“Enact fertility laws”, LTTE Press-Enterprise, Riverside CA

[jody]

Enact fertility laws

If Nadya Suleman had applied to adopt a child, she probably would have been turned down flat in every state -- no job, no husband and six children at home.

How can it be that a doctor was allowed to implant six embryos in her womb (two split into twins)?

Clearly, current guidelines are not doing the job. New laws need to be passed quickly, laws with teeth in them, to prevent this kind of misconceived population explosion from occurring again.

Are such views held in other states or is this just a pocket of conservatives in CA?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me.

[Shakespeare]

3. Laws putting restrictions on reproductive rights?

Not just no, but FUCK no.

There are already guidelines and standards of care in place for the physicians. The state medical board is dealing with the matter, and that's exactly as it should be.

People need to stop spouting off like complete idiots on this topic--we do NOT have an epidemic of multiple births. This was an isolated event.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Not a law restricting reproductive rights. A law requiring that certain conditions be met before a

woman can be implanted with multiple embryos. Why not? Like the letter writer said, take a look at the adoption regulations and requirements. I live in Arkansas where the idiot SBC got a law passed that no single person nor non-married couple could adopt the unwanted children of this state.

[Shakespeare]

5. What you're suggesting DOES limit reproductive rights.

Again: NO.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Not how I read it. So you believe that every woman and/or girl in the country should be free to

bear children while they have no way of supporting said children. They should be free to continue producing these children until they can no longer do so regardless of how many children are produced or how horribly they may be affected by physical/mental birth defects. You must believe that any woman and/or girl who has problems with natural conception is entitled to expensive procedures to accomplish the production of children.

[Shakespeare]

11. Yes, it does. You're telling me what I can do with my body.

What you're suggesting is a form of eugenics. If you're not familiar with that, go look it up.

Whether you like it or not, a woman is free to do with her body as she wishes, especially when it comes to reproduction. Do I think the Octomom is horribly immature and selfish, and used extraordinarily bad judgment? Yes, I do. But that should not be used an excuse to limit what the rest of us can do, and THAT is what you're suggesting. As I said in my first post to you, this is NOT a problem. We do NOT have a rash of women giving birth to litters of babies. It's an isolated event.

I happen to HAVE fertility issues, so you're goddamned right I'm entitled to whatever measures science has come up with to help me conceive, and it's nobody else's business that I should choose to do so.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. It's everybody's business who pays for it. The letter in the OP is about strengthening or enforcing

existing regulations for the provider of those services. If you can't pay for the services or the children, then why do you think someone else should?

[Shakespeare]

13. Neither the state or federal government nor most insurance cover fertility treatments.

I really, really think you need to educate yourself a little more on the topic. We don't exactly have a problem with women getting knocked up on IVF and expecting the state to pay for it. What we do have is one bone-headed dingbat who did. ONE.

So, no, it's nobody's business. It's my body, period.

There are already agencies in place to deal with people who can't take care of their children, but YOU don't get to tell me what kind of fertility treatments I can get, or how often. YOU don't get to tell me how many children I can have.

The medical board and affiliated medical associations already deal with issues of standard of care, and do a fine job with it. Again, you cannot take a single, isolated instance and use it to punish a broader population.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Did you even read the letter in the OP? If you're paying for IVF and don't need public assistance,

have as many procedures and kids as you want. The letter is about regulating the providers of IVF services and putting in place realistic requirements. Why should unmarried, unemployed women be allowed to have children that will be raised by taxpayer money, when single, gay and unmarried couples are denied the right to raise children on their own dime?

[Shakespeare]

18. Yes, I did read the letter.

And you're still wrong.

And are you really sure you want to go down the "welfare queen" rhetorical path? Good luck with that.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. You didn't answer my question.

[Shakespeare]

21. Yes, I did. You just didn't like the answer.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Where? Here's the question again.

Why should unmarried, unemployed women be allowed to have children that will be raised by taxpayer money, when single, gay and unmarried couples are denied the right to raise children on their own dime?

[Shakespeare]

31. That's a false analogy.

And piss-poor logic.

Show my ANYWHERE in my other responses that I even hinted that others should be denied the right to raise a family. SHOW me.

What you're suggesting is that we take rights AWAY from some people, just so the inequities are more spread out? Are you kidding me?

No, there shouldn't be any restrictions on a woman's ability to get fertility treatments, period. And on an entirely different basis, we should also be fighting to remove roadblocks for gay couples and others who are discriminated against by adoption regulations.

Two completely different animals. And no, you don't get to restrict my rights just because there are others who, under entirely different circumstances, are likewise impeded.

And I'm very curious to explore your "on the taxpayer's dime" comment. What, precisely, do you mean by that? Fertility treatments aren't paid for by the taxpayer. Are you going to set up income limits for who may or may not have children? Seriously? How poor does one have to be before one is denied the right to have a family? Do you see where this is going? It's discrimination, and NOTHING ELSE.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. Okay, you and several others here believe that people have a god-given right to breed

completely without responsibility. Then please don't condemn those who bought McMansions they couldn't afford, because they believed they were entitled to them without the responsibility of actually paying for them.

My pointing our the adoption rules was to show that states do regulate some people's right to have children in their homes. That's what the letter writer was pointing out; that the woman who had 8 babies would not have met the standards for adopting, but the 'medical' professionals had followed no regulations.

[RB TexLa]

15. So who do you want to approve or deny WIC and/or section 8 recipients pregnancies?

If we're paying for it then it's our business, maybe you think we should sterilize them, I mean IT'S EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS WHO PAYS FOR IT, right.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. We should do everything in our power to discourage additional pregnancies of women who do not have

the financial means to care for the children they do have. Not for sterilization, but sure am for birth control and education.

