't seem like they've throught this through very well. If they were actually going to enforce that to the point that people would want to avoid penalty, I bet an immediate effect would be an increase in abortion rates. Granted, the lawmakers may not see anything wrong with that, but I kind of doubt it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in their local county probate court.
From what I can tell, although there is definitely language about how not being married and having a baby is against he law, the specifics of this particular bill seem not to be about tracking down all the unmarried women who give birth, but rather restricting access to fertility treatments to only married women. Just saying.
One thing that I thought was pretty odd, was that some of the people supporting this bill are framing it as a way to stregthen the prohibitions against surrogate mothers. Can someone explain to me what's so bad about surrogate mothers? I don't see why that would be such an issue.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So, that's discrimination against infertile couples under the ADA, I believe.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think all our names are being added to a masterlist somewhere in Indianapolis, headed with the phrase "People To Kill".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I kinda doubt that infertility falls under the scope of the ADA. Which is not to say that there aren't tons of reasons why what they're trying to do isn't legal.
But then I don't think that the people behind this have any expectation that they're going to be able to pass it. I think they're likely going through the motions so that they can sell it as Christianity/good morals being under attack.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Can someone explain to me what's so bad about surrogate mothers?"
Its impossible to regulate contracts for surrogate mothers, and surrogate motherhood can lead to a lot of nasty contract disputes (and felonies).
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
You know, I've been known to say - jokingly - that some peole shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but this is not what I had in mind.
This proposal has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Big Brother, here we come (and I don't mean the "reality" show).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Paul, Sure there's that, but I was wondering about why it's a bad thing from a moral angle, which is how it seems these people are regarding it. Do many Christians see surrogate motherhood as immoral?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote: Good thing Mary had Joseph (none / 0)
...including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
Guess that rules out Immaculate Conception....
by lovelylight on Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 10:09:51 PDT
I cannot understand the Republican mind...*high fives Raia*
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: I understand the sentiment behind it. I think children ought to be born into stable, two-parent households. I recognize this is an effort to make this happen more of the time.
I strongly, strongly doubt that is the real sentiment. If it were, they would not have that huge GLARING loophole allowing for women to get pregnant out of wedlock through normal sexual intercourse. They aren't trying to protect kids, they're trying to prevent gay people from having kids.
quote:Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."
It was in the first paragraph. That's blatant. This law has NOTHING to do with protecting children from anything save being born in a household with gay parents.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Oh geez. Where's the "ashamed to live in Indiana" smilie?
space opera
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Space Opera: Oh geez. Where's the "ashamed to live in Indiana" smilie?
space opera
Up Patricia Miller's you-know-where, if you ask me.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yeah, at the moment, I am extre mely glad I managed to get the hell out of that state. New York is so much better... or maybe that's just me living on the campus of a small liberal arts school in New York... *ponder*
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
All hail the art school students.
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
I agree with beverly that children should be born into a stable family but I think that they're treating evil with more evil. I don't believe that woman should be punished for giving life, but that you need a certificate in order to undergo artificial semination is just as bad. I am adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization. Extremely so, so the fact that they're trying to put out a fire by pouring on gas is quite ridiculous.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I am adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization.
*curious* Why?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you explain why you are adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization? I mean, I'm pretty against aggressive fertility treatments because of the abortion angle, but run of the mill in vitro and surrogate mothering doesn't bother me a bit.
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
It's things like this that make me appreciate the oasis that is Bloomington in the land of Indiana.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
//off topic
I came out of the Serenity thread and read this thread's title as: "Inara - Only the married should reproduce".
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
**checks calendar** It's not April Fool's Day already, is it? This is too bizarre to be serious.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
No, that's National Aetheist's Day.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
The problem isn't the law, its how to carry it out. I agree that children shouldn't be conceived if there is no marriage, but that is just my religious POV. How would you enforce this law? I just cannot fathom a Free Country U. S. of A. where having children without permission is against the law. The only idea that I would agree on is that there should be a child bearing license. What I mean with this is that there should be an examination where your psyche is analysed to see if you are right in the head to be a loving parent. There could be some sort of mechanism implanted from an early age that prevents conception. I know that would probably persuade lots of people into having sex as a joke and further spread STD's, but you people know what I mean. As long as the person is right in the head, there should be no authority that says you cannot have a child because you are gay, single, divorced, etc. Your marital status does not determine your parenting skill.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I just cannot fathom a Free Country U. S. of A. where having children without permission is against the law. The only idea that I would agree on is that there should be a child bearing license.
I think I see an inconsistancy here.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I see it too. I guess I meant that the government should not decide who should and should not have children based on their marital status. I think only a thorough psycho analysis can really say that you are qualified to be a parent.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: A state senator has changed her mind about sponsoring a bill that would prohibit homosexuals and unmarried people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child. Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis says the issue has become more complex than she thought. So she is withdrawing it from consideration.
Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana. She acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."
The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including artificial insemination, the donation of an egg or embryo and sperm injection.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I think she pulled the smilie from her you-know-where
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*twitches at the stupidity*
Do people still read 1984 or Brave New World?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You know what would be really good for society? To have all the children born out of wedlock to be raised in big orphanages because their parents are in jail. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could you explain why you are adamantly opposed to in vitro fertilization? I mean, I'm pretty against aggressive fertility treatments because of the abortion angle, but run of the mill in vitro and surrogate mothering doesn't bother me a bit.
In vitro results in the creation of fertilized eggs that will be discarded. Anyone who justifies an anti-abortion position by believing personhood begins at fertilization will have a hard time consistently supporting in vitro fertilzation.
People who believe personhood begins at implantation and opposes abortion for that reason can support in vitro fertilization consistently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, As far as I understand it, which is not that far, in vitro doesn't necessitate discarding fertilized eggs. It can be done on a one-to-one basis, although I really don't know anything about how this is done in the real world. I guess, thinking about it, nearly all in vitro procedures would use multiple egss in order to up the chances, but you could conceivibly limit it, based on the abortion angle, to single egg attempts, yes no?
---
I'm still not sure why, granting that you're allowing married people in vitro stuff, what's the big deal about surrogate mothers? I was honestly suprised to read that some people have a major problem with this. Does anyone share this perspective and would be willing to explain where the objection lies?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I was vaguely thinking that even if you limit the fertilized eggs in the in vitro procedures that there is still a lot of waste due to the technology not being precise enough or something. Maybe some don't look perfect and get discarded or something? And the cost issue would be difficult to do single attempts. Plus it would greatly lower chances of success to do single attempts. Those are all educated guesses.
I thought Paul answered your question about surrogates.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As far as I understand it, which is not that far, in vitro doesn't necessitate discarding fertilized eggs. It can be done on a one-to-one basis, although I really don't know anything about how this is done in the real world. I guess, thinking about it, nearly all in vitro procedures would use multiple egss in order to up the chances, but you could conceivibly limit it, based on the abortion angle, to single egg attempts, yes no?
The success rate is so low that trying one on one will simply minimize the number killed prior to success, although some will succeed on the first try.
quote:I'm still not sure why, granting that you're allowing married people in vitro stuff, what's the big deal about surrogate mothers? I was honestly suprised to read that some people have a major problem with this. Does anyone share this perspective and would be willing to explain where the objection lies?
Can't help you there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But, given a population that believes that multiple egg in vitro is akin to abortion, they could insist on single egg stuff. It's more difficult and costly, but it still increases their chances of a successful pregnancy.
edit: Dag, that's interesting. From my perspective, the fertilized eggs that fail to implant would be similar to the many naturally fertilized eggs that fail to implant. Is it the human intervention that makes it different?
---
Paul answered from what seemed to me to be a logistical concern. It seemed to me that the people quoted in that article thought that surrogate motherhood was obviously morally wrong. I was wondering what the basis for these moral objections is.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I see it too. I guess I meant that the government should not decide who should and should not have children based on their marital status. I think only a thorough psycho analysis can really say that you are qualified to be a parent.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Completely ignoring the idea that psychoanalysis is anywhere near precise enough to pin-point specific qualifications for anything, this idea is still horrifying in itself. "Qualified to be a parent" is a very vague term and I bet we could find a different definition for every single registered poster at Hatrack. Who is going to determine what constitutes qualified to be a parent? I think this question even applies to the proposed (and thankfully now un-proposed) law.
If it's valid to argue that two parents is better than one and therefore it should be criminal for a single woman to bear a child why is it not also valid to argue that the "ideal" home is one where the dad makes $75K/year and the mother stays at home with the kids and make it illegal for women to work and for any couple to reproduce until the man makes the minimum income?