[RB TexLa]

23. So does a law regarding it applying to recipients of sec8 and/or WIC sound "perfectly reasonable"

to you?

[sinkingfeeling]

26. Yes, cap the extension of benefits at the number of children claimed on the initial application for

assistance. If some woman has just left her husband and struck out on her own or just lost her job and she has 20 kids, they'd all be covered. But someone with 3 who then becomes pregnant while receiving benefits would not receive additional money for the 4th. child.

[Pithlet]

28. Oh, so scew those children then, huh? Nice. n/t

[wuushew]

24. It really stops being just about your body when you seek out a third party business transaction

Things that are sought out and involve money are within the sphere of government regulation.

People are free to believe what religious myths they want, protest and speak what they want and fuck who they want. But this doctor needs regulation.

[Shakespeare]

32. Bullshit.

Nice slippery slope argument, though.

[RB TexLa]

36. Like seeking out a person to provide an abortion and involving money in that transaction?

[wuushew]

38. Or fall down some stairs

how much does that cost? Do it yourself abortion has always been an option. Since it is pointless to prohibit it, might as well legalize and make it as safe as possible.

How do perform you do it yourself in vitro?

[RB TexLa]

40. It's not legal because of pointless enforcement or to make it safe. It's legal because the

government should not make peoples reproductive decisions.

[lightningandsnow]

2. No way.

I don't support Suleman's actions, but limiting women's reproductive freedom only brings bad results. This goes both ways - both for the right to have children, and the right not to.

Would people support, for example, preventing women with disabilities from having children?

[goddess40]

6. What the doctor did was unethical and punishment should follow nt

[surrealAmerican]

9. I agree that this was a bad decision on the doctor's part.

This need not be addressed by laws when there are professional standards in place.

[Lyric]

7. We should not be setting a precedent that women's reproductive rights

are up for a majority vote. Especially not the rights of infertile women, or women who need to rely on IVF in order to get pregnant. Quite often, those women are lesbians. Conservatives would love nothing more than to find a backdoor way to make it difficult for lesbians to have babies, while being able to cloak it in concern for "women who abuse the procedure." It's a lot harder to MAKE a law against abusing IVF by implanting too many embryos, than it is to modify an existing law to discriminate against unmarried women. If we give them the former, they will almost certainly include marital status as part of the deal, and eventually lesbian mothers will be in danger of losing their reproductive rights.

Sure, it seems unlikely. But the possibility is still there. I do not support ANY law that cracks open THAT door even a bare millimeter.

[fed_up_mother]

10. Definitely need fertility laws regarding how many fertilized eggs can be implanted

Not "who" can be implanted.

Just "how many" can be implanted.

[RB TexLa]

14. Real smart,"that woman had a doctor do something in her body I don't like, we need a law against it"

[varkam]

16. Hey! It's working out pretty well for China!

:hide:

[Xithras]

22. A law on this is a GOOD idea.

Before obtaining a child by ANY sort of "artificial" means (adoption, implantation, etc), you should have to show that you can actually afford to raise the child. There isn't anything we can do about kids created the old fashioned way, but society and the medical community should not be HELPING people have kids they can't raise.

[Xicano]

27. Why do some people not understand the concept of "FREEDOM"???

Why are there people in our country that find it necessary to tell other people how they must live and what they can and cannot do with their own lives?

I say there should be a law which deports people like this to a country where they'd be more happy, like China.



:rant:

[Mz Pip]

30. There are regulations

and restrictions on all kinds of things. Some have valid points, others are more frivolous.

This is not just about reproductive freedom. There are serious health and ethics issues that need to be debated. Having a litter is not a healthy thing to do. These high risk pregnancies can cause serious long term health issues for both the mother and the babies. The medical field is filled with regulations and restrictions.

This seems like an procedure that needs to be debated and some kind of limitations placed on it.

[Xicano]

34. "There are serious health and ethics issues that need to be debated."

No, only in your mind do they need to be debated. I am sorry I don't mean to sound harsh, but, the only regulations that should be required is "education". Education about the services or products we consume so that the consumer can make an informed decision. To suggest taking away one's right to decide for themselves how they want to live or what they want to do with themselves is a human rights violation in my opinion and has no place in a country based on freedom.

The arguments you're making are no different in principle to the arguments made by conservatives with respect to the war on drugs or the arguments against welfare and food stamps, etc.

I am sorry Mz Pip, but, we'll just have to agree to disagree.



Xicano.

[Mz Pip]

39. Not just in my mind

Seems more than just me think there are issues that need to be discussed and debated. That's what we do here and in this country. Discuss, debate, and hopefully make decisions based on good information.

Sometimes it works out. Sometimes it doesn't. We shall see where this goes.

[uppityperson]

29. Issue was implanting that many embryos at one time.

I don't agree with laws limiting the number of children a woman, or a man, can have. But the issue here was implanting so many embryos that the resulting children would have to be removed via c-section at such a premature age to cause them serious risk and harm. THAT was unethical and I think there should be a law against that. "First, do no harm".

[fed_up_mother]

35. I agree.

I strongly disagree that having numerous fertilized eggs implanted in one's body is just a matter of "choice." This isn't about abortion! Does anyone sincerely believe that even a liberal supreme court is going to say that it's a woman's right to be implanted with six embryos?

This is about "enabling" a woman to bring numerous and very quite possibly disabled children into the world.

And I don't think that the doctor should be performing income or background checks or anything like that.

[baldguy]

37. Someone has already tried this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Racial_Purity_Laws