I really hate the mentality that holds up a narrow ideal and uses it blindly to judge the worthiness of others. I might agree that it's better to have two parents. I might agree that having those two parents be opposite sex is the ideal, all other things being equal. But the government is not here to enforce the ideal. The government is here to enfore the bare minimum, if anything. That leaves us free to interpret for ourselves what is "ideal".
Heaven help us if we reach a point where one narrow minded view of the perfect life is enforced on the rest of us. Talk about hell on earth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm probably one of the strongest proponents of psychology on the board and the idea that psychologists can or should determine who is fit to be a parent chills me to the bone.
I'm all for propogating a culture meme that parenting should be restricted to people who are not total screw-ups and that there's a lot of preparation that should go into to having a child, but I don't think that it's ever going to be a good idea to use force to limit reproduction to only the people that some group deems worthy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, that's interesting. From my perspective, the fertilized eggs that fail to implant would be similar to the many naturally fertilized eggs that fail to implant. Is it the human intervention that makes it different?
That's a huge part of it, for reasons I've never fully articulated well. The best I've been able to approach it is via the running from bears analogy.
Beyond that, though, is the sheer difference in success rate. I'd have to work the numbers, but last I researched this, IVF produced pregnancy in 30% of attempts. Almost all or all of those involve multiple attempts. Even though multiple births are more common with IVF, they do not tip the numbers anywhere close to the successful implantation rate of in vivo fertilization.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The success rate is so low that trying one on one will simply minimize the number killed prior to success, although some will succeed on the first try.
Considering that parents who try to have children for years without success are likely making zygotes every month that don't implant and then die, I don't have much problem with creating a bunch of zygotes at once in hopes that at least one will survive.
Now, if it appears that several *are* going to survive and a mother purposefully killed the others so that only one survived, I would have a problem with that (not that that is medically possible--more hypothetical.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why the natural element v. human intervention is relevant. I wish I could articulate it better.
But I'm not sure your supposition is correct. If the problem is fertilization, not implantation, then this doesn't apply. I don't know if IVF is used more often in cases where fertilization or implantation is at issue.
Apparantly the rate of of failed implantation of fertilized eggs is something like 40-60%, so there's no doubt that the overall "death" rate of fertilized eggs is higher in in vitro cases.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: If the problem is fertilization, not implantation, then this doesn't apply.
Yup. But there are plenty of cases--particularly in couples that *are* fertile but just take awhile for pregnancy to "take hold", that it seems pretty certain that fertilization is taking place on a regular basis, but then something breaks down.
One of the reasons *I* personally have come to this conclusion is that of the 6 times I have allowed myself unprotected sex at a fertile time, 5 of those times I wound up preggers (one miscarriage). It seems silly, to me medically, to assume that Porter and I are just that good at hitting bullseyes. It seems more likely to me that fertilization is something that happens far more easily than we realize--but that the breakdown happens later for those who *don't* get preggers.
This is not a scientific declaration, it is my belief based on my observation and understanding of medical science. Anyone who knows more, feel free to correct me and I will graciously consider your explaination.
IVF is probably used in cases of fertilization problems since the implantation still must happen naturally and on its own. We don't yet have the technology to help the implantation process.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe the implantation problem is what is being addressed with the multiple embryos. If you can't improve the rate of implantation, you can still improve the chances of pregnancy by increasing the number of potential implantations.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Perhaps... but wouldn't you get the same effect by trying to get pregnant over a period of a year? And spend a lot less money as well?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Question for Republicans: This is smaller government...how?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Regardless of the details, I hope I've answered Squicky's question (although, of course, this is not necessarily the answer the person he originally posed it to would have given).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Bev, certainly. But for someone having trouble conceiving, over that same year you could have either 12 chances or 96 or more chances.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bev, I understand your thinking, but I think you have to take into account other possibilities:
1. The man's sperm might be defective in some way that makes it unable to reach and/or fertilize an egg. Many defects could probably be found through testing, but I'm not sure all possible defects could be (with current technology and medical knowledge, at least).
2. The woman's egg might be defective in some way that prohibits fertilization that is not easily detected via tests.
3. There might be some incompatibility that prevents a specific couple from getting pregnant, but wouldn't necessarily prevent either partner from conceiving with someone else.
So while your supposition seems intuitive, I don't think there is really enough data. A couple trying to have a baby is basically having sex and waiting for signs of pregnancy, for the most part. When no such signs come, no one knows why reproduction failed in that specific attempt. Could have been fertilization. Could have been implantation. To know for sure, wouldn't you have to check ejected eggs to see whether they were fertilized or not? Has this ever been done, or done enough to have reliable data?
Like you, though, bev, I'm just throwing out what seems logical to me based on my limited scientific knowledge. (and I know in my case the issue is lack of fertilization, not lack of implantation. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
beverly, it is pretty clear that some women (and some men) are more fertile than others.
I guess we'll just call you Myrtle.
(Also, every time a woman starts off one of these discussions by saying something to the effect of, "Every time I had unprotected sex I got pregnant," I want to respond with, "Well, if don't give God many opportunities, He has to take all the ones you present!")
Your logic -- that just because every time you could have gotten pregnant, you did -- is seriously flawed. The simple fact is, no one really knows why some women get pregnant very easily and some do not. There are theories, and we know some things that seem to contribute.
But no one can say, "This couple will get pregnant if they have unprotected sex on this date." And I seriously doubt that we ever will be able to do so. Nailing down the different contributions of the many variables is simply too difficult (or in some cases would require some seriously unethical research).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, I didn't know there could be cases where the gametes are consistently defective. I mean, I can understand it happening temporarily--one bad egg, damage to the testicles causing a temporary bout of swimming-impaired sperm. But I guess there is still so much we don't know.
I freely admit that the situation I put forth isn't likely to be the case with every couple, but that it would be the case more than we realize.
I've just heard so many "trusted" sources say that women sluff off zygotes quite often with their monthly period. I don't know if they are speculating or if there has been actual research done. The above "claim" is used as a defense in favor of some kinds of contraception and very early abortion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: But no one can say, "This couple will get pregnant if they have unprotected sex on this date."
No, but when a zygote is made but doesn't implant, the woman isn't medically or technically pregnant, right?
Edit: Sorry, my cut 'n' paste appears to be having technical difficulties. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Are many zygotes made that do not implant? Probably so. But how would one actually go about testing such a claim?
Are such non-implanting zygotes a primary reason for not getting pregnant? No idea. Again, how on earth would one test such a thing?
My gut tells me that failing to create a viable zygote happens more often than you seem to think. But again, no way to test that . . .
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I understand saying that it is bad science to use my own example to build a theory. But at the same time, my experience *does* count for something.
You see, when I was younger I got the impression that it was really hard for the sperm and egg to *find* each other. Since our sperm and egg seem to have no problem, I assume that it is *other* things that differ between us and other "trying" couples. This is assuming that 1) the egg is present and 2) there are healthy, normal amounts of sperm. If those two things aren't there, then obviously that is where the problem lies. But if they *are* there, why would they find each other so easily in me and not in someone else? I really am curious about possible reasons for this.
As I said, I am open to possible explainations. KarlEd provided some: eggs and sperm that are consistently defective. I expressed my feeling that while that might happen every so often, I didn't know of a situation where it happened *consistently* and couldn't be detected.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Are many zygotes made that do not implant? Probably so. But how would one actually go about testing such a claim?"
Not directly testing, but there's been some indirect testing that puts the number of naturally aborted fertilizations at around 70% (which includes failure to implant, and miscarrages), with about 75% of that being zygotes that do not implant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That corresponds with the 40-60% number I've heard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since our sperm and egg seem to have no problem, I assume that it is *other* things that differ between us and other "trying" couples.
But implantation is no problem to you, either. Why couldn't fertilization be the problem for the others?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess my point is, if fertilization *is* a problem, it is usually easy to diagnose. Then it is known and those cases can be ruled out.
Check the man's sperm count. Is it normal? Are the sperm normal? Have the woman take an ovulation test. Is she ovulating? There is an egg there. If those are both in place, what stops the sperm from fertilizing the egg? It is an honest question.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
I swear - how many of us would NOT be here if our parents would have had to get APPROVAL to breed?
I know I wouldn't...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah. The whole things reeks of Eugenics. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I guess my point is, if fertilization *is* a problem, it is usually easy to diagnose.
This is NOT true. There are many things that could cause a problem with either sperm count or ovulation that are extremely difficult to diagnose. I've known women who never, ever got a diagnosis - they just remained infertile and the doctors never could tell them why.
quote:Check the man's sperm count. Is it normal? Are the sperm normal? Have the woman take an ovulation test. Is she ovulating? There is an egg there. If those are both in place, what stops the sperm from fertilizing the egg? It is an honest question.
Many things. Women can have cervical mucus that is not hospitable to the man's sperm, there can be problems with her fallopian tubes and the eggs never fully descend to where they can meet the sperm, the egg may become fertilized but then not remain viable after the first cell division, there are many, many factors to a successful pregnancy.
Forgive me beverly, because I'm sure you don't really mean to project this - but the vibe I'm getting from you right now is "I got pregnant really easy so it's probably easier for people than they think it is" and that's pretty hurtful to me, since I've been through the pain and struggle of infertility.
Infertility is very complex, there are so many different things that have to work together and go exactly right for a successful implantation. It's not always a fertilization problem and it's not always an implantation problem, I would venture a guess that many times it's combinations of factors.
Edit: For example - my case involved three factors
1. anovulation due to polycystic ovarian disease 2. endometriosis - which seems to reduce fertility though no one is sure why 3. adenomyosis which makes the uterine wall not as receptive to implantation
Diagnosing all that took years (actually the adeno wasn't diagnosed until after my hysterectomy but it was suspected before then) and a sum total of three surgeries. Not so simple.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Exactly. I think there are some small groups of people we could mostly agree "shouldn't" be parents- pedophiles or rapists, for example.But what about the mentally ill? What about the children of pedophiles or the mentally ill, who may carry their genes? It frightens me that people even think that way, that any one thinks they could predict parenting outcomes or that two cold, distant parents are better than one loving, attached one. (Or that a distant man and woman are better than two loving men or two loving women).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I've known women who never, ever got a diagnosis - they just remained infertile and the doctors never could tell them why.
Then might it be conceivable that the problem happens *after* fertilization? The term "infertility" does not mean that there is no zygote. It refers to the inability to carry a pregnancy full term.
quote:"I got pregnant really easy so it's probably easier for people than they think it is"
I apologize. That was most certainly *not* my intent. I am simply putting forth the idea that in the great variety of infertility problems, there may very well be many zygotes created that then die--therefore it doesn't bother me when someone in an effort to create life risks killing zygotes.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Then might it be conceivable that the problem happens *after* fertilization? The term "infertility" does not mean that there is no zygote. It refers to the inability to carry a pregnancy full term.
I should have been more precise in my language - I meant women who suffered from anovulation - the inability to ovulate normally - and never learned why. That had nothing to do with implantation, they never even got to that stage.
No need to apologize, I acknowledged that I knew that was not your intent, because I feel like I know you and you wouldnt do that purposefully. If my responses were a little curt, I wanted you to know why.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:(Or that a distant man and woman are better than two loving men or two loving women).
I agree. While because of my religious beliefs I do not believe that this is the ideal situation for children, I still think that children should be loved and that is the first and MOST important part of a family life for children. I was horrified when Texas barred homosexuals from being foster parents-- they have far too few qualified foster parents and an overwhelmed system to begin with, they should most emphatically NOT be excluding anyone who has never harmed a child and could give a child a loving home.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I meant women who suffered from anovulation - the inability to ovulate normally - and never learned why.
Yes, that was in the category of "easily diagnosed". (Anovulation.) "Easily diagnosed" is not the same as "easily cured" or even "easily understood". They don't ovulate. No one knows why or what to do about it, therefore they are obviously not in the group of people who create zygotes that never make it.
quote:No need to apologize, I acknowledged that I knew that was not your intent, because I feel like I know you and you wouldnt do that purposefully. If my responses were a little curt, I wanted you to know why.
OK, Belle. I forget sometimes that this is a sensitive subject. I do not ever want to come across as bragging about fertility.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Question for Republicans: This is smaller government...how?
Huh? What do Republicans have to do with smaller government? Don't tell me you actually believe that slogan? They want government to meddle every bit as much as the Democrats. Well, almost as much, anyway. They just have a different list.
But you could turn it around just as easily. Since Democrats are all about the government sticking its nose in, why not go all the way and let the government dictate such things as bodily functions?
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
Belle addressed some of the issues I was going to point out. Another major factor is age.
The majority of couples who experience infertility are those who waited to have children until their mid-thirties and beyond. (I know these aren't the ONLY people with infertility by any means).
The man may have good healthy sperm and the woman may be ovulating. The problem is that the quality of a woman's eggs deteriorates rapidly after ~age 27. The egg may often not be viable to start out with or the corpus luteum (the lady-in-waiting cells that go with the ovum) may not be functioning which would result in a lack of adequate hormones to sustain the pregnancy.
None of this means that this couple might not get pregnant eventually from an ovulation with an egg that is unaffected by aging. The works are all okay but it will take longer and the longer it takes the less likely it is to work. It's a difficult problem that is not easy to diagnose.
Edit: I type too slow... this was intended to be about 6 posts up.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Also... it sounds like if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the law would require her to have an abortion. Though I don't suppose they considered that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Before we tar "Indiana" or "Republicans" because of this is one or several people in Indiana who proposed this, not an entire state or an entire party.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it sounds like if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the law would require her to have an abortion.
No, it wouldn't.
I don't like this law, but it needs to be attacked for what it actually does.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:it sounds like if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the law would require her to have an abortion.
They say there will be penalties for unmarried women who get pregnant by means other than sex.
I don't think the enforcement would consist of abortion, though.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
You know, I keep seeing that statement bandied about: "Most fertilized eggs never implant and are flushed during menstruation." Has anybody seen an actual study that measures this? Without evidence, I don't buy it.
--Mel
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by kmbboots: Question for Republicans: This is smaller government...how? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? What do Republicans have to do with smaller government? Don't tell me you actually believe that slogan? They want government to meddle every bit as much as the Democrats. Well, almost as much, anyway. They just have a different list.
Yes, dear, that was my point.
I hear the "smaller, less intrusive, government" argument from Republicans all the time . These days, it seems that they only get riled when you mess with their money. Intrusion into other areas is fair game.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:it sounds like if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the law would require her to have an abortion.
not if she got pregnant "the old fashioned way"
This only was about assisted reproductive technology.
And from the latest info, it isn't even going to happen.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think both the R and D parties are slowly changing all the time. I remember OSC addressing this, that he considers himself a Democrat, but a Democrat of the previous generation.
It may be that Republicans used to be about small government. But I don't think that is true anymore.
Edit: Thanks for the interesting info, Miriya. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: It may be that Republicans used to be about small government. But I don't think that is true anymore.
Neither do I. Sadly though, a lot of "old school" Republicans (and I used to be one - most of my family still is) don't recognize this.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
Sigh, I'm not American so the repuplican/ democrat thing doesn't apply to me but it seems like any party in Canada that embraces "small government" gets tarred with the "radical" brush.
Maybe it's like that everywhere.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it really IS a lot harder to get pregnant than people think. A woman's body is actually quite hostile to sperm, and those things die pretty easily anyway, from what I understand.
Sure, some people get pregnant on the first try. But let's say that it's true that 75% of the time, zygotes don't implant. Now, taking away the factor of sperm dying before they reach the egg, that means that there's only a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant PROVIDED that you had sex during the proper time frame (although I don't know how long of a time frame that is; I've heard some people say a week and some say only 72 hours). Also keep in mind that this 1 in 4 chance applies every single time you try. What I mean is, just because you've had sex 3 times at the proper time of the month doesn't mean that you'll get pregnant on the 4th because probability doesn't work that way.
Does anybody know how long it typically takes for the sperm to reach the egg? And how long after that for implantation? I guess what I mean is, how long after unprotected sex would someone be considered "pregnant?"
-pH
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Does anybody know how long it typically takes for the sperm to reach the egg? And how long after that for implantation? I guess what I mean is, how long after unprotected sex would someone be considered "pregnant?"
I think the actual fertilization is supposed to happen within a few hours. Implantation happens up to a week later. Well, that's when it begins. Implantation is a process.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Sperm die within hours unless it is during the days leading up to ovulation, when the cervical fluids change and allow access to the utuerus. Then sperm can live for several days. Within four days after ovulation, the cervical fluids change back to the infertile state and sperm cannot even enter the uterus and die within hours.
Intercourse must take place within that window (usually around a week, but can be shorter or longer) for fertilization to have a chance of occuring. The greatest chance of fertilization will generally be when intercourse occurs just before ovulation.
This is the typical pattern. Some forms of infertility will show a different pattern.
I still want to see the research that shows that most fertilized eggs don't implant.
--Mel
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:This is the typical pattern. Some forms of infertility will show a different pattern.
...and some forms of fertility.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
Like I said, it's the typical pattern, not "the pattern that is set in stone and you're a mutant if you're different." However, research with thousands of women has shown that it is pretty typical.
--Mel
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:"the pattern that is set in stone and you're a mutant if you're different."
Oh, I have it on good authority that I'm a mutant. Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
We're all good then Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I see it too. I guess I meant that the government should not decide who should and should not have children based on their marital status. I think only a thorough psycho analysis can really say that you are qualified to be a parent.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Completely ignoring the idea that psychoanalysis is anywhere near precise enough to pin-point specific qualifications for anything, this idea is still horrifying in itself. "Qualified to be a parent" is a very vague term and I bet we could find a different definition for every single registered poster at Hatrack. Who is going to determine what constitutes qualified to be a parent? I think this question even applies to the proposed (and thankfully now un-proposed) law.
If it's valid to argue that two parents is better than one and therefore it should be criminal for a single woman to bear a child why is it not also valid to argue that the "ideal" home is one where the dad makes $75K/year and the mother stays at home with the kids and make it illegal for women to work and for any couple to reproduce until the man makes the minimum income?
I really hate the mentality that holds up a narrow ideal and uses it blindly to judge the worthiness of others. I might agree that it's better to have two parents. I might agree that having those two parents be opposite sex is the ideal, all other things being equal. But the government is not here to enforce the ideal. The government is here to enfore the bare minimum, if anything. That leaves us free to interpret for ourselves what is "ideal".
Heaven help us if we reach a point where one narrow minded view of the perfect life is enforced on the rest of us. Talk about hell on earth.
Oh, I don't mean that parenting should be allowed only to those who make a minimum amount. I meant the psycho analysis thing so that people like serial killers and those with completely twisted minds cannot have any children. Did you ever see the Cell with JLo? Remember the little kid's dad? I mean people like those. You know, your everyday sick in the head bastard. Just those, any other factors cannot and should not determine your parenting abilities.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
"Mutants" aside , I believe that the accepted maximum life span of sperm in "hospitable" fluid is 5 days. That doesn't mean that all or most women actually produce "hospitable fluid for that long though. So in theory fertilization can occur any time between a couple hours to five days after intercourse depending on when ovulation occurs.
Edit: Implantation would commence (like bev said it's a process) approximately 8 days after fertilization.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I've heard 5-7, depending on the sperm.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
I wouldn't put it past some hardy resiliant sperm. Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: Oh, I don't mean that parenting should be allowed only to those who make a minimum amount. I meant the psycho analysis thing so that people like serial killers and those with completely twisted minds cannot have any children. Did you ever see the Cell with JLo? Remember the little kid's dad? I mean people like those. You know, your everyday sick in the head bastard. Just those, any other factors cannot and should not determine your parenting abilities.
However, we would have to give massive amounts of power to some governing agency to enforce that. Once the agency has that kind of power, it can decide on any criteria it wants, and if you disagree, suddenly you are on the proscripted list.
I am against any social-betterment scheme that proposes to give that sort of power to anyone.
--Mel
[ADDIT: Read "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis for his thoughts on what happens when powerful groups get the ability to control human reproduction/advancement. It's a tough read, but worth it.]
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
I agree. Attempts to control who can and cannot have children involve one of two things:
1) forced abortion for anyone who becomes pregnant without a licence or 2) forced temporary sterilization of the entire population prior to puberty with reversal rigidly controlled.
Either solution is ripe for abuse not to mention incredibly invasive especially to women who would no doubt bear the brunt of either method.
I don't think any government could implement this without bloody revolution.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I meant the psycho analysis thing so that people like serial killers and those with completely twisted minds cannot have any children.
In that case we already have a system in place for that. Social services does not allow serial killers etc. to parent children. While such screenings as you suggest might catch a few more than would normally be caught, I don't think it would be nearly enough to make up for the intrusion of the government into the personal decision to procreate.
quote: I don't think any government could implement this without bloody revolution.
Unless they'd already had several and were pretty firmly in control. *points to China*
Edited for USB.
[ October 06, 2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
China does screen good parents though. There are just incredible tax hikes if you have more than one kid.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Good point. But they do *strongly* encourage abortions for more than one kid.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The government has sterilized adults and aborted unborn children by force, although they now insist it is not official policy to do so.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I cannot understand the Republican mind...*high fives Raia*
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)